Talk:Arguments against the existence of god
Shoudn't we mention the purpose of these arguments? Why do atheists argue God's non-existence and get involved in debates even when they are not challenged by believers? --Wissam hemadeh
- Go ahead. Keep these two things in mind:
- A direct challenge by a believer is not the only thing that warrants a debate. Lobbying a political candidate for legal reform that would favour a particular religious belief is a challenge to debate that belief and the basis on which it stands.
- Some people argue for entertainment :)
- --Jaban 14:44, 3 March 2010 (CST)
Where did all the arguments go? There was a long list of arguments on this page.--wissam hemadeh 13:31, 27 June 2010 (CDT)
Consider these arguments against God's existence
Ultimate 747 Gambit
Modal Ontological Argument against God
Scientific Mistakes in Bible/qur'an
Immoralities in Bible/Qur'an
Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God
Kalam argument for atheists
argument from poor design
There are much more. I'll be getting at you some time soon. Anyway, some of these are found nn iron chariots wiki, just search. I don't know how to transfer them to this category.
--wissam hemadeh 15:09, 6 March 2010 (CST)
Also, an outstanding book to read by Michael Martin: Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
--wissam hemadeh 15:16, 6 March 2010 (CST)
There are some issues under the heading "Aren't universal negatives impossible to prove?". Although it is true that they can be proven by showing that they contradict logic or are inherently meaningless concepts, the rest of the article is pretty well wrong. For example, the case give is the phlogiston. Although scientists have found something that does what a phlogiston was supposed to do, they have merely demonstrated a lack of both evidence and necessity for the phlogiston theory. Occams razor would therefore lead us to believe it does not exist. This, however, does NOT provide EVIDENCE that the phlogiston does not exist, nor does it prove that it does not exist. It merely demonstrates a LACK of evidence for the positive assertion, rather than providing evidence for the negative. Occam's razor, while being a valid tool when considering what position to take or what belief is most probable, does NOT constitute evidence; it instead operates on a lack of evidence.
Along the same lines, the argument that "This is how we can know that such things as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Abimonable Snowman, etc. do not exist" is also fallacious. We do NOT know that such things do not exist and we have no evidence that they do not exist. All we have is a lack of evidence that they do exist. The fact that many instances have been shownn to be frauds does not operate as evidence for the assertion that they do not exist. The fact operates as a counter to positive evidence that they do exist, but cannot itself operate as evidence.
Suggested reading: Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
~~Jeremie Choquette, Physics Student at McMaster University
Strong Atheism vs. Agnosticism Argument
Is this section regarding the existence of a particular God, or a man-made religion based God? Or is it refuting the entire possibility of a God?
The argument against agnosticism is flawed.
The Atheist Writer Claims: If one lacks understanding or is incapable of such high comprehension--as animals cannot put 2&2 together beyond their basic instincts as we humans can do--then how can they argue the original point in the first place--that there may or may not be a God?
My Agnostic Perspective: Because I know the gas tank either contains fuel, or does not--but unsure of which without checking the gauge, then which answer is defaulted? Neither until further variables are found (such as checking the gauge). At our current level of logical understanding, either a God exists, or a God does not; thus, without proof from either viewpoint, one cannot pick a side.
Also, consider the logical fallacy, Ad Ignorantium: "The absence of evidence is not evidence."
Consider also how people view strangers. A stranger is neither good, nor bad necessarily (merely assumed bad in pursuit of being safer than sorry). An agnostic stands neutral, claiming it is impossible to know whether a God exists or not based on the given circumstances. Further, science cannot directly prove, but only theorize on how the universe and life was created--which is not much better than faith given its position in the scientific method.
Atheist: No proof that God exists. This inhibits an open mind.
Agnostic: No proof that God doesn't exist*. Thus, the possibility is kept open.
- Given the findings based on science, it is not enough to convince me that the universe came into any existence based on any other particular means. While science may find an approach to the universe being created outside of the realm of time (stripping the "beginnings," and the "ends"), both intelligent design and scientific theories are all just that--theories.
- Please sign your talk comments. The icon is second from the right, above the comment box.
- Your definitions of atheist and agnostic are mistaken. They are not part of a three-level system of belief (theism, agnosticism, atheism), they address different questions.
- Theism/atheism addresses the question of belief.
- Gnosticism/agnosticism addresses the question of knowledge.
- One need not necessarily claim knowledge that no gods exist to hold the belief that there are none. I think you'll find that most of us are stating our disbelief, not making a claim to knowledge.
- I'd also like to respond to the quote...
- It's not true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sure it is. It's not proof of absence, but it is evidence. I'll admit that it's fair to say that the absence of evidence alone is not sufficient justification to reject an idea. But you make it sound like that's all we have to go on, and that's simply not true.
- --Jaban 23:50, 2 August 2010 (CDT)
I can agree with that; absence of evidence is not proof of the absence, but absence of evidence is some degree of evidence based on our current knowledge. Couldn't one theorize that God just doesn't want to be found, and this could be entirely discredited as evidence? In any case, it's insufficient evidence alone. You mention that this isn't all we have to go on, what else is there? As far as I understand, atheists rely on the absence of evidence to justify their position, I haven't heard other arguments.
Couldn't I merely say that there is an absence of evidence that God doesn't exist? I suppose we have to define what amount of evidence is substantial?