Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[Holoman]

Oh, you were so close too....

P1 - if any claim of a god existing were true, the claimant should be able to provide evidence.
P2 - no claimant has produced any evidence.
Therefore, belief in the claim is withheld...

That would at best be an argument for agnosticism

 

[Allandavid]

Kylie;

Lack of evidence?

Some have argues that a "spiritual" or "religious" aspect to the universe is axiomatic, or the default position, and that atheists live in psychological denial.

Your problem with that claim is that, unlike actual axioms, it isn’t universally held or accepted. You see, a Christian, or a Jew, or a Hindu could likewise claim that you are in the same state of denial...

As a Mulsim I use indicative signs also. Like, secularists on a binge drink having a great time, in some respect falsifies secularism.

Why...??

Teen Muslims, not out to cause trouble, or make it to gangsta status etc, can serve as evidence for Islam.

What then of Hindu teenagers behaving well...? Evidence of Krishna...?

After all if God transcends the universe, then such signs are all we can have.

Pretty poor “signs” then...

"Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth." Koran.

‘A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’...?

 

[Allandavid]

That would at best be an argument for agnosticism

Ah..now you need a lesson in agnosticism vs atheism.

A-gnostic means ‘without knowledge’.
A-theism means ‘without god belief’.

The two are independent concepts.

I am an agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge of the existence of god/s, nor do I have a belief in them.

A so-called ‘strong atheist’ might be a gnostic atheist; ie, he has no belief in gods because he knows they don’t exist...

And the same dichotomy exists for theists...

 

[Holoman]

Ah..now you need a lesson in agnosticism vs atheism.

A-gnostic means ‘without knowledge’.
A-theism means ‘without god belief’.

The two are independent concepts.

I am an agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge of the existence of god/s, nor do I have a belief in them.

A so-called ‘strong atheist’ might be a gnostic atheist; ie, he has no belief in gods because he knows they don’t exist...

And the same dichotomy exists for theists...

agnostic

NOUN

• A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Call it what you want, where is the evidence or arguments that God doesn't exist?

 

[Allandavid]

agnostic

NOUN

• A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Call it what you want, where is the evidence or arguments that God doesn't exist?

Yes, you’ve basically repeated what I wrote....so what?

The key word there is “known”...agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief...

And I don’t require evidence, because I’m not making a claim...I’m rejecting one...

 

[AirPo]

agnostic

NOUN

• A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Call it what you want, where is the evidence or arguments that God doesn't exist?

Post #811.

 

[AirPo]

41 pages can be summed up in one answer. No.
Atheists just try to fall back on "oh we dont need a reason, atheism is the default." It's a poor argument.

The truth is, there is scant evidence that atheism is true. There are some arguments, such as the Problem of Evil, which are the best atheists have, but in my opinion these have been refuted adequately by Christian philosophers.

Reality isn't an argument, it's just ya know ... reality.

 

[bhsmte]

That would at best be an argument for agnosticism

It depends on how one defines a god. christianity provides a pretty good description of god's traits. I can overlay that description, with well evidenced reality and determine whether i believe this god exists. When i do so, i conclude the answer is no.

Now, if we are talking about a non personal god, that doesnt have well defined traits, i am agnostic because knowledge of those traits, are not available.

 

[Non sequitur]

agnostic

NOUN

• A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Call it what you want, where is the evidence or arguments that God doesn't exist?

People are calling it by the words that define it. You are mashing things together.

The evidence is not found for god existing. You are looking at how to logic all wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

agnostic

NOUN

• A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Call it what you want, where is the evidence or arguments that God doesn't exist?

Which God is this in reference to? Because I know of some Rastafarians who call Halle Selassie God and before he died in the 1970's there is absolutely proof that he existed. Would an agnostic claim his existence can't be known just because some people chose to call him God?

 

[Kylie]

Firstly, of course people can grow to believe in God without instruction, otherwise religion would never have arisen. We are all born agnostic. We don't know whether God exists or not.

