What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 590
Topic's author
#241
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The logical assumption behind it is that if it's true that belief in God is irrational, most of the brightest minds on earth all held this irrational belief. So you're left questioning whether they really irrationally held this belief, not whether the belief itself is true or untrue.

Comparing God to Santa or Big Foot is a mistake. We have inductive evidence against santa and big foot.



Topic's author
#242
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Your criteria for testing is insufficient to prove the existence of things you hold to be true, like math and logic.
#243
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
That may be true. However, there is more than one kind of God in which not to believe. There is the notion of deism which would solve the paradox of existence but is only one of an unknown number of possibilities. I give that theory a higher probability than that of theism which provides no evidence of any personal interaction between God and sentient beings. Rather than thinking of it as a complete lack of belief, I consider each possibility to have a higher or lower probability.
Well stated.
#244
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
There's lot of things I don't believe in - Feng shui, magic crystals, lay lines, gods, the tooth fairy, horoscopes, yetis.. there's more but you get the point.  atheism is incidental to my worldview, not central to it.
Well stated.
#245
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze

You are correct again there is no evidence in either direction for the idea of some god(s) though most of the specific god concepts that have been posited to me we have inductive evidence against them in exactly that way.
#246
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Maybe because god is important to theists they think god is important us... but its RELIGION that matters to atheists, particularly its many negative aspects. 
#247
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Your criteria for testing is insufficient to prove the existence of things you hold to be true, like math and logic.
Mathematics and logic are Quantifiable and independently verifiable.

The computer sitting before you at this very moment is proof positive that both mathematics and logic are valid, practical, and measurable.
#248
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Maybe because god is important to theists they think god is important us... but its RELIGION that matters to atheists, particularly its many negative aspects. 
Well stated.
#249
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Your criteria for testing is insufficient to prove the existence of things you hold to be true, like math and logic.
That's alright if I don't view them as physical objects anyway only as a way of relating. They are as real as any other abstract concept such as love or evil. Both of which may be no more then brain chemistry in action. So long as they yield results who cares if they are real physical objects. If they are useful then they have physically measurable results. If you can use math to build a rocket and launch humans into space then there is a real physical effect. The rate of acceleration necessary to escape earth gravity is constant even without math but with math human beings can relate the idea in a way that is manageable. That fits in the mind. Physical reality is not built on math math is built on physical reality. Same goes for logic. Logic is not the observation it is the evaluation of the observation. That is why it is so important to apply logic as much as possible only to things you have observed.

#250
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
But its RELIGION that matters to atheist.
Nice keith

I almost think of God as a set of car keys. 
A jingle jangle jingle. Everyone focus on god. 

God doesn't exists.
Yes he does 
No he don't.
Does to 
Does not 
But he is real .
No it ainf 
Is 
Isn't.

And this continues on and on. 

Everyone talk about .
Focus on god. 

And whilst this goes on .  Religious group's sits in the corner not saying peep. 

Well Lets talk about Religious groups . 

Jangly jangling jingle jingle , 
Hang on that's god .
But he doesn't even exist.
Yes he does 
No 
Yes .
No way does he exist 
Yes way .

 Religious groups sneaks back to the corner.
Do you say religious goups. 

But god aint like real 
Yess god is real. 

If you believe in God , you join a groip. 

Joining / picking a religion is you knowing What holy book was the real one inspired by the real god. 
 

#251
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Physical reality is not built on math math is built on physical reality.
This guy might disagree.



Topic's author
#252
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Which defintion of God has no evidence either way? And I think we understand the term "evidence" differently. You understand it to mean something that has a measurable physical effect and I understand it to mean information indicating the truth of a claim.

Mathematical and logical truths are not just subjectively true. If math is built on physical reality then we'd never know of pure geometry since perfect geometric shapes do not exist other than theoretically. If math was built on physical reality then we wouldn't have knowledge of 0 and negative numbers. You cannot share statements of knowledge without presupposing the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic.
#253
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I enjoy your posts, deb!

It makes no odds - theists will still think we hate God.
#254
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
You cannot share statements of knowledge without presupposing the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic.

I agree we must make the presupposition. Presupposition is not always useful in determining truth. For example we have no way of knowing that the laws of physics (and therefore the invented mathematical language we reference it with) do not break down before the big bang. So we can accept these laws as universal but we have no way of knowing that they are. Even if they are universal to our local physical (observable) reality.
Topic's author
#255
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Have you dropped my other arguments?


I don't see the physical material effect of logical or mathematical truths which themselves are not just subjectively true.
#256
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm sorry but even if math and logic exist as more than a human invention  they are not concerned with any god(s). How do you obtain information that indicates anything without measuring physical effects?
Topic's author
#257
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
A priori knowledge. Mathematical and logical truths are not known through physical, measurable effects. 
#258
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
That is exactly how they are known. If we could not confirm mathematical and logical truths in a measurable way how could we know That they were trustworthy?
#259
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
In any case that has nothing to do with the existence of a being that cannot be quantified through math or logic.
Topic's author
#260
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
We knew about the Higgs particle decades before it was verified empirically through pure math alone.

