On the non-existence of god part I: Intellectual honesty and Santa

[Zhavric]

I've seen a growing problem in threads concerning the existence of god. Theists aren't honestly addressing the claims they make. Specifically, they create special pleadings for their particular god and aren't willing to truly scrutinize the claims they're making.

Let's begin with some common ground.

Joe and Bob are faced with the unsolved problem of where Christmas gifts come from.

Joe offers the Santa hypothesis which goes like this: "A jolly man who lives in the North Pole has teams of elves that make gifts for him which he transports via flying reindeer to every child on the planet (that's been nice) in one night and delivers by way of chimney."

Bob points out that this cannot be literally true. He proceeds to patiently point out all the physics and science which Joe's hypothesis contradicts. "We know reindeer can't fly. We know fat people can't fit down chimneys. We know no one could reach every household in one night. Where is your evidence?" Joe has none.

Instead, Joe attempts to create special pleadings in order to keep his sinking hypothesis afloat. He may attempt one of two options, both of which are dishonest:

1. He may attempt to redefine Santa to avoid the issues that Bob has raised. This is a terrible method of argumentation because the end result is something nonsensical. "I believe in Santa, but my Santa have elves to make toys, doesn't have flying reindeer, and doesn't deliver gifts to every house in one night." How could such a contradictory hypothesis possibly solve the question of how Christmas gifts arrive? It cannot. It's completely useless to us as an explanation for how the gifts arrive. If anything, it simply confuses the situation as we're left to wonder just how someone who doesn't deliver gifts all in one night delivers gifts all in one night.
2. Worse, he may try to downplay the validity of our scientific knowledge or simply ignore it. We may hear Joe give any number of 'what if' scenarios to try to counter Bob's appeals to evidence and common sense. "What if there are reindeer that can fly?" "What if Santa can move really fast?" He may not use the words 'what if' in his reply, but this doesn't matter. We cannot accept this line of reasoning because it is attempting to counter proven facts with unproven speculation. Without evidence, facts always trump speculation.
3. Joe may also try to interchange the concept of Santa with his literal claim of Santa. No one would deny that the concept of Santa is a nice sentiment that encourages children to not be naughty. However, we cannot blur that concept into the literal claims Joe had made.

Sadly, many theists are unwilling to invoke Bob's honesty when discussing god. Instead, they offer special pleadings.

Understand that the god hypothesis is an attempt to explain how the universe came to be. It goes like this: "An intelligent being created the universe." As we look into what's implied here, we find more and more problems that echo the dilemmas the Santa hypothesis faced.

The only intelligence we know of required evolution to produce it (or human designers to fabricate it electronically). So, the first problem with the hypothesis is "what made god?" What made god intelligent? What natural process lead to his intelligence or what intelligent being created god's intelligence? Theists have given any number of unsatisfactory answers, all very much like the three I listed for the Santa hypothesis. None of their answers have ever been accompanied by anything resembling evidence. We are simply demanded to believe as they do; by invoking special pleadings. We see the same problem with how god had created the universe. We know, through conservation of energy (a proven law) that energy cannot be created. Again, any and every explanation offered by theists suffers from one (or more) of the flaws of the Santa argument.

The purpose of this thread is to expose those special pleadings and to compel theists to invoke the same honesty they use in evaluating the Santa hypothesis when looking at their god hypothesis. If you can meet this challenge, you'll see that rational empirical inquiry will always trump supernaturalism.

[Chris the Chees]

Indeed Zhav. However you forgot one critical theistic argument. Once the theist has been shown to have an irrational position s/he will attempt to argue that the atheistic position is just as much a 'belief', as it equally lacks evidence to disprove God and is, therefor, equally irrational as theism.

[Nocebo]

Quote by: Chris the Chees However you forgot one critical theistic argument. Once the theist has been shown to have an irrational position s/he will attempt to argue that the atheistic position is just as much a 'belief', as it equally lacks evidence to disprove God and is, therefor, equally irrational as theism.

I also think we should address the Agnostic argument against Atheism as well, since it still traps a lot of the wishful-thinkers into that realm of indecisive-hopefulness.

