Philosophy Now Forum

My reason #1 for not believing in a deity or deities: Lack of evidence

Basically, my argument goes like this: if there's no good evidence to support the idea that deities exist, then we shouldn't believe in them. This is similar to the idea that if someone makes a really unusual claim, like they have a dragon living in their basement, we shouldn't believe them unless they can show us some really convincing evidence.

Atheists who use this argument feel that the idea of deities is an extraordinary claim, because it goes against what we know about the natural world. Since there's no direct evidence that deities exist, it's not reasonable to believe in them without some kind of really good evidence.

Now, of course, what counts as "good evidence" can be debated. But many atheists feel that the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities is itself pretty strong evidence against their existence. Others might say that we don't need to believe in deities because naturalistic explanations are available for everything. But either way, the argument from lack of evidence is a pretty common way for atheists to reject the idea of deities.

My reason #2 for not believing in a deity or deities: Logical inconsistencies

The argument here is that the concept of a deity is logically inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. It's a type of proof called "reductio ad absurdum." One common example of this is the problem of evil. If a deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why would there be evil and suffering in the world? If the deity is all-powerful, it would have the ability to stop evil; if it is all-knowing, it would be aware of the evil; and if it is all-loving, it would want to stop the evil. Yet, evil and suffering still exist. This is a logical inconsistency in the concept of a deity.

Another example of a logical inconsistency in the concept of a deity is the idea of omnipotence, or all-powerfulness. Can an all-powerful deity create a stone that it cannot lift? If it can create such a stone, then it is not all-powerful because it cannot lift the stone. If it cannot create such a stone, then it is not all-powerful because it has a limitation. This is another logical inconsistency that challenges the idea of a deity. It shows that you need to be extra careful when working with things like infinity. This is a version of Cantor's paradox, which mathematicians will know.

These are just a few examples of logical inconsistencies in the concept of a deity. The argument is that if the concept of a deity is logically inconsistent or contradictory, then it cannot exist in reality. It's important to note that this argument does not necessarily disprove the existence of any possible deity, but rather challenges the logical coherence of certain conceptions of deity.

My reason #3 for not believing in a deity or deities: Religious diversity

When atheists argue that the existence of many different religions is evidence that the idea of a deity is a human invention rather than an objective reality, they are pointing out that there is a remarkable diversity of religious beliefs and practices throughout human history and across cultures.

For example, there are monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which all believe in a single deity. But there are also polytheistic religions like Hinduism, which has many gods and goddesses, or ancient Greek religion, which had a pantheon of gods and goddesses. And then there are religions like Buddhism or Confucianism that don't necessarily include a deity at all.

This diversity can be seen as evidence that people have created their own ideas of deities rather than having an objective, universal concept of a deity that exists independently of human culture and experience. If there were a single true deity that exists independently of human culture and experience, wouldn't it make more sense for all people to have the same understanding of that deity?

Of course, some religious believers would argue that their religion is the true one, and that all other religions are simply mistaken. But atheists would argue that this just leads to an endless cycle of conflicting claims, with no way to determine which religion, if any, is correct.

Ultimately, the diversity of religious beliefs and practices is a challenging phenomenon for any theory that posits the existence of an objective deity or set of deities.

My reason #4 for not believing in a deity or deities: Scientific explanations

Many phenomena that were once attributed to deities, such as lightning and disease, have since been explained by science. For example, we now understand that lightning is caused by the buildup and discharge of electrical energy in the atmosphere, and that disease is caused by microscopic organisms like bacteria and viruses.

As our understanding of the world has grown, the need for a supernatural explanation has diminished. This doesn't necessarily mean that deities definitively do not exist, but it does suggest that invoking a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena is no longer necessary.

Of course, there are still many mysteries that science has not yet explained, and it's possible that some of these mysteries may ultimately be attributed to the existence of deities or other supernatural forces. However, the fact that we have been able to explain so many natural phenomena without resorting to supernatural explanations is a testament to the power of science and the human capacity for understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and critical thinking.

My reason #5 for not believing in a deity or deities: Occam's Razor

My 5th point is about Occam's Razor, which is a principle in philosophy that says that, given two explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. In the context of arguments against the existence of deities, this means that an atheist may argue that the simplest explanation for the world we observe is one that does not require the existence of deities.

