Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

Have an example?

Suppose they claim that Jesus was not the Son of God, but a pretender, a false prophet, sent by the adversary to deceive the world.

 

[anonymous person]

Suppose they claim that Jesus was not the Son of God, but a pretender, a false prophet, sent by the adversary to deceive the world.

They are wrong.

 

[zippy2006]

I consider that a false dichotomy. Skepticism can help to improve reliability. By identifying less reliable methods we are able to develop better and more reliable ones.

Local skepticism, not global. And it can help to improve local reliability, not global. Science can only improve reliability, it can't create it. The telescope can only improve sight, it can't create it. Fundamental reliability has to do with whether it is there in the first place or not; whether there is anything to build on, to refine, to improve upon.

In any case, at the end of the day your argument seems to hinge on the idea that religion is uncritical or unscientific, that religious humans are fundamentally different from non-religious humans in their reliability. The only trouble is finding a historian of religion or science who agrees.

Yes, but it is a highly ineffective mode of reasoning when one has little idea what the cause is like.

The only time the form of reasoning would be of any use is when the cause is unknown. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Yes, but the problem with this argument is that scientists have plenty of experience with physical entities such as particles/waves. This is why one can reasonably speculate about dark matter. It's because scientists are already well familiar with visible matter.

Familiarity with the visible gives familiarity with the invisible? That makes no sense at all, and if it did it would effectively undermine your anti-theistic arguments.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The only time the form of reasoning would be of any use is when the cause is unknown. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I'm sure that I do. I'm not sure that you do.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[zippy2006]

I'm sure that I do. I'm not sure that you do.

Well, at the very least you've done an excellent job of demonstrating how atheistic apologetics can be as banally credulous as any theistic apologetics. Unfortunately this tends to count against the claim that non-believers are fundamentally different from believers in their critical thinking abilities.

 

[quatona]

The only time the form of reasoning would be of any use is when the cause is unknown.

And that´s why in your example you concluded the cause had to be a cat (as opposed to an unknown entity)?

 

[zippy2006]

And that´s why in your example you concluded the cause had to be a cat (as opposed to an unknown entity)?

The cat came from the person I replied to, but in my example the cat was initially unknown. In the post-challenge context that you are quoting I took up the example of entities posited by particle physics, such as quarks.

The very principle of effect-to-cause reasoning is the same principle that grounds syllogistic reasoning. It is movement from the known to the unknown, that the unknown may become known.

 

[quatona]

The very principle of effect-to-cause reasoning is the same principle that grounds syllogistic reasoning. It is movement from the known to the unknown, that the unknown may become known.

As far as I can see, the unknown doesn´t become known by means of this reasoning, it just gets a name.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll entertain your embittered derailment for at least a few posts. Obviously criteria are important. Let's take one: effect.

Cats produce effects. Hair, dander, furballs, waste, dead mice, kittens, etc. If I find all those things I can reason to the existence of a cat.

God produces effects--let's just focus on the more obvious effects. Religion, high percentages of religious persons (belief), charitable works and foundations, holy books, sacred places, monks, zealots, etc.

As far as I can tell, it's people who produce all these "effects" you attribute to a "god". Is there any reason to think otherwise?

 

[zippy2006]

As far as I can see, the unknown doesn´t become known by means of this reasoning, it just gets a name.

Naming is one consequence of knowledge.

 

[quatona]

Naming is one consequence of knowledge.

Except when it isn´t.

 

[zippy2006]

As far as I can tell, it's people who produce all these "effects" you attribute to a "god". Is there any reason to think otherwise?

Arch asked that here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Arch asked that here.

Sorry I missed that...

Your answer was basically an appeal to popularity then?

 

[Davian]

... I don't know that I've ever written a post to you, but you are the one and only user on my ignore list. You were an obvious pick; no interaction needed.

Hope you weren't confused as to why I ignore your posts. It was only remotely intentional. I can't even see them!

Perhaps I should ignore you.

Can we apply that thinking to any other line of inquiry?

"If only they would ignore those people that are sceptical of cold fusion, then they could finally deliver on that promise of clean and affordable energy..."

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I never claimed that it did. No evolutionary biologist claims this either. An amoeba did not turn into a bird. You don't seem to understand how the tree of life works. I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.



More like survival of the 'good enough' but close enough.



Yep. And you strawman it in your next sentence.



Evolution does not claim a rose will eventually become a cherry tree. Evolution does NOT have a goal in mind. Where are you getting this from? You're all over the place. In one sentence, you're on the right track and then you go completely off the rails.



This sentence doesn't make any sense. You just said earlier that evolution is obvious and observable and now you're going to say but natural selection is not evidence because you think it fits with creation? What on earth are you talking about? Please explain your reasoning.



Tiktaalik Roseae says hello http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html



Evolution takes places in populations over generations, not in individuals. Anyway, here is the hominid fossil record: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html



You just said that a fossil record showing transitional species would be evidence for evolution. This means that we should share similar traits. So you're basically saying "This would be evidence, but it's not". I don't think even you know what you're talking about. You're all over the place.