[barts]

It seems to me that the theists' greater problem is not convincing others that there is a supernatural being, but rather the nature of that being. For example, for a Christian to argue that God is loving is to strain the notion of the term, when we so much unloving around us. To suggest that God answers prayers becomes difficult to accept when we prayers answered at no greater rate than would be suggested by random variation.

It seems to me that accepting gods is one thing, but how we are supposed to relate to the gods is another, and none of the theists seem to be in agreement about that relationship.

Christians will say that God is unknowable. How then do they know that God wants humans to pray to Him? Why would a being who is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving want his creation to grovel before Him? As I say, it's the nature of God as told to us by theists that is the real problem.

[leegao]

There's no Santa? Oh what a terrible day for Children everywhere.

[Nocebo]

Quote by: leegao There's no Santa? Oh what a terrible day for Children everywhere.

What ought to be is not what is.

[lycanos]

Theist: The earth is only 6000 years old, and since the bible's infallible there's no disputing it.

Atheist: Carbon dating, fossils, meteors, etc???

Theist: God put those there to test our faith.

Atheist: Oh, gotcha.

-Faith, the theist's ultimate answer to rationality.-

[Devil's Advocate]

I was always taught that God was just always there. He wasn't created, just always there. Pretty good way to explain that question, wouldn't you say? lol

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Devil's Advocate I was always taught that God was just always there. He wasn't created, just always there. Pretty good way to explain that question, wouldn't you say? lol

It's really the only way to deal with the issue. "God exists! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

[loser]

Sadly, many theists are unwilling to invoke Bob's honesty when discussing god. Instead, they offer special pleadings.

Sadly, most atheists are unwilling to be honest about their own special pleadings when discussing their own irrational beliefs.

Understand that the god hypothesis is an attempt to explain how the universe came to be. It goes like this: "An intelligent being created the universe." As we look into what's implied here, we find more and more problems that echo the dilemmas the Santa hypothesis faced.

No problems and no comparison. You can't make truth non-truth by showing the fallacy of non-truth.

The only intelligence we know of required evolution to produce it (or human designers to fabricate it electronically). So, the first problem with the hypothesis is "what made god?" What made god intelligent? What natural process lead to his intelligence or what intelligent being created god's intelligence?

The question exists with or without the premise of God. With God, you ask "What made God?" Without God, you ask "What made the universe?" Both questions are unanswerable regardless of the fancifulness of theory.

None of their answers have ever been accompanied by anything resembling evidence.

There is no evidence for beginnings; therefore, neither camp can offer any.

We are simply demanded to believe as they do; by invoking special pleadings.

Which is exactly what atheists do.

We know, through conservation of energy (a proven law) that energy cannot be created.

"A proven law" is a special pleading. Nothing of the sort has or can ever be proved. It's only a theory.

As an aside, if energy cannot be created, where did it come from?

The purpose of this thread is to expose those special pleadings and to compel theists to invoke the same honesty they use in evaluating the Santa hypothesis when looking at their god hypothesis. If you can meet this challenge, you'll see that rational empirical inquiry will always trump supernaturalism.

It should already be painfully clear that rational empirical inquiry presupposes the existence of God and completely refutes the supernatural belief in the non-existence of God.

Your analogy of Santa would fare better with another mythical belief (like evolution) than it does with a truth like God.

Once the theist has been shown to have an irrational position s/he will attempt to argue that the atheistic position is just as much a 'belief', as it equally lacks evidence to disprove God and is, therefor, equally irrational as theism.

You're starting with a false premise. It's not irrational to believe in God. It is, however, irrational (and illogical) to disbelieve.

It seems to me that the theists' greater problem is not convincing others that there is a supernatural being, but rather the nature of that being. For example, for a Christian to argue that God is loving is to strain the notion of the term, when we so much unloving around us. To suggest that God answers prayers becomes difficult to accept when we prayers answered at no greater rate than would be suggested by random variation.

Is the notion that a mother loves her children also strained by the fact that so many mothers kill their children? Is the notion that any human being has EVER cared for another human being strained because there is so much unloving around us? Should ALL prayers be answered? Is there any way to quantify or qualify the effects of prayers?

