Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

Philosophers of religion as a part of their discipline, sometimes engage in the formulation and defense of arguments for the existence of God.

We are aware of this.

However, it is oftentimes forgotten that they also interact with arguments against theism.

In this thread, we will discuss those which atheists here think are most persuasive.

Any takers?

 

[Chriliman]

I've heard the primal chaos idea. Freodin could expand on it for us if he's willing.

I think it basically states that all existence stems from an eternal primal chaos state. Finite order immerges from eternal disorder.

I'm not too clear on the details because the whole idea seems irrational to me.

 

[Davian]

Philosophers of religion as a part of their discipline, sometimes engage in the formulation and defense of arguments for the existence of God.

We are aware of this.

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

However, it is oftentimes forgotten that they also interact with arguments against theism.

In this thread, we will discuss those which atheists here think are most persuasive.

Any takers?

If the arguments are to be against theism, I start with the premise that they are all wrong. That would be the most parsimonious explanation for why theists continue to be unable to demonstrate that their particular theology comports with reality.

Now, there may be a small chance that, in all of the thousands of religions and denominations and sects that somewhere in there a theist has their theology right, but exactly how are you going to determine that? Popular vote? Yelling matches? Warfare?

Or, we can take the approach where you define your "god" in some testable, falsifiable manner.

I'll wait.

 

[quatona]

Philosophers of religion as a part of their discipline, sometimes engage in the formulation and defense of arguments for the existence of God.

We are aware of this.

However, it is oftentimes forgotten that they also interact with arguments against theism.

In this thread, we will discuss those which atheists here think are most persuasive.

That´s conveniently having it backwards.

Anyway, as long as "God" isn´t a properly defined term; there is no ground on which to argue against theism.

 

[Gene2memE]

Philosophers of religion as a part of their discipline, sometimes engage in the formulation and defense of arguments for the existence of God. We are aware of this.

However, it is oftentimes forgotten that they also interact with arguments against theism. In this thread, we will discuss those which atheists here think are most persuasive.

Any takers?

A Philpapers.org survey conducted in 2009 would suggest that a strong majority of professional philosophers are atheists, or at least inclined to non-theism:

God: theism or atheism?

Accept or lean toward: atheism 1257 / 1803 (69.7%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 295 / 1803 (16.4%)
Other 251 / 1803 (13.9%)

(As an aside: the only two other topics that philosophers leant towards as strongly were scientific realism (70.1%) and non-skeptical realism (76.7%) - i.e that we actually do live in the world we perceive and we can use the scientific method to discover truths about that real world._

The question we might then ask is: why aren't philosophers more active in formulating arguments against the existence of God?

I think that the answer to this question lies in the mindset of philosophers. As the majority of them clearly don't believe in a God or gods, they have little or no reason to discuss the topic. Atheism is not a positive claim in and of it self. Atheism is the non-acceptance of a claim of other. Thus, there is little for professional philosophers to debate a non-positivist position, and thus little reason for them to formulate arguments for the non-existence of God and/or gods.

Or maybe they think that its something that has already been addressed and they don't need to do it.

As for me, I find two main defeaters of the classical Christian God, which I will define as the God of the Bible with the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omnipresence which chooses to interact with physical reality in some way.

The first is that the god of the omnis is logically incoherent, in that its properties are ultimately logically self-contradicting. Some apologists get around this by exchanging omniXXXXX for 'maximally', but this is just a linguistic evasion.

The second is the problem of divine hidden-ness. I'm not going to launch into a full formulation, as there are a couple of excellent philosophical videos from two of my favourite non-believers, Matt Dillahunty (28-ish minute video) and Scott Clifton (10-ish minute video):

 

[anonymous person]

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

The people that know that philosophers of religion sometimes formulate and defend arguments for the existence of God.

If the arguments are to be against theism, I start with the premise that they are all wrong. That would be the most parsimonious explanation for why theists continue to be unable to demonstrate that their particular theology comports with reality.

This begs the question though, of what you count as a successful demonstration that one's beliefs are true.

What counts? and why think your criteria is one that I or anyone else should use in determining if a belief is true?