To give an example, let's say we observe a rainbow in the sky. A religious person might attribute the rainbow to the work of a deity, while an atheist might explain it through the scientific principles of light refraction and reflection. From the atheist's perspective, the scientific explanation is simpler, as it relies on established physical laws and does not require the existence of a supernatural being.

Of course, this is just a simple example, and arguments for or against the existence of deities are often much more complex. But the principle of Occam's Razor can be a useful tool for evaluating these arguments and deciding which explanation is more likely to be true based on the available evidence.

Final thoughts: Caution when demanding "proof" of everything

One important concept to keep in mind when thinking about scientific knowledge is that any "truth" we arrive at is always based on simpler, more fundamental truths. This means that our understanding of the world is built on a never-ending chain of explanations, each one relying on the one that came before it.

For example, we might start with a basic fact like "the sky is blue." But why is the sky blue? This leads us to a more complex explanation involving the scattering of light by atmospheric gases. But why do atmospheric gases scatter light in this way? This takes us even deeper into the underlying physics of the process.

The point is that any time we arrive at a "truth" about the world, we're really just building on top of a series of simpler truths. And because there is always another "why" question we can ask, there is no endpoint to this process of understanding.

This idea is sometimes called the "hierarchy of knowledge," and it's a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry. By continually pushing our understanding deeper and deeper, we can gain more and more insight into the workings of the natural world - even if we can never be 100% certain that we've reached the ultimate truth.

Demanding proof for everything can be dangerous because, as I mentioned earlier, any "truth" we arrive at is always based on simpler, more fundamental truths, and this chain of explanations can go on indefinitely. Therefore, if we demand absolute proof for every claim, we could end up in a situation where we're constantly asking for more and more evidence, without ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion.

This can be particularly problematic when it comes to scientific issues, where the evidence is often complex and multifaceted. In many cases, it's simply not possible to provide 100% proof for a particular scientific claim - there is always some uncertainty or nuance involved.

Demanding proof for everything can also be used as a way to dismiss or undermine scientific findings that are inconvenient or unpopular. This is sometimes seen in debates around topics like climate change or vaccine safety, where opponents demand "absolute proof" before accepting the scientific consensus. However, this demand for proof can be used as a smokescreen to avoid addressing the real issues at hand.

So while it's certainly important to be skeptical and critical of scientific claims, we should also be careful not to demand proof for everything, as this can be an unrealistic and ultimately counterproductive standard. Instead, we should strive to evaluate scientific evidence in a nuanced and informed way, taking into account the inherent uncertainty and complexity of the natural world.

Evidence is just that: evidence. It is not "proof". We shouldn't expect it to be.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 6:37 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:42 pm you've described/defined atheists and atheism with so many despicable characteristics

Quote me.

Here are just a few...

Atheists are amoral.

Atheism is never rational.

Atheism is always a failure of logic.

(A simple search of your name with these phrases will lead you to your quotes.)

Re: proof and “despicable characteristics.”

- In contrast to secular judgements, when it comes to God, direct witness testimony is not admissible as a particular evidence contributing to the preponderance of evidence that amounts to proof. Circumstantial evidence of God can always be explained away by science that tolerates giant fudge factors such as dark matter and dark energy to even out the equations.

- Instead, those who share direct witness testimony of God get branded with labels such as: fanatic, religious extremist, deluded, cultist, flat-earther, God-botherer, nutjob, whack job, grifter, bible-thumper, and so on.

- Note: So-called Climate Science is simply sanctioned, unverifiable prestidigitation of the future, i.e., GIGO.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:37 am Re: proof and “despicable characteristics.”

- In contrast to secular judgements, when it comes to God, direct witness testimony is not admissible as a particular evidence contributing to the preponderance of evidence that amounts to proof. Circumstantial evidence of God can always be explained away by science that tolerates giant fudge factors such as dark matter and dark energy to even out the equations.

- Instead, those who share direct witness testimony of God get branded with labels such as: fanatic, religious extremist, deluded, cultist, flat-earther, God-botherer, nutjob, whack job, grifter, bible-thumper, and so on.

- Note: So-called Climate Science is simply sanctioned, unverifiable prestidigitation of the future, i.e., GIGO.

In general, scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence - that is, observations or measurements that can be independently verified. The scientific method involves making hypotheses, testing them through experiments or observations, and then refining or revising them based on the results.

When it comes to claims about the existence of God or other supernatural phenomena, direct witness testimony is not generally considered sufficient evidence to support a scientific conclusion. This is because such testimony is subjective and difficult to verify independently. Instead, scientists would typically look for objective, verifiable evidence that could support or refute the claim.