Variation explains a lot but I doubt if it is ever random. Life is an undisclosed set of cause and effect.

Christians will say that God is unknowable.

Just the opposite...He is very knowable.

How then do they know that God wants humans to pray to Him?

How do we know that a mother wants her child to come to her if that child needs anything at all?

Why would a being who is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving want his creation to grovel before Him?

What makes you think He does? You need to examine the reason why people 'grovel'. It's not the way you suppose it to be.

As I say, it's the nature of God as told to us by theists that is the real problem.

The problem is who you are listening to. Experiencing (or knowing) God second- or third-handed is not the way to go. Should I judge you by what others say about you?

Theist: The earth is only 6000 years old, and since the bible's infallible there's no disputing it.

Fallacy.

Atheist: Carbon dating, fossils, meteors, etc???

Misconceptions, misapplications, and faulty reasoning and calculations.

Theist: God put those there to test our faith.

No, to weed out the fools (i.e., "For the fool has said in his heart, there is no God.")

Faith, the theist's ultimate answer to rationality.-

Faith is the most rational characteristic that man possesses.

It only goes downhill from there.

[Gregory]

The kind of evidence for the existence of a higher power or supernatural being obviously must be different from the kind of evidence used to perform an experiment. Perhaps it would be better described as the kind of evidence used to convict a criminal in court. The crime cannot be reenacted, as an experiment could, but various bits and pieces leave the jury with the belief that the defendant is guilty or innocent.

I believe in a higher power for various reasons that have nothing to do with physics or reason. I spent several years reading Hawking and Greene and Dawkins and Nietzsche, and really to me what they have written is just a continuation of the circle of dialogue that has been going around for thousands of years since Thales and Socrates- who knows what the dialogue will look like even a hundred years from now? That doesn't mean that I ignore what is said- I certainly believe that most of the time physics is an adequate way to describe the physical things of the universe.

I came to my understanding of a higher power, though, by simply pretending for a while that one existed. For various reasons, I ended up being physically sick in such a way that it was strongly recommended by doctors and peers that I at least take up certain behaviors, like praying, that suggest that a higher power exist, because that had proven to be the best treatment for others. Basically what I was told is, "Just for a while, let's pretend you don't know what 2 plus 2 equals, and maybe it will turn out to be five." It's been about a year since that happened, and and a great number of little things have led me to believe that the criminal is innocent- that there is in fact some sort of supernatural, non-physical element to the universe. Does that make me a theist? I don't know, I don't really care, and I don't proselytize.

[lycanos]

You're starting with a false premise. It's not irrational to believe in God. It is, however, irrational (and illogical) to disbelieve.

Okay loser, since you think it's so great to take a simple joke and turn it into an argument (how does that work?) here it goes...

Do you understand what you're actually talking about or are you one of those people that sat in the back of science class and blamed god when you didn't understand?

Because when we are talking about evidence here, we are talking about two COMPLETELY different things.

A. The biggest piece of evidence that theists proffer for god is the bible. It's his word right? The canons of the bible are widely accepted to be put together by a group of rabbis that were trying to keep things straight and tidy. Before then the canons were just floating around the ancient world being passed word of mouth among the tribes. These ribbis decided which canons were good enough to make it in and which ones were best left off, and tada! The old testament is born.

So if all the canons were devinely inspired, why did the rabbis leave some out?

If all canons are devinely inspired, but some were left out...That means the holy word of god has been edited by human hands. Because if you leave something out with which god might have been trying to say something to further clarify other teachings, you're not getting the full message are you?

And if sinful man was messing around with god's law, doesn't that make it fallible?

In fact, if anyone nowadays edits or changes the original word doesn't that make it fallible?

See where I'm going here? How can the bible be infallible if you have 'forbidden books' in the first place?

Or are you going to argue that the rabbis were devinely inspired as well? Typical.