Math and logic can both be used to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. Kurt Godels modal ontological argument, using axioms of logic, was computer verified.



#261
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
A computer has verified that your god exists. Citation please.
#262
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Why do Christians worship a god invented 3k years ago and not one invented 200k years ago?
#263
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
Why do Christians worship a god invented 3k years ago and not one invented 200k years ago?

YHWH is probably very old.   He would have been one of the many gods in a middle eastern pantheon whose origin is lost in antquity.  

It was the custom for each tribe or city-state to have its own 'patron' god selected from this pantheon - the Canaanites had baal, the babylonians had marduk etc. YHWH ws the patron god of the Hebrew.  That is the Hebrews believed YHWH was one god amongst many, but it was YHWH who protected them, in exchange for exclusive worship.

At least that was the view of the Hebrew's priests of YHWH!  The Hebrew people do not seem to have been solid,unwavering YHWHists.  Nor  did all their kings.   The (largely fictitious) history of the Hebrews in the OT is a cycle of disasters befalling the Hebrew as punishment for apostasy, often in the form of military defeat.  Then a messianic figures comes forward who restores YHWHism and the Hebrews start to win battles again, until the next disaster.

About 3000 years ago (C7th bce) after a terrible defeat at the hands of the babylonians, the exiled priests of YHWH set about writing down all the old legends of the hebrew, nturally with YHWH in thes starring role!   

So YHWH wasn't invented 3000 years ago, but his character got set in stone (or written on scrolls) about then.   but YHWH is much older than that - perhaps not quite 200,000 years old, but more than 3000.

   

#264
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
The Hebrews when they separated from the Canaanites took yhwh with them along with El, Asherah and Baal. The claim that yhwh is older than 3k is moot at least.
#265
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
I'dsay the Christian God - ie a single monotheistic deity - really dates from exilic times when YHWH was transformed from a tribal god into 'the one true god'.   But YHWH existed a long time before that - the other gods were killed off or demoted to 'false gods' by YHWH's priests.
#266
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
There are plenty of historical accidents that made Christianity the dominant religion in Europe and from there, the world.  Being adopted by the Roman Empire was critical.

Of course Christians today would say it was fated to be that way, but they'd say that if it was the worship of mithras or dionysus they followed!e
#267
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
It may be true that humans have an ingrained propensity to make up supernatural explanations. A supernatural explanation of what though? The Big Bang represents the expansion of all space-time and energy in the universe from a zero-dimensional point - a point where all of the natural laws known today, including physics and the law of conservation of mass were completely broken down according to Hawking. This actually indicates a non-natural (AKA supernatural) explanation.
You are attempting to justify the "God of the gaps" fallacy, where gaps in scientific knowledge are interpreted as evidence for God or the supernatural.

Known laws of physics breaking down does not imply the supernatural. It merely implies unknown laws of  physics.
#268
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
God would have designed nature so there'd be a certain level of intellect exhibited in nature. That said, God is not "intertwined" in nature. A programmer is beyond the program he creates. He is not contained by it but he leaves signatures of his intelligence inside the program. 
Stating how God would have designed nature is just a bald assertion. And I don't know what you mean by "intellect" in nature.

The theistic God is like a programmer who is constantly rewriting sections of code. That rewriting ought to be detectable, Any effect in the physical universe ought to be measurable. If it does not have a measurable effect,  then God existing is no different from God not existing as far as the physical universe is concerned.

The number of versions of something conceived beforehand does not make it more or less likely that the next version is any more or less likely to exist. It 100% depends on the defintion. This also overlooks the commonalities in many different variations of God. One of those commonalities for instance is an eternal consciousness, not Christianity or Islam.
A hundred people claim to have been abducted by aliens, and you investigate each one and find no evidence to support their story and in many cases evidence that contradicts their story. Should you take the hundred-and-first person's claim just as seriously as the first?

Commonalities between religions are easily explained by commonalities between the human brains that invented them.
Topic's author
#269
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
My conclusion is based on information - not absence of information - so it is not a "God of the Gaps" fallacy. The expansion of the entire physical universe from a zero-dimensional point, a point at which all laws in the universe were broken down, indicates a non-physical (and therefore supernatural) explanation.
Topic's author
#270
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
By "intellect exhibited in nature" I mean cohesive, rationally structured, mathematically predictable, intelligible, purpose-oriented, etc.

There's no reason to expect God to rewrite the program or for us to be able to detect this if it happened. It probably wouldn't be needed in the first place since if God has the power to create the entire universe I think he'd know what he was doing.

We have evidence against alien abductions and certain gods that have been posited. The claim wholly depends on the evidence, not past variations.