A few reasons why I'm an atheist

Great Debates
1

In another thread, FriendOfGod asked me to elaborate on why I thought the universe was different than it would be if the traditional Judeo-Christian god existed.

I believe that this traditional god has at least the following attributes:
omnipotence - anything that can be done, this being can do
omniscience - anything that can be known, this being can know
omnibenevolent - any good that this being is able to do will be done

When I say God in this post, I am refering to a being with these attributes.

Here are some reasons why I don’t believe in this god.

The existence of suffering

If God exists, then he wants to stop all suffering.
If God exists, then he knows how to stop all suffering.
If God exists, then he is able to stop all suffering.
(These are simply from the three attributes assigned to God)
Therefore, if God exists, suffering cannot exist.
However, suffering does exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.

There are several objections to this. One, possibly the least common, is that suffering does not exist, and that it is merely an illusion. Personally, I find such an opinion highly deluded.

More common objections involve freewill and some form of “greater good”.

Greater good:
Suffering exists because it is necessary to create a good that is greater than the bad of the suffering. For instance, a parent might punish a child (making the child suffer) in order to teach the child a valuable lesson.

Response:
#1: Since God would be omnipotent, why would he be forced to create a small amount of suffering in order to create a large “good”? Why not create the large good right away?
#2: Since God would be omnibenevolent, why not simply ask someone if they want to suffer through a small amount of suffering in order to get some good? Would that not be much more “good” than merely doing so against their will?
#3: There may be examples of some small suffering leading to a greater good. However, if God exists, then all suffering must lead to a greater good. This does not at all appear to be the case. To use a much overused example: What good did the Holocaust lead to that was greater than the suffering it caused? This good must also not be obtainable in any other fashion than by the suffering of the Holocaust. I can’t see any resolution to this other than to accept that God does not exist.

Freewill:
God gave humans freewill. Humans’ use of their freewill leads to suffering.

Response:
#1: This does not explain how suffering arises from natural disasters, which are not due to human freewill. Some claim that such disasters are the results of demons. There is not only no evidence for this (as well as plenty of evidence of natural causes of natural disasters) but it fails as an explanation because God is omnipotent. Why couldn’t God stop the demons?
#2: It is possible to have freewill without any suffering. For example, I can choose to kill someone, but if I’m restrained from doing so (by, perhaps, being locked in a jail cell at the time) no murder occurs. I have freely chosen to do something, so my freewill is preserved. However, any suffering my actions would have caused did not come about because I was not allowed to act on my freewill. Why couldn’t God create a world where everyone is free to choose whatever they want, but everyone was unable to act on any actions they chose if those actions would cause suffering?

The existence of non-believers

If someone does not believe in God, they go to Hell. (or are in some way punished or given a fate less kind than that of believers).
God, being omnibenevolent, wants everyone to believe in him and therefore avoid Hell.
God, being omnipotent, has the ability to persuade everyone to believe in him.
God, being omniscient, knows how to make everyone believe in him.
Therefore, if God exists, then everyone believes in him.
However, there are many people who do not believe in God.
Therefore, God does not exist.

Freewill is again often used as a defense. Two other objections (that it is the work of Satan, and that God works in mysterious ways) I will address near the end of my post.

Freewill:
God gave freewill to humans. They can decide not to believe in him if they wish. To prove himself to everyone, God would have to take away their freewill, because they would no longer have a choice whether or not to believe in him.

Response:
#1: Showing up on someone’s doorstep (or otherwise providing strong evidence) to prove that I exist does not remove their freewill. Even if it did, why is this a bad thing compared to an eternity of suffering in Hell? Wouldn’t such a thing be an example of a small amount of suffering for a greater good?
#2: I don’t think that a sound deductive argument removes people’s freewill. It simply gives them a darned good reason to believe in the conclusion. Why, then, wouldn’t God provide a nice deductive argument for his existence?
#3: Why couldn’t God create a universe where people are born knowing him, as some sort of instinct that can’t be changed? Why does this violate freewill more than any other instinct or inate drive that humans have? In other words: we don’t have perfect freewill as it is.