B. Again loser, I ask you, do you know what you're even talking about when you address the 'evidence' used by atheists? Because you fail to mention any specifics or recognize the basic logic we use in this discussion as the foundation of the scientific method BY WHICH ALL EXPERIMENTS MUST BE PREFORMED BY IN ORDER TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE COMMUNITY. Science just doesn't come up with crazy theories or 'you know what would be cool?' You follow evidence, concrete, form a hypothesis, preform experiments to replicate evidence that may or may support hypothesis, adjust hypothesis until you get it right to accurately portray evidence, repeat over and over, then show everybody what you've done.

So when scientists say they've proven something, that's exactly what they mean. They've proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt with concrete evidence. But if your're confused with the termonology of law and theory and stuch, here's a link Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method educate yourself.

And you want to know what all of science is founded upon? Math. Pure and simple logic at it's best. No hypothesis or even notion can get anywhere without it.

So are you going to argue that 2 + 2 does not infact = 4? And don't even start to accuse me of oversimplifying it, because that's exactly how it works. If you try to argue otherwise then you obviously haven't gotten past 12 grade calculus. And you're hiding behind god because you don't understand.

So tell me again EXACTLY with examples, how it is illogical to not believe in god? Especially when disbelief has it's foundations in math, logic's purest form. (Or are you going to say that math is made by man, and is fallible. Because then you could certainly argue that reality is not, up is down, down is up, and I'm a purple haired alien named Sally.)

And tell me again how it is perfectly logical (with examples) to believe in a supernatural being?

And remember buddy, science build on itself. If you want to dissasemble the big bang theory you'll have to end up dissproving the laws of physics, and ultimately proving to me 2 + 2 does not = 4.

I sincerely doubt you could do that. I know I can't. Which is why I don't believe in god. (But I used to, don't get me wrong.)

So in the end what do you really have left to argue with, as a theist? You don't have math to prove god, you don't have concrete evidence...

Oh yeah, was it faith?

(See my previous post)

[Gregory]

So if all the canons were devinely inspired, why did the rabbis leave some out?

Canon is actually the word for those books which were included. Therefore those books left out are not canon- and it could be said, therefore not divinely inspired. Not that I really agree, but you probably would want to know that for the future.

So when scientists say they've proven something, that's exactly what they mean. They've proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt with concrete evidence.

Not necessarily. Also, the only thing an experiment which follows strict scientific method can technically conclude is that "the experiment did not disprove the hypothesis." The hypothesis could theoretically be entirely off-base and just have achieved the hypothesized results by chance.

So in the end what do you really have left to argue with, as a theist? You don't have math to prove god, you don't have concrete evidence...

I try to argue as little as possible, but the theist probably has more tools on his side than you realize- otherwise, the world wouldn't be a majority theist. The tools I speak of are largely intangible- emotion, "experience", etc., but they have an effect nevertheless.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The issue isn't that one is religious, it is that one is capable of believing that all of creation is a mere... accident. That IMHO is the greater wonder.

God, is a social contract if you will, a limit on the actions of a person. Theist accept and embrace this reality, they understand that we are more then just walking bags of mostly water (if I might borrow from Star Trek).

The atheist rejects first, not the existence of God, but of the limits His being places upon them. From that start point, the Atheist proceeds to make up a logical foundation to reject God and thus be freed from the constraints the existence of God would place on them and their behavior.

This is seen as a moment of freedom, "I am human, I am in control of my life, there is no God!"

The question you must ask yourself is, why are those bonds so heavy to some, yet as freeing as wings to others. Therein you will find the truth.

[Jack]

The atheist rejects first, not the existence of God, but of the limits His being places upon them. From that start point, the Atheist proceeds to make up a logical foundation to reject God and thus be freed from the constraints the existence of God would place on them and their behavior.

Which god?
What atheism rejects are the unsubstantiated claims of religion concerning the existence of gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Convince me any particular god exists and I'll gladly submit to its demands. Until then I'll continue to consider the idea of gods as superstitious and nonsensical.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Jack Which god? What atheism rejects are the unsubstantiated claims of religion concerning the existence of gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Convince me any particular god exists and I'll gladly submit to its demands. Until then I'll continue to consider the idea of gods as superstitious and nonsensical.

