Arguments Against God

[FireDragon76]

Can you provide an example involving volitional action?

People can act because they genuinely enjoy doing something, like an artist for instance. They can act because they feel compassion or solidarity also.

 

[ananda]

People can act because they genuinely enjoy doing something, like an artist for instance. They can act because they feel compassion or solidarity also.

IMO these examples fits my objection quite well: an artist engages in art because he or she gains an increase - or at the very least, maintains - enjoyment aka happiness/pleasure from their work, and decreases - or prevents from increasing - their experience of suffering. This is indeed my own experience with my own music and art.

Action due to compassion or solidarity is also done because not doing said action would mean an increase in suffering or decrease in happiness.

 

[FireDragon76]

IMO these examples fits my objection quite well: an artist engages in art because he or she gains an increase - or at the very least, maintains - enjoyment aka happiness/pleasure from their work, and decreases - or prevents from increasing - their experience of suffering. This is indeed my own experience with my own music and art.

Action due to compassion or solidarity is also done because not doing said action would mean an increase in suffering or decrease in happiness.

I think that may be true in many circumstances and is probably a "useful fiction" of sorts, but as an absolute dogma, I think it's an impoverishing worldview if it prevents a person from appreciating other perspectives.

There's a concept in Mahayana Buddhism called jinen in Japanese. It means "naturalness". Similar to the Chinese concept of wei wu wei (doing without doing). That is what I'm thinking of.

Let's put it this way, after the Buddha's enlightenment, he went and did stuff, and yet he wasn't said to be unenlightened for doing so. The same might be true for some kind of Creator concept, especially if this being isn't anthropomorphic. This may not fit into some particular ideal of perfection, but I would argue this kind of construction of perfection itself is unreal and meaningless (It's analogous to trying to imagine an apple's substance without the accidental qualities of an apple, it's conceptual gibberish).

 

[ananda]

I think that may be true in many circumstances and is probably a "useful fiction" of sorts, but as an absolute dogma, I think it's an impoverishing worldview if it prevents a person from appreciating other perspectives.

There's a concept in Mahayana Buddhism called jinen in Japanese. It means "naturalness". Similar to the Chinese concept of wei wu wei (doing without doing). That is what I'm thinking of.

I can't say I can observe, correlate, or mentally quantify "naturalness" like I can suffering-happiness and its effects on my actions.

Let's put it this way, after the Buddha's enlightenment, he went and did stuff, and yet he wasn't said to be unenlightened for doing so. The same might be true for some kind of Creator concept, especially if this being isn't anthropomorphic. This may not fit into some particular ideal of perfection, but I would argue this kind of construction of perfection itself is unreal and meaningless (It's analogous to trying to imagine an apple's substance without the accidental qualities of an apple, it's conceptual gibberish).

The actions the Buddha took after his awakening is attributed to the nature of kamma ... not all of his past kamma had flowered into their consequential results yet, and it was that residual kamma that manifested as his actions after his enlightenment, until nothing was left and he passed into parinibbana.

 

[FireDragon76]

I can't say I can observe, correlate, or mentally quantify "naturalness" like I can suffering-happiness and its effects on my actions.


The actions the Buddha took after his awakening is attributed to the nature of kamma ... not all of his past kamma had flowered into their consequential results yet, and it was that residual kamma that manifested as his actions after his enlightenment, until nothing was left and he passed into parinibbana.

If God is understood as pure act (actus purus), as Aquinas did, then that argument doesn't really apply to the Christian concept of God.

 

[ananda]

If God is understood as pure act (actus purus), as Aquinas did, then that argument doesn't really apply to the Christian concept of God.

That is an appropriate conclusion based on your premise, but again, that premise goes into the realm of imagination imo.

 

[Tree of Life]

You should probably also cover Euthyphro Dilema. I believe it's one of the more powerful arguments against much of traditional Christian theism, though it probably wouldn't be one of the top arguments many traditional skeptics would use to disprove God's existence per se.

Also, I think the Problem of Evil is a very real one, existentially speaking.

We will have a special section on the Problem of Evil.

 

[Tree of Life]

I don't need an argument "against" god; lack of an argument for a god is sufficient reason to not believe.

I don’t mean to say that atheists need arguments against God. I just want to recognize that arguments against God exist and then attempt to answer them.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is an appropriate conclusion based on your premise, but again, that premise goes into the realm of imagination imo.

But that doesn't make it inherently illogical for doing so, which is the typical objection in western culture.