Now, there may be a small chance that, in all of the thousands of religions and denominations and sects that somewhere in there a theist has their theology right, but exactly how are you going to determine that? Popular vote? Yelling matches? Warfare?

You suggested that the demonstration of a belief's comporting with reality is how we determine whether it is true did you not?

Or, we can take the approach where you define your "god" in some testable, falsifiable manner.

I'll wait.

I see no reason to think that this approach is one which should be taken.

 

[anonymous person]

That´s conveniently having it backwards.

Anyway, as long as "God" isn´t a properly defined term; there is no ground on which to argue against theism.

Philosophers of religion both atheists and theists routinely engage in discussions about God, understanding that the term "God" is a word that refers to that being which is maximally great—so perfect and splendid that nothing greater is conceivable, or as Anselm succinctly put it, the Greatest Conceivable Being.

Quentin Smith and Graham Oppy are two atheist philosophers of religion that come to mind that have argued with theist philosophers about God.

 

[anonymous person]

The first is that the god of the omnis is logically incoherent, in that its properties are ultimately logically self-contradicting. Some apologists get around this by exchanging omniXXXXX for 'maximally', but this is just a linguistic evasion.

Why would such a being's properties be logically self-contradicting?

The second is the problem of divine hidden-ness. I'm not going to launch into a full formulation, as there are a couple of excellent philosophical videos from two of my favourite non-believers, Matt Dillahunty (28-ish minute video) and Scott Clifton (10-ish minute video):

This argument assumes God is hidden does it not?

 

[Paradoxum]

Well I guess the most famous is the problem of suffering.

If God is loving why doesn't he save people from natural disasters and illness? Humans would do this, in the name of compassion if they could; God doesn't.

If God is love, why doesn't he stop rape and murder? Don't say free will. Police stopping a criminal isn't a violation of free will, it's a restriction of liberty.

If you say that God's love is significantly different from what we mean by love, why call God loving?

 

[anonymous person]

Well I guess the most famous is the problem of suffering.

If God is loving why doesn't he save people from natural disasters and illness? Humans would do this, in the name of compassion if they could; God doesn't.

I see no reason why God's love for His creation would prohibit Him from creating a world wherein His free moral creatures experienced pain and illness and the effects of natural disasters which exist as a result of the choices these free creatures made in choosing to live autonomously apart from Him.

Secondly, Jesus means "Yahweh saves". God saves everyone who trusts in Him. How can He save them that do not acknowledge they need saving or acknowledge it but refuse to come to Him to be saved? How is this His fault? How is this an indictment against His love? He has saved me and is saving me moment by moment.

I think the real question is why would God not save His only begotten Son from humiliation, betrayal, torture, and crucifixion?

The answer is one you have heard many times before....

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

If God is love, why doesn't he stop rape and murder? Don't say free will. Police stopping a criminal isn't a violation of free will, it's a restriction of liberty.

If you say that God's love is significantly different from what we mean by love, why call God loving?

In God's eyes, committing homosexual acts is a sin just like rape and murder. Lying is also a sin. Not doing the right we know we should is a sin too.

Should God stop men from having sex with men? Or women with women? Should he prevent people from lying?

Would you prefer God to cause people to freeze in their tracks before they committed a sin? Or is it just rape and murder you would like for Him to prevent from happening and allow every other sin to go unchecked?

 

[quatona]

Philosophers of religion both atheists and theists routinely engage in discussions about God, understanding that the term "God" is a word that refers to that being which is maximally great—so perfect and splendid that nothing greater is conceivable, or as Anselm succinctly put it, the Greatest Conceivable Being.

Well, that´s at least an attempt at a defintion (albeit not a proper one, in my book).
Is this the defintion of the word "God" that you want the discussion be based upon, for purposes of this thread?

Quentin Smith and Graham Oppy are two atheist philosophers of religion that come to mind that have argued with theist philosophers about God.

Then why don´t you argue with them?

 

[Paradoxum]

I see no reason why God's love for His creation would prohibit Him from creating a world wherein His free moral creatures experienced pain and illness and the effects of natural disasters which exist as a result of the choices these free creatures made in choosing to live autonomously apart from Him.

Why? You'd say saving someone from a disaster is good... no? But God isn't as good as most humans?