Lack of complete, obvious, and objective moral rules

Objective morality exists.
If God exists, then he would do everything he can to promote good.
If humans are given a clear set of objective moral rules, then more humans would do good than if no such rules were known.
Therefore, God would want to give everyone knowledge of such a set of moral rules.
However, not everyone has such knowledge.
Therefore, God does not exist.

Common objections are that there are indeed well known objective moral rules and that such a thing would violate freewill.

Such rules exist:
There are some moral rules that nearly every culture (if not every culture) agrees on. For instance, most culutures have a form of the “Golden Rule”: do not do to others what you would not want done to you. Or, more specifically, “Don’t murder”.

Response:
#1: Even if every culture on the planet has agreed upon all moral rules, that doesn’t solve the problem. If there exists any person who does not know of those rules, the problem still stands. Have there been, through the course of human history, people who did not have knowledge of a system of objective moral rules? I think the answer is undoubtedly “yes”.
#2: There are many rules that are not agreed upon. These rules merely muddy the moral waters, so to speak. Why would God allow such a thing to occur?

The Existence of Freewill

If God exists, he knows for certain what will happen in the future.
Therefore, the future can be known for certain.
If the future can be known for certain, then the future is predetermined.
If the future is predetermined, then freewill does not exist.
However, freewill exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.

I have not heard many objections to this type of argument, although some undoubtedly exist. I know that freewill hasn’t exactly been “proven”, but I think it’s a safe assumption in the current topic. Anyone who wants to respond with a critique, please do!

Standard Objections:
Satan is responsible.
This would mean that God is not able to stop Satan if he wants to. This would mean an omnipotent God doesn’t exist.

God works in mysterious ways
This is merely a cop out, not an explanation. Sure, there might be an explanation that we don’t know of, but why on earth should we just assume that there is?

Okay, this turned out much longer than I expected. Everyone feel free to comment and critique.

2

Well, here’s one off the top of my head:

You said

Emphasis mine.

You then said

If that’s the case, you should have defined omnipotence this way: anything that can be done, this being will do.

3

You do raise some good points. But, one could argue that they simply don’t believe in the attributes you assigned to your God, which would mean that everyone has their own opinion, which, not surprisingly, is the case.

4

Good points and well presented.

It shows how illogical it is to presume the existence of a being which is both all-powerful and completely benevolent in our world. Any rationalization of why this being allows non-freewill-based suffering serves only to diminish the power of that being.

Your freewill arguements are excellent as well.

5

I’ll try to address some of these issues even though I’m on the same end of this question (existence of God) as you.

These are all debatable positions, but I’ll grant them for sake of argument.

I think you do a good job of outlining the issues and responding to them. I think one point that you missed is that in judging the “greater good,” you would have to look at the entire span (past and future) of existence. This is obviously not possible from a human perspective, but one could argue that the general path of history has been one of progress. Therefore, if this progress continues, the end result will be a greater good than all the suffering that has occurred. I don’t personally buy this argument.

You are assuming that God could/would interfer with the natural operation of the world. The traditional view is, of course, that God does do this (miracles, revelations, etc.) I don’t think that omnibenevolence automatically indicates that God would act on this level.

I’ve heard this argument before, but I’ve always had a problem with it. How is it possible to have free will, yet not allow people to act is certain ways? I don’t think your example of being locked in a jail cell works because your freedom has been restricted.

The best argument regarding free will (and the one I’ve always agreed with) is that the good inherent in free will outweighs the suffering that free will can cause. Taking away free will would, IMO, remove an essential part of what it means to be human. What would be the point of God (omnipotent and omniscient) in create a world with automata?

This is a very good point as a critique of certain religious beliefs, but there is nothing in your outline of “God” that indicates this is the case. Perhaps this God allows for infinite reincarnation so that each soul reaches perfection.

Assuming that knowing would result in worshipping.

Perhaps the point is the journey involved in finding these moral rules. Just because we don’t know them doesn’t mean that they do not exist.

This is essentially my argument about the possibility of having free will without being able to choose evil. I agree that this is a contradiction, and I believe that we do have free will; therefore, if God does exist, God is not omniscient.

There are two objections that I can think of to this argument. First, omniscient can mean knowing everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. It could also mean just the first two. I don’t know if that is technically correct, but it was the view I had when I believed in the traditional God. Second, the more common theological argument is that God is outside of time whereas humans are inside of time. To us, we have free will because the future is unknown. God does not see time the way we do. How this works, I don’t know, but you could picture it as God seeing every instant all at once.

