Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Loudmouth]

I can't take you seriously anymore. I hope you are not offended by this.

I can't someone serious when they want to have a discussion about something they refuse to define.

 

[anonymous person]

The first argument would focus on the burden of proof. We don't need to disprove claims that have no evidence to support them. As Bertrand Russell put it:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

As an atheist, I am more than willing to concede that there could be a deity of some kind, but I am also willing to concede that there could be leprechauns, fairies, and a reptilian extraterrestrial race that does experiments on human subjects. At this point, I think the possibility of any of those is about equal.

I have also found affinity to this terse yet compelling statement:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
--Epicurus

The universe is indistinguishable from one where there is no God, so why would you think there is one?

Plantinga's free will defense renders the Epicurean argument impotent.

Do you have another?

 

[anonymous person]

I can't someone serious when they want to have a discussion about something they refuse to define.

You quoted Epicurus did you not?

 

[Loudmouth]

You quoted Epicurus did you not?

Is that quote close to the description you are using?

 

[bhsmte]

Yea, that is because none of us can really take you seriously.

I take Davian quite seriously.

 

[anonymous person]

I take Davian quite seriously.

No argument from me on that, I assure you.

 

[anonymous person]

Is that quote close to the description you are using?

Let's take this from the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy for a primer:

Consistent with theism, Augustine (354-430) regarded God as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, morally good, the creator (ex nihilo) and sustainer of the universe. Despite these multiple descriptors, God is uniquely simple. Being entirely free, he did not have to create, but did so as an act of love. As his creation, it reflects his mind. Time and space began at creation, and everything in creation is good. Evil is uncreated, being a lack of good and without positive existence. Though God is not responsible for evil even it has a purpose: to show forth what is good, especially what is good within God. Augustine developed a theme found as early as Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno of Citium, that God is a perfect being.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's take this from the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy for a primer:

Consistent with theism, Augustine (354-430) regarded God as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, morally good, the creator (ex nihilo) and sustainer of the universe. Despite these multiple descriptors, God is uniquely simple. Being entirely free, he did not have to create, but did so as an act of love. As his creation, it reflects his mind. Time and space began at creation, and everything in creation is good. Evil is uncreated, being a lack of good and without positive existence. Though God is not responsible for evil even it has a purpose: to show forth what is good, especially what is good within God. Augustine developed a theme found as early as Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno of Citium, that God is a perfect being.

I can work with that. That brings us to the first part of the Epicurus quote:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

Can't be both omnipotent and morally good.

 

[anonymous person]

I can work with that. That brings us to the first part of the Epicurus quote:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

Can't be both omnipotent and morally good.

I have a two-fold response to this.

Care to hear it?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a two-fold response to this.

Care to hear it?

Would love to hear it. I probably won't respond right away, so feel free to take your time. Also, I would suspect that it has something to do with free will. If it does, my response would include discussions of how it is moral to put people in prison for doing evil things, a clear violation of free will. It is also moral to stop people from harming others, even though that may interfere with their free will. Perhaps that could help you shape your argument for further discussion.

 

[anonymous person]

Would love to hear it. I probably won't respond right away, so feel free to take your time. Also, I would suspect that it has something to do with free will. If it does, my response would include discussions of how it is moral to put people in prison for doing evil things, a clear violation of free will. It is also moral to stop people from harming others, even though that may interfere with their free will. Perhaps that could help you shape your argument for further discussion.

Response one comes in the form of a question and it is:

R1. You used the word good. What is good and what standard, point of reference, benchmark or criterion are you using to distinguish between that which is good and that which is non-good?

Response two comes in the form of a question as well and it is:

R2. Why do you think that God existing and being omnipotent would preclude there also existing a world that contains non-good or evil? IOW, there is some implicit premise that a defense of your view would make explicit. What is/are this/these premise(s)?

 

[Davian]

Yea, that is because none of us

Who is this "us" that you speak for?

can really take you seriously.

My position is that of mainstream science. From what I do understand of your beliefs, I can see why you would not want to take me - or mainstream science - seriously. Mainstream science certainly has no need of me defending it.

Why are you here in these forums? Do you not wish to be taken seriously?

 

[Davian]

I can't take you seriously anymore.

I never thought you did. How can you seriously consider any dissenting opinions if you are unable to doubt your own?

I hope you are not offended by this.

What gave you the impression that I was in any way seeking your approval?

On that subject, why are you here?

 

[anonymous person]

I never thought you did. How can you seriously consider any dissenting opinions if you are unable to doubt your own?

What gave you the impression that I was in any way seeking your approval?

On that subject, why are you here?

I am here because I enjoy being here. That is one reason at least.

 

[bhsmte]

No argument from me on that, I assure you.

You seem to have skipped post 140.

Still waiting for your explanation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The belief that claims require a form of testability.

That's not a belief.

It is neither testable or falsifiable.

Actually, it is. Quite easily.

Take 2 people and give them a bunch of problems to solve. One isn't allowed to test his solutions and the other is.

Now see who achieves the best results.

But philosophers have already dealt with this decades ago.

lol

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well now notice what this thread is about. It is about arguments against the existence of God.

Ow my....
A refutation of an argument FOR god is not an argument AGAINST god.

Some here have but think they can just say there is no evidence for God as if that is a good argument. It's not an argument.

Indeed, it's not an argument.
I'ld rather say "there is no convincing evidence for god that I'm aware off".
Which is also not an argument. It's just a personal observation... From all the arguments and evidence attempting to support the god hypothesis, that have been shown to me, not one was able to convince me.

That observation isn't set in stone. You could change it by actually preenting me with a convincing argument or evidence.

So shifting the burden over to me to prove God's existence is not going to get you off the hook.

I'm not making any claims concerning gods. I'm only responding to god claims.
Claims that theists make.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In response to my question of what criteria one uses in determining whether or not a belief is true, DogmaHunter said:



From this, it is clear that DogmaHunter is espousing a form of logical empiricism.

What is wrong with it, when it concerns claims about reality?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think the best argument for non theism is practical redundance, in terms of the natural sciences.

But social science, the scienctists have to carth up with actual practical social organisation.

We have a failing democracy, which needs the Church to prop it up morally in terms of fighting for dignity etc and in terms of voluntary contributions to the "common good".

I think the church is crumbling as it is because of a confusion between these two aspects, in the heat of apologetics and counter apologetics. "We have the equations" does not actually help society deal with the fact thert poor people (etc) exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The belief that claims require a form of testability.

It is neither testable or falsifiable. But philosophers have already dealt with this decades ago.

Yeah, they have. You should read what they wrote some time.