Also, disasters aren't a necessary consequence of 'living apart from him. If God chose for earthquakes to come from sin, that's his choice, and not one he had to make. If anything it makes God more responsible for the suffering in the world.

If God is good, why would he create ways to hurt his 'children'? I wouldn't harm children.

Secondly, Jesus means "Yahweh saves". God saves everyone who trusts in Him. How can He save them that do not acknowledge they need saving or acknowledge it but refuse to come to Him to be saved? How is this His fault? How is this an indictment against His love? He has saved me and is saving me moment by moment.

1) I was a committed Christian, and if God shows himself as good, I would follow him. It's his fault because he''s given no good evidence he even exists.

2) You don't have to love or follow someone to save them. I wouldn't want a stranger to get cancer. If I could press and button, I'd stop all cancer. Am I better than God.

I think the real question is why would God not save His only begotten Son from humiliation, betrayal, torture, and crucifixion?

I don't believe in God.

Should God stop men from having sex with men? Or women with women? Should he prevent people from lying?

Rape violates other people. The problem is the violation and harm. Don't you see why people are against rape?

Consensual sex doesn't cause this problem.

Would you prefer God to cause people to freeze in their tracks before they committed a sin? Or is it just rape and murder you would like for Him to prevent from happening and allow every other sin to go unchecked?

God could stop rapists from raping people by stopping them in place for a few minutes. Why is that a crazy idea, if you really because in God?

 

[Davian]

The people that know that philosophers of religion sometimes formulate and defend arguments for the existence of God.

Self-appointed, or was that put to a vote?

This begs the question though, of what you count as a successful demonstration that one's beliefs are true.

Not at all. What I was trying to get across with that statement was that by their very nature, theologies are pretty much mutually exclusive. You can't all have an accurate description of reality. And then, there is always the possibility that none of you do.

I do not use the word "true" as "truth" implies an absolute. I would say, do one's beliefs comport with reality, or alternately, are they an accurate description of reality, in that they are still subject to falsification and change based on new information.

What counts? and why think your criteria is one that I or anyone else should use in determining if a belief is true?

That burden lies with the religionist, and should vary with the claim, and to whom they are trying to convince. You may say that your beliefs are based on a warm fuzzy feeling you get like when you think of kittens. If that works for you, run with it.

Your beliefs may depend on the entirety of the human race having been descended from a single pair of individuals, but then when you fail to step up to the challenge of explaining why evidence of this is not observed in nature, and are unable to falsify most of modern biological scientific theories, your claim will probably be unconvincing.

You suggested that the demonstration of a belief's comporting with reality is how we determine whether it is true did you not?

I do not recall making that suggestion.

I see no reason to think that this approach is one which should be taken.

lol. Why not? Does it not directly address the thread title?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I see no reason why God's love for His creation would prohibit Him from creating a world wherein His free moral creatures experienced pain and illness and the effects of natural disasters which exist as a result of the choices these free creatures made in choosing to live autonomously apart from Him.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I assume you are referring to Adam and Eve's choice, since I don't recall anyone living today ever being given the option. That raises the question of why a benevolent deity would punish people for decisions they had no power to sway.

Secondly, Jesus means "Yahweh saves". God saves everyone who trusts in Him. How can He save them that do not acknowledge they need saving or acknowledge it but refuse to come to Him to be saved? How is this His fault? How is this an indictment against His love? He has saved me and is saving me moment by moment.

You already conceded that God is ultimately responsible for damnation (1).

I think the real question is why would God not save His only begotten Son from humiliation, betrayal, torture, and crucifixion?

The answer is one you have heard many times before....

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Why should salvation depend on believing in Christ?

In God's eyes, committing homosexual acts is a sin just like rape and murder. Lying is also a sin. Not doing the right we know we should is a sin too.

Should God stop men from having sex with men? Or women with women? Should he prevent people from lying?

Would you prefer God to cause people to freeze in their tracks before they committed a sin? Or is it just rape and murder you would like for Him to prevent from happening and allow every other sin to go unchecked?

