There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[durangodawood]

A devout Christian myself, I would think Satan would have a "logical" argument against the existence of God. Not all logic is correct, and not everything that makes sense is correct, but it can still be logical.

Can you provide an example of incorrect logic? (...aside from wrong premise, which is a fault in fact, and not really a fault in logic.)

 

[MrAnderson9]

The problem is that an arbitrary "god" is often an abstract and ill-defined concept to begin with. Unless you define what you are asserting exists, then it's hard to argue against it.

Very very true.

Before I would ever argue with anyone about the existence of God.. I would ask them to define "God"..

My definition of God is "The Intelligent Force that everything extends from" ..

This definition could very well meet an atheist definition of the ultimate scienctific conclusion regarding existence that humanity may never arrive to or be capable of understanding.

So I don't see why atheist have a problem with theism.. it's almost like religion has tainted the image of God in the minds of many people.

 

[MrAnderson9]

In the absence of space-time how could something exist?

Something of a nature not bound by space time. Obviously something that isn't physical.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Everything in the physical universe is subject to time.. so it logically appears created. So if this universe has an age that isn't eternal then an outer force that isn't subject to time appears to have created our universe.

But does that "age" measure the universe from its inception, or only from the beginning of the current cycle?

 

[Speedwell]

So I don't see why atheist have a problem with theism.. it's almost like religion has tainted the image of God in the minds of many people.

You've got it!

 

[TLK Valentine]

The universe shows signs of an age. It's showing forward progression of physical objects.. it shows time. It would require a starting point to act as a reference point to another point in time.

And that starting point would be the Big Bang -- the beginning of the current phase in the eternal cycle.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Empirically speaking, it's not their job to prove the non-existence of anything in a proper debate.

It is because they have taken a position just as much as the theist has. Both have taken a position. They say No ..we say Yes.

Trying to put the weight of the argument on the person that says yes is intellectually dishonest.

If you don't know.. then the proper stance is you don't know... not "No/Atheism".

 

[pitabread]

Very very true.

Before I would ever argue with anyone about the existence of God.. I would ask them to define "God"..

My definition of God is "The Intelligent Force that everything extends from" ..

That's way to vague a definition. What does "intelligent" mean in this context? What sort of 'force' are we talking about? What is it?

When you say 'everything extends from' what is that supposed to mean? Is this so-called 'intelligent force' encapsulated by 'everything'? Does it also extend from itself?

See, this is the problem with these arguments is there isn't a good way of defining what a 'god' is supposed to be. It's just too abstract a concept.

So I don't see why atheist have a problem with theism.. it's almost like religion has tainted the image of God in the minds of many people.

I think atheists in general have more a problem with the actions of theists in the name of their chosen theistic beliefs rather than theism in and of itself.

 

[pitabread]

Something of a nature not bound by space time. Obviously something that isn't physical.

Energy isn't physical (in terms of physical form), but it's still bound by our universe as we know it.

 

[MrAnderson9]

And that starting point would be the Big Bang -- the beginning of the current phase in the eternal cycle.

But that would imply "something from nothing". Which I think isn't a logical approach.

 

[Non sequitur]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.

I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).

Thoughts and thanks

Atheists, generally, do not assert that there is no god. You might want to say you are looking for responses from, specifically, Gnostic Atheists.

For me, the proofs offered for god claims are not logically sufficient to warrant a belief in the existence of the god claimed.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Can you provide an example of incorrect logic? (...aside from wrong premise, which is a fault in fact, and not really a fault in logic.)

Incorrect logic example. "Dogs bark. Seals bark. Therefore seals must be dogs." Incorrect logic would be something that is illogical.

 

[Greg Merrill]

And that starting point would be the Big Bang -- the beginning of the current phase in the eternal cycle.

I would say the theoristic Big Bang (a bang I don't believe in) would be the beginning of time or the universe, because what ever supposedly went "bang" would have been in existence in time and space before it went "bang."

 

[durangodawood]

Incorrect logic example. "Dogs bark. Seals bark. Therefore seals must be dogs." Incorrect logic would be something that is illogical.

Right, of course.