I don't need to convince of the existence of any God, because that said existence would then nullify your life and how you live. You would be forced to change what you believe in to accommodate the reality that there is more to this life then just being born, living then dying.

And that's why trying to prove to an atheist there is a God (the quibbling over which God is really a red herring) is fruitless. The mindset is to reject the possibility, and when one chooses to make such a choice, then there is very little gained from arguing about it.

Nothing I say, or do, will change your mind. You ask for proof, I point to the ground, and you say it was formed from rocks and dust and gas billions of years ago... we continue you this to the one point neither of us has an answer for... why does anything exist?

We could argue the "reason" for all of this, but that would again reach a dead end. Because, as I stated, Atheist reject the notion of God because God would mean they would be accountable to something other then themselves.

So you can try to catch me up in "Well prove there is a God!" and you'll get no where. Prove to me that you aren't really afraid of God, and what that would mean to your life... and we might get somewhere.

[rez]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I don't need to convince of the existence of any God, because that said existence would then nullify your life and how you live.

Sorry pal, I don't know what to say to this. I don't know whether you are philosophical shallow or you lack articulation, but I am going to have to ask you to clarify.

You would be forced to change what you believe in to accommodate the reality that there is more to this life then just being born, living then dying.

Sorry again, but describing what a group of people believes means you have to do it accurately. Suggesting that life is just "living" and dying is extremely vague. Actually you are right there is more to life then just "living" and dying because well there are many things an individual can do while living.

You ask for proof, I point to the ground, and you say it was formed from rocks and dust and gas billions of years ago... we continue you this to the one point neither of us has an answer for... why does anything exist?

What exactly is your hangup? When someone asks a question someone gives you an answer. Some peoples answers are different then others. Some answers are grounded in evidence and testing others are imagined and made up based on absolute no problem solving strategies.

God would mean they would be accountable to something other then themselves.

What does that even mean? What does "being held accountable for" have to do with reality and the way it works?

Do you think atheists suggest there is no god based on the fact they don't want to be held accountable for their actions?

How can you possibly even think that?

The funny thing is the main part of this problem has nothing to do with god and its existence.

Atheists disagree with your problem solving strategies and your ability to critically think. An atheist disagrees with your apathy or your lack of enthusiasm to try and explain reality the best and most accurate way possible.

When it comes to explaining reality you have no business being here. When someone asks how old this universe is a physicist is going to give you all the facts and the explanation that ties all of them together. Got it? Good.

[rez]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio The issue isn't that one is religious, it is that one is capable of believing that all of creation is a mere... accident. That IMHO is the greater wonder.

Please don't associate your institutions approach to explaining reality with that of science. I can list out all the problem solving methods that the scientific community holds. I can list millions of examples of how these problem solving strategies accurately determine an answer.

To suggest that people came to the idea that the universe was intrinsically random or a pure accident based on just their own wild imaginations and belief has got to be the most dishonest willfully ignorant thing I have ever read.

To simply say that Biology, Quantum Physics, Chemistry, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics are all just wild random made up subjects is backwards thinking.

We can not go any further in a philosophical discussion if you think a physicist is equivalent to a priest or bishop. We can not go any further if you think that the major subjects like Quantum Physics, Chemistry, Biology are a huge joke.


Please sir, don't even waste your time.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Rez,

If you accept there is a God, then you must accept a life beholden to those tenants. I.E. Life after death, sin, morals... punishment of eternal damnation etc... etc...

Atheist reject the premise of God not because there is a lack of proof, but because that proof points to a life they refuse to live. I.E. one based on values and beliefs they cannot live up to, refuse to live up to or are otherwise incapable of accepting.

I believe in the Big Bang, I believe God created this Universe, laid out the laws we see in physics and mathematics, I believe it all has a purpose, a reason and see the proof of God in everything around me.

By accepting that, I am limited in how and what I do in my life. It's that limitation that Atheist reject first, not after the fact.

[Devil's Advocate]

If it was proven that there was a god I wouldn't change my life at all. I wouldn't bow down and all of a sudden go to church every day and pray before every meal. I'd still live the same life.