We've already been over this - refer to Davian's question, which you refused to answer.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The question bears repeating:

Do you ever get tired of coming up with new screen names every few months, creating the same threads over and over again and abandoning them?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Philosophers of religion both atheists and theists routinely engage in discussions about God, understanding that the term "God" is a word that refers to that being which is maximally great—so perfect and splendid that nothing greater is conceivable, or as Anselm succinctly put it, the Greatest Conceivable Being.

Trying to define something into existence through wordplay is futile...

 

[anonymous person]

Trying to define something into existence through wordplay is futile...

I find it puzzling that you would think me giving you a definition of a word is an instance of me trying to define something into existence.

This is a favorite reply of atheists.

Strange though, they never accuse each other of attempting to cause something to exist when they define terms they commonly use.

What you have done is akin to me saying you are attempting to define quarks into existence when all you have done is told me that quarks are elementary particles and fundamental constituents of matter.

Me telling you that a certain word refers to a certain concept is not me attempting to create or bring said concept into existence.

Do you understand?

 

[quatona]

Philosophers of religion both atheists and theists routinely engage in discussions about God, understanding that the term "God" is a word that refers to that being which is maximally great—so perfect and splendid that nothing greater is conceivable, or as Anselm succinctly put it, the Greatest Conceivable Being.

Again:
So which of these two definitions do you want the "atheist argument" to address, in this thread?

Problems:
1. Personally, I see no reason whatsoever to assume that such a "Greatest Conceivable Being" exists, to begin with.
2. "Greatest" is an unspecific valuating qualifier, not a descriptive adjective. Thus, in order to examine the question whether such a being exists, we first need to know what to look for. IOW, this definition doesn´t allow for a method to examine the claim.
3. "Greatest conceivable": "Greatest" by which or whose standards, in whose conception?

Your definition appears to open the door for the following argument:
"God" is described in a certain manner in a Holy Book (let´s say the Quran). I can conceive of a being that is greater than the being described in the Quran.
Conclusion: This being (assuming for a moment it exists) isn´t the greatest conceivable being, thus can´t be God.

Do you really want to make it that easy for us?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

On of the more convincing arguments against belief in religion that I know is that a case can be made that being religious has no discernible impact upon how moral a person will be... Whether one is an atheist or a theist one can imagine an alternative version of themselves who acts and behaves precisely the same as they do and yet has the inverse religious belief that they do. This means that any claim to moral clarity which the religious may claim is diminished.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well I guess the most famous is the problem of suffering.

That is really irrelevant to the question of whether a god exists or not isn't it?

You'd say saving someone from a disaster is good... no?

Why are you saving that person from a disaster? Is it a selfless act or do you have other motives? It is not IMO that easy to distinguish if a thing is morally good and not being able to objectively judge that, makes it impossible to judge whether an act is loving or not. Then again, since I do not believe in objective morality my POV will lead me to different set of conclusions than one such as yourself that believes (and does so by faith alone from my perspective) in an objective standard of what constitutes good and evil.

If God is good, why would he create ways to hurt his 'children'? I wouldn't harm children.

Again the definition thing. From past discussions we have had, I know that you define children in a much different way than I do and from my perspective you have actually endorsed harming children in those discussions you just do not define those that you are willing to harm as children but instead as beings without self awareness.

Well I guess the most famous is the problem of suffering.

If God is loving why doesn't he save people from natural disasters and illness? Humans would do this, in the name of compassion if they could; God doesn't.

If God is love, why doesn't he stop rape and murder? Don't say free will. Police stopping a criminal isn't a violation of free will, it's a restriction of liberty.

If you say that God's love is significantly different from what we mean by love, why call God loving?

If you discuss theism in general terms not all theists believe in a loving god but even those that do believe in a loving god may well define love differently than love means keeping others from ever suffering. If some human beings can be allowed to define love as having sex and others as controlling circumstances so there is no physical harm possible then I see no reason why another set of human beings cannot be allowed to define love in yet another way. Likewise, the idea of good may be defined in several different ways and one way would be the way some theists would define good as that which is consistent with the will of a supreme being. In the end discussion of whether a god exists or not becomes silly as if one believes a god exists or not one ends up merely reinforcing for oneself what one is inclined to believe and acting incredulous that everyone in opposition does not accept one's subjective assumptions as objective reality.