I meant something that IS logical but incorrect (assuming true premises). I thought you were pointing to a problem with logic itself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Energy isn't physical (in terms of physical form), but it's still bound by our universe as we know it.

I would suggest that energy is, in a sense, the essence of the physical, and it's bound by our universe because the universe is a collection of different forms of energy.

The problem with a non-physical influence, creator, or whatever, is the interaction problem of dualism - how can the non-physical, or immaterial, influence the physical. Their very definitions would seem to be in explicit contradiction of it.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Right, of course.

I meant something that IS logical but incorrect (assuming true premises). I thought you were pointing to a problem with logic itself.

Let's see if this is applicable. Say a person wants to believe in the erroneous concept of reincarnation. They go to a show and see a hypnotist put somebody under hypnosis. While under hypnosis that person, who is proven to be honest and not knowingly under any planned ploy of deception, tells the audience they know no other language but English. The hypnotist now tells them that they are going to take them back to the memory of a "previous life" they lived while in ancient Egypt. The "subject" then shows they can speak in an Egyptian language under these circumstances of hypnosis. The person that wants to believe in reincarnation, now logically comes to this conclusion, having seen it demonstrated in this way, and not being able to explain it any other way. It makes sense, and it is logical. I would suggest another explanation. The person under hypnosis, for this particular occasion, and for my own explanation, is temporarily possessed by a deceiving spirit, a demon, that makes it look like this person knows this ancient language, and that the reason is because they really did know it in a previous lifetime. Rather than get off topic, I am stopping here, hoping that this is an acceptable example of logic coming to an incorrect conclusion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Most atheists, including myself, are agnostic, not gnostic. We don't firmly believe that deities don't exist, but rather we lack faith in their existence due to a lack of evidence that they do exist.

Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.

Again, the problem is that I don't believe in said being due to the lack of evidence that it exists.

Although, certain aspects of various religious texts have been disproven.

I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).

Ever heard the phrase "you can't prove a negative"? It applies here. I, nor anyone else, can disprove the existence of deities... or unicorns... or one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters. Why would you believe any of those things exist without evidence for their existence?

 

[Nithavela]

I feel that some christians try to use the argument of "well, you can't be 100% certain" as a "foot in the door" to then later drive for conversion (preferably to their own denomination of course).

I say, if you can't disprove that I have a poster of a Tank hanging in my bedroom, then you can't expect me to disprove a diety that you have defined so vaguely that he might as well not exist at all and it would make no difference.

 

[Nithavela]

I would say the theoristic Big Bang (a bang I don't believe in) would be the beginning of time or the universe, because what ever supposedly went "bang" would have been in existence in time and space before it went "bang."

That's not what the big bang theory actually says.

It wasn't an explosion like a firecracker.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is because they have taken a position just as much as the theist has. Both have taken a position.

-_- not really. Like I said, most atheists are agnostic as well, so theists are saying "yes" and atheists are saying "I don't know, but there isn't enough evidence for me to conclude "yes"".

Trying to put the weight of the argument on the person that says yes is intellectually dishonest.

No, it really isn't. It's a rule that the person making the POSITIVE claim is the one that has to back it up, because the position of the negative claim is the null hypothesis. The function of a null hypothesis is thus: if the evidence doesn't support the original hypothesis or there isn't any, the null hypothesis is the default conclusion to make.

If you don't know.. then the proper stance is you don't know... not "No/Atheism".

Agnosticism is a knowledge statement, and atheism is a belief statement. Thus, as an agnostic atheist, I would say "I don't know if deities exist or not, but due to the lack of evidence, I don't believe in any deities".

You've been describing a minority among the atheist community, which is the gnostic atheist. A gnostic atheist would say "I know deities don't exist, hence why I don't believe in them". It's generally considered to be a logically unsound position to have, which is why there are very few gnostic atheists. Unfortunately, a lot of people, like yourself, conflate atheism with the stance of a gnostic atheist exclusively, and behave as if all agnostic atheists are under the label "agnostic" alone... which makes no sense, because agnostic theists exist. That is, people that would say "I don't know deities exist, but I believe in them regardless".