What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[Flail]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

Interesting question Harvey1 - apparently simple and straightfoward on the surface but not so when looked at in depth..

For a start an atheist may or may not claim that god doesn't exist. The only requirement for atheism is a non-belief in a god. This is different to making a positive statement that god does not exist. These are often called weak and strong atheism.

Secondly as Enigma states - which god? The god of christianity, very involved, not only in the creation but also intervening - giving commands, inspiring writers, sending himself to be sacrificed et al. Or a god than clicked his fingers, got the whole ball rolling then sat back and watched impassively?

As this is the christan sub-forum, I will assume, for sake of argument, that you refer to the interventionist christian god. In the case of this entity I would describe myself as a strong atheist. From the point of view of logic, the Argument for Non Belief, the Argument from Evil and and the Argument from Prayer, all of which are based around god's own words (as the bible is claimed to be) are sufficient proof of the non-existence of the christian god. This logic is backed up by personal experience - basically self enquiry through reading and meditation.

In the case of a non-interventionist god I would say I am a little closer to weak atheism in that, while I cannot see any reason for there being such an entity, I do not discount the possibility with as much conviction. That said, over recent times I have moved closer to a strong atheism - and very much doubt the existene of any supernatural entity.

So belief or otherwise in god is going to depend very much on definition and I do not doubt that a definition of god could be put with which I agree. For example....god is the universe. That begs the question - why call it god.

When asking this question of atheists I always believe it is good to ask why a christian doesn't belive in Zeus, or Odin, or ...{insert name of any of gods in whom belief hsa been expressed}

In short, I do not believe in god because I know of no reason why one should exist.

An interesting old thread that discusses atheism in some depth. Any current thoughts?

[Flail]

An interesting old thread on the issues of atheism. Any current thoughts?

[ChaosBorders]

Posit X is a feature of human understanding.

1. X is necessary or has a necessary part.
2. If theism is true, then divine creation obtains.
3. If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to God�s act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary.
4. If theism is true, then no X can be necessary or have a necessary part. (from 2 and 3)
5. Theism is false. (from 1 and 4)

This is a terrible argument. Firstly it has a false premise in that I don't think you can show anything as objectively 'necessary'. Secondly I'm not even sure what 2 is trying to say at all. 3 is a big 'so what?' even if true, and also may well be false in that the creation of the universe may be an inherently necessary act as the result of God's nature. It's like the atheist version of ontological arguments or something. Just terrible.

[Humble Bystander]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

There is no evidence of the tooth fairy, even though it is an universal concept. That does not mean evidence is needed to not believe in fairies. Of course, we can not be sure of their existence (agnosticism), but based on all possible lack of evidence, as opposed to evidence, their existence is implausible and therefore, not believable.

[anontheist]

[Replying to post 1 by harvey1]
Two Arguments Against the Existence of God


I am sure, if you are a Christian, that these arguments will do nothing to change your mind about the existence of God. They did not change mine.

I had two things that made these arguments ineffective. One is my salvation experience and two, was God’s word. So, no matter what arguments were raised, I was still secure with my belief.

First, the Bible as “God’s word� had to be put into question. This was done over a matter of several years in college. Then, the fact that other religions had similar experiences, which justified their belief, led me to question my experience. Studying Philosophy started me on the path to questioning the existence of God. It tends to do that.

So, here are a couple of philosophical questions.

Question 1

I believe that the concept “God� is simply a human creation. But for the sake of argument, let us assume God exists. Will this idea lead to anything absurd?

It just seems to me that either God is not what one thinks he is or he does not exist.

It has been suggested by a few Christians (at least in some of the Christian writings that I have read) that God is perfect. That is just one of God’s attributes; perfection. But, what would this mean?

What does it mean to be perfect?

If there were a perfect being, what would be the point of doing anything? What would be the motivation?

If one were perfect, one would have no needs, no wants, no desires, for there would be nothing you would need or want. For, if there were something you would want or need, you would not be perfect.

It has been suggested God being perfect, is full of love, and wants to share this love with others.

Why?

Where does this “want� come from?

Why would you want something, (to share your love) unless you need something, (to be loved back)? Perhaps you want someone to respond to your love. But why do you need a response? I mean, if you are prefect, why would you care if someone loved you or not? What would be the point?

It would seem odd, that a god would decide to create something merely to demonstrate its love. What would be the purpose? If one is perfect there is no need to share anything. And if one were perfect no response would be necessary.

With this in mind, let us consider an argument.

Argument 1

1.If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
(Otherwise, he would not be perfect.)

4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
(Unless one can suggest that this was done without a motive or some desire.)

5. Hence, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Or, I would suggest, God is not perfect.

#4, it has been suggest that the reason the universe exists, is God created it. But the question still remains, why? What was the motive? To offer God as a reason for the existence of the universe is not an explanation, if you cannot answer the question, why did God create the universe? To suggest “God� only answers the question. How? Not Why?

But, to answer the question �why?� would suggest a motive. But any motive to do anything would suggest some desire. If there were some desire, this would suggest something wanted. Does it make sense to suggest that a perfect being can want something? Not if he is to remain perfect.

