That is called anthropic self-selection. Of course you are going to be some height, but if we were to debate the existence of someone who is, say, 6.105713994012144223803371 feet tall, the likelihood of their existence is very small indeed. The more decimal places I add to that number, the less likely. The analogy would be that God is 6.105713994012144223803371…continued-indefinitely feet tall. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of anything being exactly that tall is zero.
That doesn’t work, you have read his quote,and answered it, so you ‘know’ he exixts. There is a difference between belief and fact. He can prove to you he exists by having you meet and touch him, you can’t do that with what some call God.
I find the Evidential Problem of Evil to be very persuasive. For me, it boils down to one thing: how likely is it that there’s gratuitous evil? One would need only one instance of gratuitous evil to refute theism.
I think the likelihood that at least one of the instances of the countless of evils in the world is **gratuitous ** is so much higher than the likelihood that every instance of evil in the universe is ***necessary ***in some way.
I’m sorry, but this point cannot be argued with religionists-they will reply that without the absolute knowledge that their deity possesses we have no way of determining which actions, if any, are gratuitous.
It’s covered under the “Mysterious Ways” clause.
No, I don’t know that he exists. I answered something, but I don’t know it was him.
Using his own reasoning, there are infinitely many mutually exclusive possibilities for who he is. For any one of these to be true, all the others would have to be false. For one specific one of these to be true would be infinitely unlikely. Therefore, he doesn’t exist.
You could find his name and address or he could give it to you.Other’s also can prove to you he exists, his Name that he uses, and the fact that he wrote to you and others, shows that a human exists, so there is good reason to accept the fact that he does exist. By the same reasoning one could say they didn’t know you existed! You must know that a fairy didn’t write to you, and it must have been a human…right?
And that would be a retreat to the possible which I could certainly grant them, my argument not being a claim to impossibility. However, that won’t stop me from asking how likely it is. After all, Hitler/Pol Pot/Stalin/pedophiles could very well be very good people when seen with the absolute knowledge of their deity, but how likely is that?
About as likely as the all the people in the world deserving not to be drowned belonging to one family, I guess. Some of them are willing to think that the drowning of most of the world’s population was entirely moral, so I really don’t think that your “Hitler/Pol Pot/Stalin/pedophiles” example will hold much water with them.
The entity normally referred to as ‘god’ has all the attributes of an entity that does not exist, and none of the attributes of an entity that does exist. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there is no reason to suppose god exists as anything except a label for assorted emotional constructs, including ‘Imaginary things I find emotionally comforting’ and ‘Things invented within my culture to make life simpler to understand’.
kanicbird your arguments are so closed-loop they make me claustrophobic.
As ever I get irritated because most of the ‘logical’ arguments are from an Abrahamic monotheistic point of view. They are defined by the prevailing religion surrounding the atheists making them. I think the OP is wrong to dismiss Thor et al; by doing so he would also have to dismiss Shiva, Kali, Tin Hau, Guanyin, etc. and thus exclude big chunks of contemporary human belief.
Here’s my take:
The majority of humans worship a God or god(s) in which they believe.
Though there are overlaps, many of these beliefs are absolutely contradictory*.
Most belief systems have a set of theological ‘proofs’.
Proponents of each argument will argue for their theological proof as vehemently as any of the others.
Each is as valid as the other.
They cannot all be right.
Either one of them is right for random reasons, or they are all wrong.
There is no evidence for any of them at all.
The conclusion, to me, is therefore simple.
*‘Liberal’ theists argue that all religious beliefs are ‘climbing the side of the same mountain’. However, look at what is actually believed and you will see this is bullshit within a matter of minutes.
I stipulated them out of this discussion, not out of existence.
That would be silly, only fundamentalist Triobutterflynarians think that there are literally three butterflies, but you can’t discount the possibility that there may be some sort of butterfly cabal. Just because we haven’t seen them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I suggest that by stipulating them out of the bounds of the discussion, you’re invalidating the logic of any resulting arguments, which are therefore only able to dismiss a certain kind of “god”.
I think most arguments are aimed at dismissing only a certain class of “gods” at any given time. There are infinite ways to define God so it’s kind of hard to have an argument that handles every definition. Take the Problem of Evil. It can only refute a Good God - an Evil or Indifferent God could escape it unscathed.
My emphasis.
Only is enough.
I argue that if you’re an atheist, you believe in none of these infinite deities - so your argument should be good enough to encompass that.
And I argue that I am an atheist because none of the religionists have come forth with a reason to be otherwise. I don’t have to disprove all the godthings they come up with-they have to come up with evidence for just one. I consider arguing for the non-existence of God to be as much of a time waster as arguing for the non-existence of Yurtle The Turtle. But if you want to continue to play this game, fine and/or dandy-just tell me exactly what it is you want disproved, and we’ll have a go at it.
A lofty goal. I hadn’t set such a lofty goal as my target. I wasn’t looking for a proof that athiesm is the best position. I was looking for:
[QUOTE=TATG]
interesting arguments for the non-existence of God. Not necessarily good ones, Gods or arguments, mind you.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
And I argue that I am an atheist because…
[/QUOTE]
As well you might. And discussing what one ought believe and why is an interesting thing. But neither was this my target.
[QUOTE=TATG]
I find the whole “atheism is the most rational belief state” thing rather tiresome, even if true.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
But if you want to continue to play this game, fine and/or dandy-just tell me exactly what it is you want disproved, and we’ll have a go at it.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t want anything disproved. I wanted to see interesting arguments, and possibly discuss them, and that I have seen and that I have done; some have managed to play the game ably.
I’ve always thought this argument is what Voltaire was referring to with, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” Even if there was no God, somebody would have made up God stories.
It turns out I’m wrong and that this was an argument for God. I think it’s a better pithy argument for atheism.
“Any God worth its salt would be rational, moral, and powerful enough to prevent evil. There is evil. So there is no God worth its salt.”
Your notion that God should prevent evil is understandable, however,
God chose to create angels and humans with free will. In doing so He necessarily allowed for the possibiliy that such will could be exercised unwisely.
God tells us in the Bible book of Genesis that an angel and the only humans did just that.
There is much, much that can be said on this topic, but this is enough to get started.