hinduwoman

I have carefully thought about this evidence for non-existence of God, and it seems to me that the best 'evidence' is there is no evidence for existence of God: A creator God/omnipotent being of any kind. If we don't take this stance from the first we atheists get into difficulties.
If we take the agnostic position that it is impossible to know if a God exists or not, we must also admit it is impossible to know if a particular deity exists or not. It is no use saying that Yehovah is self-contradictory or cruel etc, because it takes us into the argument of "God moves in mysterious ways" . God is by its very definition beyond human comprehension --- so you cannot hope to understand his purposes. If we cannot hope to know God, then we cannot ever hope to know whether Yehovah actually exists or not.

Again if we start an argument by saying "Let us assume God exists" then you really cannot hope to show that the particular God you are attacking cannot exist. If any God exists, then it can very well be a particular god worshipped by some humans. Maybe this God for some reason chooses only to show itself to particular people but not to others; maybe it likes to mislead people. The very hypothesis that a god can exist allows all these things through the backdoor. How do you know the IPU does not exist? At most you can show it is a cruel or even mentally deranged god, which does not negate its existence.

Most of the arguments I see here are directed against the Abrahamic God. But merely proving that Yehovah is not omnibenevolent or omnipotent does not mean that he does not exist. It might deconvert Christians, but sometimes they straight go to other religions including Hinduism. The arguments against Christianity do not apply in toto against these other religions.

That is why I think the only certain way of keeping god out is to insist there is no evidence and be strong atheists.

diana

I agree, hinduwoman.

However, I do enjoy dabbling in "scripture" to point out things that just don't make sense. I also enjoy bandying about discussions of God's omnibenevolence vs. his omniscience.

I've found it's good to be fairly proficient in all angles of debate, because many people simply are incapable of thinking in abstract ideas long enough to understand that they can't prove God. For many people, this is just too much to think about, let alone grasp.

You never can tell what it is that will catch a person's ear and get them to seriously think about their faith. For some, it's the realization that there is no evidence to prove an EoG. For others, it's the conflicting qualities of God. For others, it might be the argument from evil. Some might start questioning the day they notice that the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection can't be made to agree.

I know...just because it works for Xns doesn't mean it'll work for other religions. I tend to focus on Xnty because it is my bane. And it seems to me that most believers, once they question their the faith of their fathers, don't bother looking elsewhere. Once you blow the faith they learned from the cradle, they don't even consider the rest.

But exceptions do exist.

d

Robert G. Ingersoll

The majority, yes, but many of my aquaintances and friends rejected the xnity of their childhood, only to become believers in reincarnation, psychic powers, astrology, etc.
Sad, but true.

But here's a question - Hinduwoman, you say you are a 'strong' atheist, and Diana, you agree. So, if one is an atheist, how 'strong' an atheist need one be?

Would you agree that we should avoid logical fallacies and dogmatic attitudes, or even the appearance of such?

If so, then we agree we should avoid saying things like "I know there is no god", "God is in all cases absolutely impossible", 'I can prove there is no god", and statements of similar type? But this attitude is what is known philosophically as 'strong atheism', or so I understand.

The burden is on the one making the positive claim. The burden is therefore on the god believer. And one cannot prove a negative. Ergo, there would seem to be no good purpose served to voluntarily shift the burden to ourselves to prove a negative. Is there?

This position described above is, philosophically speaking, 'weak atheism', or what Athony Flew calls 'the presumption of atheism'.

I consider myself a 'strong' person in all the important ways, but is there anything wrong with me being a 'weak atheist'? I consider this the best approach to the debate. Am I wrong? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Robert G. Ingersoll ]</p>

Crito

Has anyone ever refuted the Defective Nature Doubt, proffered by Descartes in his Meditations? In a nutshell, it is the idea that a supernatural creator does exist, and this "god" is, in today's use of the word, the epitome of ultimate evil. For he has created humans with a defective mind - a mind that calculates 1+1 and, every time, erroneously results in 2! More broadly speaking, this Deceiver has made sure that we humans cannot deduce any truth -- and, for that matter, even think -- because our minds are inherently faulty.