So, God can do whatever he wants. He just cannot be “perfect� in doing so.

Perhaps a better question would be, how could a being that is perfect do anything?

Question 2

Now, a perfect being would not need to change because it is perfect. Change would mean something is not perfect, or less than perfect and some adjustment are necessary.

It has been said that God is unchanging. And I have even seen some references to scripture to support this belief. So, one of the attributes of God is immutability. God is unchanging.

If something is perfect, then there is no need to change.

With this in mind, let us consider another idea.

Argument 2

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at another time not have that intention.
(Because, that would be a change.)

4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at another time, (after the creation), no longer have the intention to create it.

5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Or, as I would suggest, perhaps God changes.

There are a couple of issues to deal with.

#3, it has been suggested that God is outside of time, so one cannot suggest that there is such a thing as time when talking about God.

But we are talking about a sequence of events, not time, as such, that is part of the universe. And one cannot escape the sequence without running into other problems.

If it is suggested that God is “outside� of time and that his “intention� cannot have happened in what we would call a sequence. What this would suggest is that God both intended and did not intend. (Since it has been suggested that time is not a part of God’s existence). But this leads to a contradiction. So, does the concept of God still exist?

Of course prior to the existence of the universe God had not willed the universe into existence, so there was a change from God not having yet willed the universe into existence to doing so.

There was a point that the universe came into existence (if you wish to say that God did it). Since it has been suggested that God created the universe, and you suggest that the universe is not eternal, there has to be some point that the universe came into existence. At that point, God “willed� (or whatever) the universe into existence. But at some point it was over. The universe exists. So, there is no longer the need to “will� anything. So, there was a change. God willed the universe into existence, when it was done, he stopped, and He changed.

#4, now, did God intend to create the universe?

When he created the universe, did he still intent to create it?

This last question does not seem to make much sense.

So, either God changed because his intentions changed, which means God is not immutable, or God does not exist.

One can suggest that God cannot change. But then how do you explain the change from nonexistence to existence of the universe? If God, “did it� then God changed. Even if it was just his intention or will that changed.

I would tend to think that if one was rational, one would either have to change one’s belief about the attributes of God, or consider the possibility that such a thing as a God, does not exist.

You will find these and other arguments in a somewhat new book, The Impossibility of God. Edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, By Prometheus Books.

So, did I change anyone's mind?

[Mr.Badham]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

I think the problem with God is that there isn't just one. And because what God wants would appear to be subjective, it seems to me there are as many gods as there are people who believe in them.

The evidence for each is equally valid, but because only one can be correct, and they all make the same basic claim, it would seem that they are all equally unlikely.

People may make claims based on miracles or intense feelings, but this can be explained away using placebo and the fact that all religions claim miracles.

God isn't just something that exists in isolation. Without things like Heaven and the soul, there is no god, and without evidence of Heaven or a soul, there is no reason to believe in god.

I can't be an agnostic, because there are people who claim there is a god. If no one made any claims about God, I would be agnostic.

[Divine Insight]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

It's not the claim of atheism that no God exists. Atheism is simply the position that there is no compelling reason to believe in a God. That's quite different from claiming that no God exists.

Also if you want to speak of a specific God, like say that God of the Bible. It is extremely easy to prove using the Bible alone that the Biblical God cannot exist. The Bible simply requires that its God character must have self-contradictory characteristic.

For example, the Biblical God is supposed to be omniscient and especially knowing what it going to happen in the future. The entire Bible is based on prophesies supposedly coming true because God foretold what would happen.

Yet in the story of Noah and the Great Flood when God drowns out humanity for being sinners, the Bible claims that God repented that he had ever created mankind that it would come to the point where he had to drown them all.

Well, there you have it. I supposedly omniscient God who was surprised by the fact that he would need to drown out humanity for having all turned to sin. That's a contradiction.

If the Bible were consistent it would have had this God rejoicing when he drowned out the humans and proclaiming that his Master Plan was going precisely as he had expected that it would go.

So it's easy to show the the Biblical God doesn't exist.

Got any other God's you would like to disprove?

I'm not sure if I can disprove the existence of Zeus. Insofar as I know Zeus doesn't have any self-contradictions that could be used to demonstrate that he's an oxymoron. I don't believe Zeus was ever claimed to be omniscient, all-righteous, or benevolent. Therefore Zeus could get away with quite a bit and not result in a self-contradiction. But the Biblical God is easy to disprove.

[Talishi]

It's not the claim of atheism that no God exists. Atheism is simply the position that there is no compelling reason to believe in a God. That's quite different from claiming that no God exists

Theist: The universe was created by God.

Atheist: I don't believe you.

That's it!

[Talishi]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist.

Occam's razor.

Theists claim:

1) There's a God who has always existed.
2) This God made reality.

Atheists claim:

1) There is a reality that has always existed.

Shorter answer wins.

[Monta]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist.

Occam's razor.

Theists claim:

1) There's a God who has always existed.
2) This God made reality.

Atheists claim:

1) There is a reality that has always existed.

Shorter answer wins.

There is a God who has always existed who is reality itself.