Um no, creationism and evolution are not the same thing. Creationism has lost in court several times trying to get into the science classroom. It loses because it is nonsense and can be demonstrated to be nonsense. Judging by how you try to explain things, it seems like you are desperately trying to ignore the evidence but your rational mind isn't letting you, so you do mental gymnastics to try to keep your creation story. I will recommend two books for you. One by Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" and one by Francis Collins if you prefer to read a Christian author "The Language of God" This should help clear things up for you.

According to the evolutionary tree of life, amoebas did eventually turn into birds.

Natural selection is how we get different breeds of dogs. Or different colors of moths. Or different strains of a virus. It is not the same as fish growing legs.

As to your hominid references. As the article states, most are just a tooth or single bone. These examples are either human or ape, according to their DNA, and show different traits among each respective species.

DNA similarities do not support evolution and discredit creation simultaneously. It can be used as support for both sides.

As can natural selection. The ancestors of all the different breeds of cats we have today would have had to have been created with immense genetic diversity. This would have led to the natural selection process that produced the many breeds we have today. Conversely, in terms of evolution, natural selection would require the genetic diversity of every living being to have existed in the original RNA strand that evolved into the original DNA strand.

So, again, natural selection is independent of evolution. And genetic similarities support both theories. Hominid fossils are genetically one or the other, never a transition.

Even Darwin admitted that his original hypothesis of a single ancestor was ludicrous after studying the human eye. Irreducible complexity.

The bottom line is that you cannot show me hard proof of an original cell that supposedly fathered all living organisms. And I can't show you hard proof of the created universe at the time of creation.

Neither one of us will change the other's mind.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

According to the evolutionary tree of life, amoebas did eventually turn into birds.

Cite a source that shows an amoeba turning into a bird. You don't understand how evolution works.

Natural selection is how we get different breeds of dogs.

Wrong. That's artificial selection. Humans controlled domestication.

It is not the same as fish growing legs.

Why do some whales have vestigial hip and leg bones? What does that explain?
So you are saying that in a span of only 30,000 years we could domesticate wolves into the many dog breeds we see today but millions of years it's impossible to see larger changes? Please explain what is the limit of changes a species can have and what is the mechanism that controls where the cut off is.

As to your hominid references. As the article states, most are just a tooth or single bone.

Don't commit the fallacy of quote mining. Read the rest of the research.

These examples are either human or ape, according to their DNA, and show different traits among each respective species.

There is only one homo sapien in all of those examples. I doubt you read past the part where you quote mined.

Nothing to say about Tiktaalik Roseae?

DNA similarities do not support evolution and discredit creation simultaneously.

How does DNA not support evolution? I imagine you would accept that a DNA test that shows who your mother and father are but you are going to reject that your genome is 98% similar to a chimpanzee? DNA and molecular genetics is irrefutable evidence that demonstrates common ancestry. It discredits creation. You need to reject it to hold onto your deeply held beliefs.

Even Darwin admitted that his original hypothesis of a single ancestor was ludicrous after studying the human eye. Irreducible complexity.

Ah, more intellectual dishonest quote mining. You need to eliminate this from your arguments. It is atrocious.
If you continued your research of what Darwin wrote, you'd find this: "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real"

Natural selection of the eye has been demonstrated.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

They are wrong.

How do you know that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Local skepticism, not global. And it can help to improve local reliability, not global. Science can only improve reliability, it can't create it. The telescope can only improve sight, it can't create it. Fundamental reliability has to do with whether it is there in the first place or not; whether there is anything to build on, to refine, to improve upon.

That's another distinction I don't see the need to make. In any case, I'm glad you've conceded the point I made earlier: skepticism can help to improve reliability.

In any case, at the end of the day your argument seems to hinge on the idea that religion is uncritical or unscientific, that religious humans are fundamentally different from non-religious humans in their reliability. The only trouble is finding a historian of religion or science who agrees.

I don't recall making such an argument. It seems to me that the fundamental difference between religious people and non-religious people is their religiosity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, at the very least you've done an excellent job of demonstrating how atheistic apologetics can be as banally credulous as any theistic apologetics. Unfortunately this tends to count against the claim that non-believers are fundamentally different from believers in their critical thinking abilities.

I don't think anyone has made this specific claim in this thread. Earlier, I did note that "some set the bar so low for their preferred religious doctrines, even as they remain skeptical of all others." Similarly, in another thread I noted that the religious tend to reserve skepticism only for the claims of other religions. So believers are able to approach these matters skeptically, but they often invoke faith to shield their own dogmas from criticism.

 

[Ahermit]

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?

There are a lot of responses here. I did not take time to read them. However here is my take on the original question.
Hope you do not mind that I am not an atheist, but here is a proposition I am sure any atheist can grasp.

God is Truth.
Truth is the ONLY reality... anything else is a deception.
Interpretation of a perception is not necessarily a truth.

If perceiving a rock is a reflection of a truth to itself, then a brick made from a rock could be a deception of the truth. That is the brick in REALITY is a rock deceived to be a brick. The rock in this case is not true to itself.

At a deeper level, this world is a deception of the truth.
looking for God (Truth) in this world is only scratching on the surface.

It is only through faith (trusting the unknowable) that Truth (God) is, or else we are not.