There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[TLK Valentine]

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

So how does one prove a negative?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Can you explain what that means? presumably you don't mean a force as defined in physics - what does 'force' in your definition mean? following on from that, how can such a 'force' be intelligent? what makes you think this ?

In what sense does everything 'extend' from this 'force' ? if it is non-physical, then wouldn't extensions of it also be non-physical?

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.

That sentence is incoherent to me, but the God force described above certainly isn't a scientific description or explanation.

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.

As I understand it, most atheists don't have a problem with theism unless it impinges (or threatens to impinge) significantly on their lives - particularly in ways they feel are detrimental; as someone said on rights and freedoms, "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins". Live & let live.

As you suggest, the problem is more likely to be a result of organized religion than of individual's personal beliefs, but it's not really a question of the image of God being tainted - atheists don't believe in God - it's a question of what theists do in, and expect of, society.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Frankly, atheism doesn't need a logical argument beyond 'I see no good reason to believe'.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread was moved from Creation & Evolution to Christian Apologetics.
​

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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

You're confused.

The burden of proof is yours, not mine. You have not met it.

 

[bhsmte]

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

As an atheist, towards the christian definition of god, i dont claim a god does not exist. My position is, i cant reconcile the christian story with well evidenced reality and at this time, dont have any reason to believe the claims.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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

You are the one who must prove a negative. Atheists are off the hook here.

You, as a Christian, must positively affirm that Thor does not exist. His existence would contradict your theology. So good luck proving that negative.

Atheists are the group formed when removing all theists. Theists believe in a deity. Atheists do not believe in a deity, but that doesn't mean they believe no deity exists.

And do let me know about your proof that Thor does not exist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

This is why that argument doesn't seem logical. Unless you can provide a logical argument as to how the universe sprung from nothing and started itself.

What did God act on when he created the universe? Nothing, I reckon, since nothing existed. So... will you say that there is some actual difference between acting on nothing and doing nothing? What is the difference, or what is wrong with my thinking? What did God actually do?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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".

So atheism is the one exception to how the "a-" prefix operates?

 

[Moral Orel]

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

If you find an atheist on these boards that makes that claim ("There is no god"), let me know, because I haven't seen one yet. If the thread starts out with a straw man in the first sentence, it isn't really worth discussing the rest of the post.

ETA If you wanted to tell atheists that they're labelling themselves wrong and should call themselves agnostic since they don't make the claim you stated ("There is no god"), that's a whole other topic that's been done many, many, many, many times before.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If you find an atheist on these boards that makes that claim ("There is no god"), let me know, because I haven't seen one yet.

Depends on the 'god' concept. Some of them are logically incoherent. Logically incoherent beings cannot - and by extension, do not - exist.

For example, you might claim 'everyone knows my god exists', like certain brands of presuppositional apologists do, as per Romans 1. But since I am aware of at least one person who does not know it - namely, me - I can be 100% certain your god does not exist, because you've predicated his nature on a condition that I, and only I, have direct access to.

So while the point holds in the broad sense, there are specific conditions in which I can truthfully claim 'there is no god (at least as far as you've described him)'.

 

[Moral Orel]

Depends on the 'god' concept. Some of them are logically incoherent. Logically incoherent beings cannot - and by extension, do not - exist.

For example, you might claim 'everyone knows my god exists', like certain brands of presuppositional apologists do, as per Romans 1. But since I am aware of at least one person who does not know it - namely, me - I can be 100% certain your god does not exist, because you've predicated his nature on a condition that I, and only I, have direct access to.

So while the point holds in the broad sense, there are specific conditions in which I can truthfully claim 'there is no god (at least as far as you've described him)'.

If all you can prove is that specific god-concepts don't exist then all you're proving is that "if there is a god, he isn't like that". Let's say I look at the Christian God, who is supposed to be love itself, and I prove through the problem of evil that He lacks empathy. I didn't disprove the existence of the Christian God, I disproved that the Christian God is love itself. Everything else in the Bible might be 100% true, except for His motivations to act the way he did. I definitely wouldn't say that He doesn't exist because of that.

In your example, all you've proven is that not everyone knows that god exists. It's a far stretch to say that you've disproven the existence of a being because one claim about him is false.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If all you can prove is that specific god-concepts don't exist then all you're proving is that "if there is a god, he isn't like that". Let's say I look at the Christian God, who is supposed to be love itself, and I prove through the problem of evil that He lacks empathy. I didn't disprove the existence of the Christian God, I disproved that the Christian God is love itself. Everything else in the Bible might be 100% true, except for His motivations to act the way he did. I definitely wouldn't say that He doesn't exist because of that.