Let's say there was something that wiped out all of humanity's knowledge, and we all became basically cavemen again. All science was lost, all literature was lost, all religion was lost.

Would we get science again? Yes. Would we get religion again? Again, yes.

But here's the difference.

Sooner or later, someone would come up with e=mc^2 again. But no one would ever come up with Christianity again.

We'd develop science again, and it would be the same, because science is real. But when we developed religion again, it would be a completely new style of religion.

Why do you suppose that is?

Secondly, this is one of the best defense Ive seen if you're genuinely interested
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri.../existence-nature-of-god/the-problem-of-evil/

So first of all, the author says that God and evil both existing is completely logical, and yet then goes on to say that we are not able to say whether God has reasons to want there to be evil. This is inconsistent - if he knows God well enough to know that God actively WANTS evil to exist, then he doesn't get to turn around and say in the next sentence that we can't know the mind of God. Either you know the mind of God well enough to claim for a fact that God wants there to be evil, or you don't know the mind of God.

He then goes on to mention four things which, he claims, increase the likelihood of God wanting evil. The first is that God uses evil to bring people closer to him. I find this reasoning illogical, disturbing and inconsistent with reality. There are plenty of ways to bring people closer to you that don't require evil. I certainly don't allow evil things to happen to my daughter just because I want to have a closer relationship with her. And even if God worked like this, we'd expect to see Christians leading lives with less evil and misery than non-Christians, yet this isn't the case. In fact, the most secular countries are the ones with the highest standards of living, not the most religious.

He also makes the claim that evil is due to mankind's rebellion against God. Well, this contradicts his first point - is the evil caused by God as a way to bring us closer to him, or by naughty humans? And it also doesn't seem to take into account natural disasters that cause so much suffering. Or are we to believe that Iranian cleric who claimed women wearing revealing clothes are the cause of earthquakes?

The thirds thing he mentions is that it doesn't matter if we suffer on Earth because we'll get an infinite reward after death. How this equates to God actively WANTING suffering and evil in this life is beyond me.

The fourth thing seems to be merely a rehash of the third thing.

His third argument for the existence of God is some attempt to use probability to convince us that God exists, and he doesn't do a very good job. All he does is assure us that when we look at everything, and he attempts to convince us with three pieces of evidence.

The first is that the universe exists. The first cause argument is weak and has been debunked for a long time. The second is the fine tuning argument, which likewise has been debunked (please note that the article I linked to here was written by a believer - even believers think that the fine tuning argument is a bad one!). And the third piece of evidence is the presence of objective morality. There is no such thing as objective morality. If there is, please tell me the objectively correct punishment for me to apply when my daughter sneaks out of the house in the middle of the night to meet with her friends, or for when she steals a chocolate from the shop? Can you do that? Or are you going to say that it all depends on the situation and since no two situations are the same, we can't decide on the appropriate punishment unless we know all the details, in which case you have just admitted that there is no objective morality after all. (After all, how can it be objective if it changes each and every time?)

In any case, the author of this article completely misses the one thing that proves him wrong - evil can still exist even if there is no God. It is impossible to claim that evil is proof of God if both God and not-God are able to account for it. And while he had to write this long article and still did a very bad job of explaining why there is evil despite God, I can give a very good explanation of why there is evil when there is not-God in a single sentence:

Some people are just jerks.

(I would have used much stronger language, but I would have been reprimanded for it. Feel free to use whatever profanity you think works best.)

 

[Kylie]

Kylie;

Lack of evidence?

Some have argues that a "spiritual" or "religious" aspect to the universe is axiomatic, or the default position, and that atheists live in psychological denial.

So? I know people disagree with me. But simply pointing out that people who disagree exist is not an argument against my point. There is no rational evidence to support the existence of God.

As a Mulsim I use indicative signs also. Like, secularists on a binge drink having a great time, in some respect falsifies secularism.

Teen Muslims, not out to cause trouble, or make it to gangsta status etc, can serve as evidence for Islam.

Are you for real?

Some atheists do things I think are bad, some Muslims do things which are good, therefore Islam is real?