This is all a very superficial response, but there is much too much here to go into in depth right now. I my ideas are clear.

6

Very good post. You demonstrate quite well that a reasonable God is neither all powerful nor all knowing, but could be all benevolent (God is Love as xtians say).

7

Just a quick thought. This thread is too deep for me – but, if god did know everything right now, he’d have to know how things would turn out, at least in a newtonian universe, which we don’t in fact live in. Even if God needed to “know” what was going on everywhere at one, I doubt God can know the future because even atoms have “free will” because of the underlying randomness of the universe.

8

God doesn’t know the “future”, precisely, by the standard argument that He exists in all times–something happening tomorrow can be in the “past” as far as He is concerned. He doesn’t know what will happen, He knows what did happen. Confusing enough? :wink:

9

Personally, I’ve never heard the ‘omnibenevolence’ thing. Even a cursory reading through the Old testament shows that God was far from ‘omnibenevolent’: he wiped out entire cities, encouraged genocide, and even tried to wipe out most of Mankind (often referred to as the ‘Flood’ incident), to name a few. Fire, Brimstone, Wrath and Jealousy (He even admitted to having the latter trait!). Not benevolence.

Be that as it may, there are plenty examples of religions wherein the Gods were (are) somewhat tempermental, so that, in and of itself, I don’t really see as evidence that He doesn’t exist. I see the claims to the contrary more as delusions on the part of His followers than any real reflection on His nature.

What does really make me wonder is why He would bother with the whole creation episode in the first place. Was He bored? Was He lonely? Neither of these sound like the attributes of an all-powerful Supreme Being. Was He curious, and just wanted to tinker? Doesn’t sound very omniscient to me.

OK, so, we don’t really know why he decided to create the Universe. When He did, however, why did He…ahem…screw it up? Particularly when it came to Mankind. Maybe the whole Free Will thing threw him a curve, and He didn’t see it coming (but then, there’s that Omniscience again…). And what was the deal with the whole Tree of Life thing? If He didn’t want Adam and Eve to touch it, why did He make it in the first place? What purpose did it serve besides the obvious set-up? And where did this ‘serpent’ come from that caused all the trouble in the first place? God would have had to create it…why would God create a creature whose purpose was apparently to deceive his other creations?

And so on…

Of course, there is the argument that the whole Genesis thing is allegorical. However, it is fundamental to the belief in God that the Creation event must have taken place, whether as described in the Bible, or through God setting things in motion, then letting ‘nature take its course.’ So, the question still remains, why should He bother in the first place? Especially, since He must have known the eventual outcome of His efforts. If He didn’t know, then He is certainly not the Supreme Being He is made out to be, regardless of the arguments whether He exists within time or outside of it or whatever.

This doesn’t seem to be one of my more coherent posts, so I think I’d better stop here. I’m not trying to be facetious, or condescending or insulting or anything of that sort. These are serious, real questions that I have regarding His alleged nature. And it is, in part, a result of these questions that I do not believe.

10

You have a premise that this life is all that there is. IF there is an afterlife, reincarnation, etc, perceived Divinely inspired suffering in this world would be on the order of a child being sent to his room. From the victim’s current position, it seems to be the most unfair thing possible. But it is no big deal in the greater scheme of things. Logic should cause one to be agnostic. You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. (I, however, am on the side of the angels,)

11

I think the key words here are “if he wants to”. If God wanted to, and could, why wouldn’t he?

Thank you for responding, btw.

12

Well, first off, he’s not my God. :slight_smile:
Secondly, I agree. I would never say that I’m an atheist towards any meaning of the word God because if someone defines God to mean “a small furry mammal that meows” I have one sitting on my lap right now. However, the type of God I am routinely asked why I don’t believe in is the type of God I described. (Or something similar)

13

Thank you for responding. Due to the fact I should be in bed right now, I’m only responding to this portion of your post. The rest looked pretty fair to me.

Restricting someone’s actions may reduce their overall freedom, but it does not reduce the freedom of their will. They are free to will anything, they just can’t act on that will.