The circuity here is immediately obvious: To refute Descartes we must provide some counterargument. Yet this counterargument relies intrinsically on human deduction, human thought - which is exactly what Descartes is discrediting! So Descartes says, "Our mental faculties are faulty." Then we reply, "Not true, because of P1, P2, therefore.." To which he replies, "I attacked the integrity of human inference, and now you're using such inference to refute my attack?" And of course, this skepticism must also be applied to each of Descartes statements, the result being an ugly inifinite recursion that continues to boggle my mind.

So, as you can see, we are placed in an inescapable predicament. When discoursing about metaphysics, we simply can't "assume" that our minds are accurate, that we weren't deceived from the getgo, for then we wouldn't really be talking about metaphysics.

The ultimate "conclusion", then, is that nobody can talk about anything! And that my post is at once a string of deductions, and an inscrutable mixture of words.

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]</p>

B. H. Manners

The theists argue that we can never prove there is no god. Well, okay the shoe fits. The theist can never prove their god is the god that exists if one indeed does.

Christian: Athesits, you cannot prove God does not exist.

Atheist: Okay, prove Baal does not exist and that he in fact is not the one true God.

LLaurieG

(Laurie) I agree with you, hinduwoman. Atheism is and should be the default position. None of us is born believing in a god. The burden of intellectual proof is on the theist asserting his or her god.

Personally I do not see eye to eye with the agnostic position. "We can't prove anything one way or another. We can't positively assert that no deity exists." I reject this reasoning because it puts the agnostic on a slippery slope to intellectual absurdity. "So, you won't rule out leprechauns on principle? You won't rule out centaurs, fairies, goblins, ghosts, little green aliens [insert favorite supernatural being here]." To me the agnostics' insistence on "truth and intellectual honesty" is misguided, is over-concern that makes them "so openminded that your brains fall out."

To religionists and agnostics who say "You can't prove there is no god," I reply "That's right - you can't - because logically you can't prove ANY negative. But let's get real. There aren't enough minutes in the day for me to wring my hands speculating as to the evidence for this, that, or whatever your particular deity is. With all due respect, get back to me when SOLID evidence crops up. Then we'll talk. Because here is no such evidence now. There is only the irrational, emotional wishful thinking of millions of believers in thousands of cults and religions. And this has been true for millennia. If there really was an actual Almighty Deity, then He or She has the power to make His or Her existence indisputably known. Until that happens, don't bother me."

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: LLaurieG ]</p>

kctan

He's the one who uses his brain to come up with this arguement isn't it ? By his own arguement, how valid is it then ? He already refuted himself the minute he thought it out.

Crito

Or, unlike you, an agnostic doesn't superciliously state that ghosts, goblins, and little green men are mere chimeras, simply because he has never experienced them. Only with execrable arrogance could you aver, "In my whole life I have never seen the almighty leprechaun. Therefore, it does not exist." And it is only the myopic who would use words such as "over-concern", as if you were some omniscient being, justified to say how much metaphysical concern is enough.

Atheists can only reply with the famous C'mon argument, insisting that it's "more reasonable" to believe that leprechauns don't exist, yet unable to corroborate why it's "more reasonable." And at this point, those claiming "God exists", those claiming "God does not exist", and those claiming "We can't know if God exists" are all in the same dogmatic row-boat, paddling aimlessly and proclaiming passionately that their view just "makes the most sense." The famous C'mon argument, indeed.

The only answer to "Does God exist?" is the declaration of ignorance: "I don't know." Any other answer is simply the product of an incomplete examination of metaphysics.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]</p>

Crito

Exactly. Hence the circulatory nature of this doubt.

It does bring up a fundamental problem, though: If we wish to know anything for certain, we must first prove that our faculties of inference are indeed accurate. And the facile answer "It's a priori" is insufficient, for, as Nietzsche said, we must first show that anything can be a priori.

Starboy

I think that discussing if god can or cannot be proved misses the point. God is a nonsense concept. In logic it is the equivalent of A and ~A both being true. In mathematics it is the equivalent of division by zero. It should not be allowed because it leads to nonsense. The kind of nonsense we are all ware of. To illustrate this point, take the statement: I am god. There is no experiment that can be conducted to support or dispute this claim. If anything spectacular occurs and I claim responsibility, again there is no test that can be conducted to confirm or dispute the claim. Even in the case where I could perform amazing feats there would be no test. So what good is it? A superstitious person might be swayed but a reasoning person would dismiss it.

Starboy