That's a pretty terrible argument.

There are plenty of Muslims who have done bad things. Plenty of atheists who have done good. Do you consider that to be evidence that Islam is wrong? I doubt it.

Also, you can't claim that "Teen Muslims, not out to cause trouble, or make it to gangsta status etc" is something to be commended. Not being evil should be the default position for everyone, not something to be commended. I don't get praised for not punching people. No one says, "Kylie, you are so nice for not randomly stealing the purse of that woman on the train today."

After all if God transcends the universe, then such signs are all we can have.

Oh rubbish. God can appear before us, it's certainly within his power, isn't it?

"Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth." Koran.

That's why the Middle East is known for how peaceful it is, I suppose?

 

[Jon Osterman]

Let's say there was something that wiped out all of humanity's knowledge, and we all became basically cavemen again. All science was lost, all literature was lost, all religion was lost.

Would we get science again? Yes. Would we get religion again? Again, yes.

But here's the difference.

Sooner or later, someone would come up with e=mc^2 again. But no one would ever come up with Christianity again.

Your claim here relies on your assumption that Christianity is not true. If Christianity were true, then (fairly obviously) God would have the loss of knowledge as part of His plan and Christianity would arise from the ashes due to His interference.

Interestingly, I also don't think your claim that E=Mc^2 would be "reinvented" again is necessarily true. While Einstein's GR is a great theory (and I mean "theory" in the scientific sense here) I am not convinced it is unique. Quite often in science we are seeing dualities between various theories that show that completely different models can provide the same predictions. (In fact, quite of a lot of these dualities involve gravity, such as the Maldecena conjecture.) I suspect if we started from scratch again, by the time we got back to our current technological level, we would have rather different looking theories of the universe just as powerful as our current ones. (If we could do this without actually losing our current theories, this would provide great insight. Maybe we could bury them in a time-capsule, destroy civilisation and dig them up again 30,000 years from now. But maybe that is a little extreme...)

On the fine-tuning argument, while I agree that the existence of fine-tuning is not evidence of God, the lack of an explanation of fine-tuning is evidence against scientific models of for the creation of the universe (such as the Big Bang model or the Standard Model of particle physics). These theories, in essence, are making wrong predictions about the universe, e.g. the cosmological constant. Having said that of course, both these models contain very useful insights into the natural world and make many correct predictions, so I am confident that modifications of them will eventually explain the fine-tunings, but we are certainly not there yet.

 

[Sopranino Player]

Addressed to the OP. Atheism is generally not a positive belief that no god exists. Normally it is a lack of belief due to lack of evidence that a god exists. This is similar to belief that there is no planet between Earth and Mars. They don't have a positive belief because they can prove it, they have a lack of belief in such a planet because there is no evidence for such a planet. We Christians are the ones who make the positive statement that God exists, the onus is upon us to prove God exists not upon atheists to prove that He does not.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So? I know people disagree with me. But simply pointing out that people who disagree exist is not an argument against my point. There is no rational evidence to support the existence of God.

Now you've changed from "no evidence" to no "rational evidence". I was simply pointing out there are different empricisms to the atheistic one, on which to ground your beliefs about religion. Call them irrational if you like, whatever that's meant to mean in this context I don't know.

 

[Gell]

It's all about upside down way of thinking really
Some of us oppose what we want to oppose and let our emotions take over.

 

[Kylie]

Your claim here relies on your assumption that Christianity is not true. If Christianity were true, then (fairly obviously) God would have the loss of knowledge as part of His plan and Christianity would arise from the ashes due to His interference.

If Christianity IS true, then I completely agree that what you say is correct. God, desiring worship, would make sure Christianity is spread again.

But really, I don't see that happening. There sheer number of different religions today points to that. And the huge number of different sects of Christianity alone is even stronger evidence. How could there be so many different variations of the One True Religion (tm)?