In Mahayana Buddhism, beliefs are usually evaluated by their ethical weight, not merely that the belief is immediately verifiable. If a belief contributes to human flourishing relative to a particular individual or groups understanding of reality, it can be said to be true in a provisional sense. That means a belief need not be demonstrably true to be considered useful, and opens the door to a pluralistic understanding of truth. That's one reason you seldom see Buddhist missionaries banging on anybody's doors unless they are invited.

At any rate, that opens the door to the notion of religious imagination being a useful way to embody that which is beyond imagination. Religious imagination itself is understood as an embodiment of Nirvanic reality.

 

[muichimotsu]

Traditional atheism and agnosticism in the US aren't growing significantly, and internationally it isn't growing, either.

Not being snarky, I just generally wonder what anyone means when they say "traditional atheism and agnosticism", especially with the latter, which I'd more characterize as a seeker or something like that, not an agnostic in Huxley's sense, which really was a precursor to atheism in a sense

What tradition are we talking about? Voltaire? Diderot? Nietzsche? Sartre?

 

[Moral Orel]

We will have a special section on the Problem of Evil.

Theists think they have this one nipped in the bud because of the free will defense, but that just raises more problems. The theist will say that in order for God to prevent humans from doing evil, He would have to remove our free will. Ergo, a being cannot have free will and never do evil. So if no one can do evil in Heaven, then no one in Heaven has free will. And since God cannot do evil, God does not have free will. And if God does not have free will, then what's so great about free will in the first place?!

 

[Tree of Life]

Theists think they have this one nipped in the bud because of the free will defense, but that just raises more problems. The theist will say that in order for God to prevent humans from doing evil, He would have to remove our free will. Ergo, a being cannot have free will and never do evil. So if no one can do evil in Heaven, then no one in Heaven has free will. And since God cannot do evil, God does not have free will. And if God does not have free will, then what's so great about free will in the first place?!

I don’t rely on the free will defense. I think it’s fairly easy to show that the problem of evil is either logically invalid or has very questionable assumptions.

 

[Tree of Life]

@Moral Orel for example let’s just look at the evidential problem of evil. It goes something like this...

1. Gratuitous evil exists
2. A good God would not allow gratuitous evil to exist
3. Therefore a good God does not exist

The problem is in premise (1). It has some hidden assumptions:

1. Some evil appears gratuitous (it appears to be pointless and to have no good reason)
2. Evil that appears gratuitous is in fact gratuitous
3. Therefore gratuitous evil exists

Premise (2) is false or at least not argued for. Isn’t it possible that God has a good explanation for all evil that we are not aware of? Of course it’s possible. And if that’s possible, there is no problem of evil.

 

[ananda]

But that doesn't make it inherently illogical for doing so, which is the typical objection in western culture.

In Mahayana Buddhism, beliefs are usually evaluated by their ethical weight, not merely that the belief is immediately verifiable. If a belief contributes to human flourishing relative to a particular individual or groups understanding of reality, it can be said to be true in a provisional sense. That means a belief need not be demonstrably true to be considered useful, and opens the door to a pluralistic understanding of truth. That's one reason you seldom see Buddhist missionaries banging on anybody's doors unless they are invited.

At any rate, that opens the door to the notion of religious imagination being a useful way to embody that which is beyond imagination. Religious imagination itself is understood as an embodiment of Nirvanic reality.

As I understand Theravada Buddhism, an individual is determined to flourish only to the degree that they are headed towards the one final goal - nibbana, the ending of suffering - through the acquisition and application of wisdom attained through observation and experience. It is only observed wisdom which possesses sufficient power to quench the fires of greed, and aversion by definitively dispelling ignorance without question.

All other goals (e.g. in samsara, or based on imagination) not only does not definitively dispel ignorance at its root, but actually contributes to ignorance, and so, by definition, contributes to the creation of new kamma and fuels the cycle of rebirth. An individual is not considered to be "flourishing" by accomplishing these ephemeral samsaric goals in life.

 

[FireDragon76]

As I understand Theravada Buddhism, an individual is determined to flourish only to the degree that they are headed towards the one final goal - nibbana, the ending of suffering - through the acquisition and application of wisdom attained through observation and experience. It is only observed wisdom which possesses sufficient power to quench the fires of greed, and aversion by definitively dispelling ignorance without question.

All other goals (e.g. in samsara, or based on imagination) not only does not definitively dispel ignorance at its root, but actually contributes to ignorance, and so, by definition, contributes to the creation of new kamma and fuels the cycle of rebirth. An individual is not considered to be "flourishing" by accomplishing these ephemeral samsaric goals in life.