It's also worth noting that while science does deal with uncertainty and complexity, it is not based on "tolerating giant fudge factors." Rather, scientific theories are based on the best available evidence and are continually refined and tested over time. This is a process of discovery and refinement, not one of hand-waving or guesswork.

As for claims about climate science, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity is causing global warming and related climate changes. This consensus is based on a vast body of empirical evidence from multiple fields of study, including geology, physics, chemistry, and biology. While there may be disagreements or uncertainties around certain aspects of this evidence, the overall weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that climate change is happening and is largely caused by human activities.

So while direct witness testimony can be meaningful in certain contexts, it is generally not considered sufficient evidence to support scientific claims. Rather, scientific conclusions are based on empirical evidence and are subject to ongoing refinement and revision based on new discoveries and observations.

A recent survey conducted by MI5 clearly showed that atheists live longer, have better sex lives, and are much more honest than Christians. The study also concluded that Christians are lazy and don't change their socks regularly.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:07 pm A recent survey conducted by MI5 clearly showed that atheists live longer, have better sex lives, and are much more honest than Christians.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:07 pm A recent survey conducted by MI5 clearly showed that atheists live longer, have better sex lives, and are much more honest than Christians. The study also concluded that Christians are lazy and don't change their socks regularly.

MI5?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:17 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:07 pm A recent survey conducted by MI5 clearly showed that atheists live longer, have better sex lives, and are much more honest than Christians. The study also concluded that Christians are lazy and don't change their socks regularly.

MI5?

Yes, the British intelligence agency.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 11:16 pm
Oh. So you hold a belief for which either there is no evidence?

Well you hold a belief for which there is no evidence....

Funny. A lot of people seem to think there's quite a lot of evidence for God. Creation, complexity, cognition, morality, conscience, revelation, the existence of order...all kinds of things. And that's made belief in God rather easy for most of the people for most of history.

But maybe the real problem is this: that nothing is "evidence" for somebody who refuses the evidence. One can always say, of any such evidence, "Well, I don't accept that AS evidence."

However, for Atheism, there isn't even the potential of evidence. So that puts Theism quite a step ahead of Atheism.

Then why not soften your stance to read, "I wish there were no God"? That would be fine.

Why not soften your stance to; "I wish there were a God"?

For a very obvious reason: that wishing doesn't make things true. That's exactly what Atheists also are aware of, and that's why they don't want to give up their pretense to a right to argue with others, even with no evidence. They want to be able to say, "I know there's no God."

But there's a second reason: that "evidence" for the Atheist, is impossible to get. But the possibility of evidence for Theism is actually extremely high.

And why is that? Because it's terribly hard to prove a negation, and very easy to prove an affirmation. To prove an affirmation, all one needs is one genuine case.

So if there was such a thing as one genuine revelation -- at any time in history -- or one creation, or one miracle, or one incarnation, or one objective moral truth, or one of anything that might genuinely be evidence of God, then Theism is proved and Atheism is dead...it can no longer be believed at all. But to prove a negation is incredibly hard: it means to be able to prove that there was NEVER any such thing, at any time, in any place. That burden-to-prove is so demanding that no human being can ever meet it. So it's not even plausible to pretend that Atheism has met the burden of fulfilling its promise to "know" that there is no God.

So Atheism isn't just "behind the 8 ball" on this: it's actuall not on the table at all. But Theism has a straight line on the green ball in the side pocket.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 6:37 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:42 pm you've described/defined atheists and atheism with so many despicable characteristics

Quote me.

Here are just a few...

Atheists are amoral.

Never said.

Although it is true that Atheism is certainly amoral. Atheists are often proud of that fact. If you look back, you'll find they say it has no responsibility at all to have any particular view of morality. So they agree with me about that. You have no grounds to complain, therefore.

Atheism is never rational.

Self-evidently true. So you can't deny that. But it's a description of the belief system itself.

Atheism is always a failure of logic.[/i]

And it is, again, demonstrably.

But not one of those is remotely a slander. They're all manifestly true. And none of them are even comments on "Atheists". They're comments on an extremely faulty belief system, Atheism.

By contrasts, an "Atheist" can be an extremely pleasant, moral, and even intelligent individual, who, for her own reasons, is simply addicted to an irrational belief system that rationalizes none of what she is.