Interestingly, I also don't think your claim that E=Mc^2 would be "reinvented" again is necessarily true. While Einstein's GR is a great theory (and I mean "theory" in the scientific sense here) I am not convinced it is unique. Quite often in science we are seeing dualities between various theories that show that completely different models can provide the same predictions. (In fact, quite of a lot of these dualities involve gravity, such as the Maldecena conjecture.) I suspect if we started from scratch again, by the time we got back to our current technological level, we would have rather different looking theories of the universe just as powerful as our current ones. (If we could do this without actually losing our current theories, this would provide great insight. Maybe we could bury them in a time-capsule, destroy civilisation and dig them up again 30,000 years from now. But maybe that is a little extreme...)

I don't see how this is possible. Science is the study of the objective facts about our universe. Unless the laws of the universe change, what we discover about those laws would remain the same as what we know today.

On the fine-tuning argument, while I agree that the existence of fine-tuning is not evidence of God, the lack of an explanation of fine-tuning is evidence against scientific models of for the creation of the universe (such as the Big Bang model or the Standard Model of particle physics). These theories, in essence, are making wrong predictions about the universe, e.g. the cosmological constant. Having said that of course, both these models contain very useful insights into the natural world and make many correct predictions, so I am confident that modifications of them will eventually explain the fine-tunings, but we are certainly not there yet.

Doesn't the idea of multiverses explain the apparent fine tuning? Every single possible universe is formed, and naturally we would only exist in the universes where the laws were suitable for us to appear. So naturally, we should not be surprised when we find that we are in a universe that is capable of supporting life.

 

[Kylie]

Now you've changed from "no evidence" to no "rational evidence". I was simply pointing out there are different empricisms to the atheistic one, on which to ground your beliefs about religion. Call them irrational if you like, whatever that's meant to mean in this context I don't know.

Unfortunately, none of these other empericisms can provide any valid information about our universe. And I am not using an atheist point of view, I am using a scientific point of view.

 

[Holoman]

If Christianity IS true, then I completely agree that what you say is correct. God, desiring worship, would make sure Christianity is spread again.

But really, I don't see that happening. There sheer number of different religions today points to that. And the huge number of different sects of Christianity alone is even stronger evidence. How could there be so many different variations of the One True Religion (tm)?

Evidence of what? You'll have to give an argument as to why having different religions somehow disprove them all. It doesn't seem to follow.

I don't see how this is possible. Science is the study of the objective facts about our universe. Unless the laws of the universe change, what we discover about those laws would remain the same as what we know today.



Doesn't the idea of multiverses explain the apparent fine tuning? Every single possible universe is formed, and naturally we would only exist in the universes where the laws were suitable for us to appear. So naturally, we should not be surprised when we find that we are in a universe that is capable of supporting life.

The multiverse has many problems. Firstly there is no evidence of it. Secondly, it is still highly unlikely that we would be in a fine tuned universe. Having a small patch of order in a non-finely tuned universe is a lot more probable. And there is the Boltzmann brain problem.

 

[Kylie]

Evidence of what? You'll have to give an argument as to why having different religions somehow disprove them all. It doesn't seem to follow.

Evidence that today's religions don't have it right. If there really was one true God, why would there be so many different versions of the Truth (tm)?

The multiverse has many problems. Firstly there is no evidence of it. Secondly, it is still highly unlikely that we would be in a fine tuned universe. Having a small patch of order in a non-finely tuned universe is a lot more probable. And there is the Boltzmann brain problem.

I agree that there is little or no evidence to support the multiverse theory; however, I am not aware of any evidence AGAINST it, and it does serve as an explanation. And no, before you start on it, I am not claiming that the multiverse idea is true, I am simply saying that it is a possible explanation.

And as for the claim that it is "highly unlikely that we would be in a fine tuned universe", I assume you mean fine-tuned for life. How do you figure it is highly UNlikely? After all, it would be completely IMPOSSIBLE for us to exist in a universe that is NOT suited for life, isn't it!

And your claim that it is more likely that "a small patch of order in a non-finely tuned universe is a lot more probable" is also odd, since there is no known mechanism by which areas of a universe can have unique laws of physics that are not found elsewhere. Have you been listening to dad's different state in the far universe ideas?