The narratives contained in Buddhism itself are a product of religious imagination (as are Christian beliefs, Muslim beliefs, Hindu beliefs, etc.). Mahayana Buddhism can acknowledge and account for this. I'm not sure your religious philosophy can.

I don't want to be overly depricatory (I have alot of respect for some Theravada teachers, such as Ajahn Brahm) but that's sort of the reason I find Mahayana Buddhism more engaging. Because in the hands of a person who is very ideologically rigid (as many people prone to religious enthusiasm tend to be), Theravada can lend itself to being a very life-denying ethic. Whereas Mahayana Buddhism potentially has a more expansive vision for human life, owing to the concept of Buddha Nature. The goal isn't to transcend life (which is impossible and absurd) by adopting a false notion of transcendence, but to transform life through realization or embodiment of Dharma.

 

[ananda]

The narratives contained in Buddhism itself are a product of religious imagination (as are Christian beliefs, Muslim beliefs, Hindu beliefs, etc.). Mahayana Buddhism can acknowledge and account for this. I'm not sure your religious philosophy can.

Yes indeed it can account for them. The narratives may be true, or they may be false (imaginary). Either way, blind belief or faith in them is put aside as questionable until one can verify them for themselves. 1. The narratives may be true, and are said to be verifiable through the development of the divine eye after the attainment of the fourth jhana; 2. if the narratives are false (imaginary), then no harm comes as a result of an agnostic position towards them. Either way, blind belief/faith is not encouraged or perpetuated.

I don't want to be overly depricatory (I have alot of respect for some Theravada teachers, such as Ajahn Brahm) but that's sort of the reason I find Mahayana Buddhism more engaging. Because in the hands of a person who is very ideologically rigid (as many people prone to religious enthusiasm tend to be), Theravada can lend itself to being a very life-denying ethic. Whereas Mahayana Buddhism potentially has a more expansive vision for human life, owing to the concept of Buddha Nature. The goal isn't to transcend life (which is impossible and absurd) by adopting a false notion of transcendence, but to transform life through realization or embodiment of Dharma.

Sure ... IMO it may appear more engaging and lively on the surface, but - with all due respect - I find such aims at "life transformations" (aside from the one goal of nibbana) mere attachments towards issues within the round of rebirth. It's like a video game character enjoying his video game world, and throroughly spending his time exploring it, without care for exploration into the fundamental realities that created his video game world.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Premise (2) is false or at least not argued for. Isn’t it possible that God has a good explanation for all evil that we are not aware of? Of course it’s possible. And if that’s possible, there is no problem of evil.

That sounds rather strange to me. I'm not a great logician, but surely that only counts of you can tell us what this reason is? Because it doesn't seem right, the way you say "This is a puzzle, but we don't need to worry about it because it's possible that an answer exists." You haven't found the answer, though, so you can't say that it, well, answers anythi it's
for that matter, it's also possible that God exists but is evil, or not pray surely good. Or that God doesn't exist at all. Either of those would satisfy condition 2 without you having to assume extra and unproven conditions.

 

[Tree of Life]

That sounds rather strange to me. I'm not a great logician, but surely that only counts of you can tell us what this reason is? Because it doesn't seem right, the way you say "This is a puzzle, but we don't need to worry about it because it's possible that an answer exists." You haven't found the answer, though, so you can't say that it, well, answers anythi it's
for that matter, it's also possible that God exists but is evil, or not pray surely good. Or that God doesn't exist at all. Either of those would satisfy condition 2 without you having to assume extra and unproven conditions.

It’s not necessary that we know God’s reasons - only that it is possible that God has reasons. After all, we are defending against atheology - an argument claiming to demonstrate that God does not exist. All we are showing is that the argument is not successful.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes indeed it can account for them. The narratives may be true, or they may be false (imaginary).

All narratives are imaginary. The question is which imaginary narratives lead to happiness, and which do not. Religion is not therefore properly an imposition upon human life or a denial of life, but an affirmation of life itself. That is where I am afraid you are missing a bigger picture.

 

[ananda]

All narratives are imaginary. The question is which imaginary narratives lead to happiness, and which do not. Religion is not therefore properly an imposition upon human life or a denial of life, but an affirmation of life itself. That is where I am afraid you are missing a bigger picture.

Many narratives are based on fact, and other narratives are based on fiction (imagination).

For Theravadan Buddhists, the core question doesnt involve affirming life (like most religions), but rather focuses on the cessation of suffering and the establishment of the unending bliss.