14

I think our difference here lies in what we mean by “free will.” To me, free will involves not only freedom to think something but also the capacity to act. That doesn’t mean you always have the ability, but the capacity exists. So I agree that physical restraint doesn’t equate with restricting free will, but I think that in the case of God creating humans without the capacity to cause suffering does restrict free will.

15

I just wanted to note in the midst of this thread that the reason I am an atheist is because I am unconvinced that any deities exist. All the rest is commentary. :smiley:

16

BlackKnight, I’m a bit puzzled by your “all or nothing” belief in God. While you did make some good arguments, I believe that you jumped to conclusions with the “therefore, God does not exist” statements.

For example, you said that since suffering exists, then God does not exist (because otherwise he’d prevent the suffering). This does prove that God does not exist. It does, however, prove that God is not omnibenevolent AND omnipotent at the same time. An omnipotent and omniscient God could exist despite this evidence, but wouldn’t be omnibenevolent.

I, for one, do believe in God. This is mainly because I figure that it’s more logical that the universe was created by an intelligent force rather than just occuring spontaneously. I do, however believe two things about God that make Him different from the one you describe:

  1. God is not universally benevolent. Suffering exists, therefore God is not universally benevolent. I do, however believe that God is fairly benevolent all in all and is at least “a really cool guy”.
  2. Hell does not exist. There isn’t really anything that one can do (or refrain from doing) here on Earth or anywhere else in this universe that merits eternal damnation. God is way too cool to send people to Hell for very little reason. Therefore, Hell does not exist.
    This is basically a “middle ground” belief in God (that he is neither omnibenevolent nor wrathful).

Now I ask you, BlackKnight, could you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolent?

17

I don’t agree that not having the capacity to perform an act means that one is not free to choose to do that act. I do not have the capacity to fly, but I can choose to fly if I want it. It just won’t get me anywhere.

If lack of capacity means lack of freewill, then humans’ freewill is pretty darned restricted as it is.

18

All or nothing? I do not understand this critisism. Am I to believe in half a god?

I have no illusions that my arguments are perfect or irrefutable or ingenius or anything like that. However, I think they’re moderately good reasons for disbelieving in that particular type of God.

I used, as premises, statements of the form, “If God exists, he …” Therefore, if no being with those attributes exists, God does not exist. Remember, this was an attempt to show why I disbelieve in a particular type of God.

Aren’t there other alternatives than intelligent creator and “just occuring spontaneously”? How about a natural, non-intelligent, force? Or perhaps the universe, in one form or another, always existed. Or perhaps a universe exissting is a more natural state than a universe not existing (that is, “nothing” is an unstable state). I am not well versed in this particular area, but it seems there are numerous other options to choose from.

[snipped Max’s attributes of God]

If freewill exists, then I don’t think I could believe in an omniscient anything, unless that being was restricted by not knowing the future.

Yes, I could believe in many different kinds of gods, each with slightly different qualities. However, I have no more cause to believe in any god than I do to believe in Santa Claus.

19

This is, I think, just a rewording of “God works in mysterious ways”. If I am to believe that something like the Holocaust led to a greater good, I am going to have to be shown what that good is. I still see no reason why God would be unable to just create some greater good without the suffering along the way.

If by agnostic you mean “leaves open the possibility that God exists” or “is not absolutely certain one way or the other” then I am agnostic. I call myself atheist because I lack a belief in God.

Tell that to the married bachelors and square circles. :wink:

20

Darn, I was afraid someone would bring this up.

Free will is restricted. You can’t choose to fly if you want to, but you can choose to try. Free will does not mean complete freedom to do anything you can think of (i.e. will power is not enough). It means that you are not forced to choose to do something. You may very well be forced to actually do it, but you are not forced to choose to do it. For example, I can throw you off a building forcing you fall, but I can’t force you to choose to fall off a building. I can, of course, try to influence and manipulate you into making the choice that I want.

This ties back to your original argument of why God didn’t create humans with free will but without the ability to do evil. My response comes down to this: to choose good, you must have the ability to choose evil. I don’t think good can exists without the potential for evil, joy without the potential for suffering, hope without the possibility of despair. If the potential for suffering was removed, how would we know that we were happy? I think there must be some sort of comparison.