Hence why I add the qualifiers - 'in specific conditions', and '...as you've described him'.

I know, with 100% certainty, that there is no god whose existence is known to all people. Some other nebulous 'god' concept could still exist, but it's not the one you're talking about in this universe of discourse.

 

[HitchSlap]

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

It’s illogical to believe in something you don’t believe exists.

Does this statement seem logical to you?

 

[Moral Orel]

Hence why I add the qualifiers - 'in specific conditions', and '...as you've described him'.

I know, with 100% certainty, that there is no god whose existence is known to all people. Some other nebulous 'god' concept could still exist, but it's not the one you're talking about in this universe of discourse.

But the way you're doing it just muddies things unnecessarily and actually makes threads like this seem more reasonable. Yahweh can still exist, He just doesn't have the qualities people think He does.

Let's say I'm on a dating app talking to a girl named Tina. She tells me that she spent her summer in the Swiss Alps to seem more interesting, then later I find out she lives in Jersey and has never left the state. I don't say, "Tina doesn't exist, at least not as she described herself". I just say "Tina is a liar, she didn't spend her summer in the Swiss Alps". Heck, even if I found out that she was just a bot that was designed to infect my computer with spam viruses, Tina would still exist, she just wouldn't be a human.

All that isn't to say it isn't ridiculous to try and shift the burden of proof like this thread does. If you concoct some impossible to disprove idea, you don't get points for showing that people can't disprove it. No one wastes their time trying to disprove that all of reality isn't a hallucination induced by a trickster daemon either. But overstating your claim as an atheist just makes threads like this seem more reasonable, if you're saying "I can prove this god or that god doesn't exist".

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

But the way you're doing it just muddies things unnecessarily and actually makes threads like this seem more reasonable. Yahweh can still exist, He just doesn't have the qualities people think He does.

No, there comes a point when you've stripped away enough qualities that you are no longer talking about Yahweh.

If I say to you, I'm thinking of an airplane that doesn't fly, has no wings, no landing gears, no rutters, no engines, no cockpit, no cabin and is made entirely of bacon... at what point am I no longer describing an airplane?

Let's say I'm on a dating app talking to a girl named Tina. She tells me that she spent her summer in the Swiss Alps to seem more interesting, then later I find out she lives in Jersey and has never left the state. I don't say, "Tina doesn't exist, at least not as she described herself". I just say "Tina is a liar, she didn't spend her summer in the Swiss Alps".

Except none of that is related to the actual ontological nature of 'Tina'.

Heck, even if I found out that she was just a bot that was designed to infect my computer with spam viruses, Tina would still exist, she just wouldn't be a human.

Now, that is related to the ontological nature of 'Tina'... and I disagree with you completely. If a spam virus is still 'Tina', then what does ontology even mean? It's hopelessly plastic.

 

[variant]

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.

There isn't really enough information to rule out physical/non-physical interactions.

If something exists that we would not term it "physical" like the universe, say, pre-space/time then we don't have any data to say how it would interact with the universe as we know it in a physical sense today (via physics).

So, a exclusively dualist definition of such a state is free to be wrong.

 

[variant]

God is ill defined and there exist little way of telling a universe with a God from one that lacks one.

This means that God is a properly unknowable abstract concept with little means of evaluation beyond preference among metaphysical systems of the observer.

Since metaphysical preferences are not a good means of knowing or believing in things, such a concept lacks proper support or believably.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, there comes a point when you've stripped away enough qualities that you are no longer talking about Yahweh.

If I say to you, I'm thinking of an airplane that doesn't fly, has no wings, no landing gears, no rutters, no engines, no cockpit, no cabin and is made entirely of bacon... at what point am I no longer describing an airplane?

I don't think you can strip that many qualities from Yahweh though, even we were to take every logical argument against Him as fact. For starters, you can't disprove that a deist kind of god doesn't exist, right? So you can't disprove that Yahweh isn't a personal, intelligent being that created the universe. So what else could possibly be proven about Him that would make Him cease to be Yahweh?

 

[Tayla]

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

Atheists have lots of good arguments that there is no God, why is this controversial?