No, there doesn’t. There is nothing logically impossible about an infinite regression of causes.
Not necessarily. We don’t know what the laws of physics were when the universe came into being (if that’s even the right way to describe what happened), and we don’t know if causality would have existed. Even in the universe as we see it today, there isn’t always a simple cause/effect relationship between events. For all we know, the universe might be a quantum irregularity.
Maybe it didn’t need to “come from” anywhere.
None. So way add any?
It’s not so much a compelling argument for atheism as that there is no compelling argument for theism. Atheism (or, more properly, agnosticism) is not a belief-- it’s the lack of a belief.
Or the first event could be uncaused, as quantum mechanics suggests the Big Bang was. Or you could posit a infinitely smart, infinitely powerful, complex being who cares about humanity and created and sustains the universe, but is neither caused nor uncaused, having no beginning, and no ‘intelligent design’ underlying its magnificent order and power. You know, whichever one you think requires the least suspension of disbelief.
This actually brings me to my real point. As I argued ad nauseum in this thread on faith, a rejoinder that is often relevant in arguments against theism is that theists rely very heavily on special pleading. They demand that the atheist meet certain demands, but then refuse to meet them themselves. Consider:
-
Theist: “The universe is highly ordered; it must have an intelligent designer.”
Atheist: “God is all-knowing, all-powerful, capable of hearing the prayers of a billion believers at once, and must therefore have an intelligent designer”
Theist: “No, God is different.”
Atheist: ??? -
Theist: “The universe exists. What exists must have a cause. Therefore, the universe has a First Cause (God).”
Atheist: “Then God has a cause, too, I suppose.”
Theist: “No, God’s different.”
Atheist: ??? -
Theist: “Scientific evidence doesn’t support evolution/the ancient age of the earth/etc.”
Atheist: “Yes it does; the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evidence/etc.”
Theist: “But what about these isolated pieces of evidence?”
Atheist: “Do they outweigh all this other evidence, and the consensus of mainstream scientific experts.”
Theist: “Yes.”
Atheist: ???
Theist: “Besides, the anti-evolution scientists have been suppressed; that’s why the scientific establishment is pro-evolution.”
Atheist: “How do you know?”
Theist: “These handful of theistic scientists tell me.”
Atheist: “Why do you trust them and not the rest of the scientists?”
Theist: [secretly thinks, "Because they’re theists] “They know better.”
Atheist: ???
It may be more convenient to simply inquire of someone why he believes in God but not the Easter Bunny or the Great Turtle.
The problem with formalizing arguments is that it gives the whole notion a sense of grand and complicated proofs and counterproofs. Reducing the discussion to a similar magical being in which the proof-asker does not believe will turn any arguments he has on himself.
What, then, is the most convincing argument against Santa Claus? That he is a human invention? That no magic has ever actually been shown to occur? That there are dozens of obviously invented traditions around him?
Exactly…
So, there is a collection plate, then? Just seeking clarification, of course.
-Joe
Merijeek, your use of
is in violation of our rules on quotations and the use of the quote tags.
Please avoid this construction in the future.
[ /Moderating ]
An atheist friend, when challenged, asks “Do you believe in Zeus?” The answer, of course, is “No, certainly not!” Then she asks “How about Thor? How about Apollo?” Same response. To which she replies, “See, we’re just the same. I just believe in one less god than you do.”
I don’t like the above argument. I see it a lot, and I used to think it was a good one; look, your views are equivalent to mine, we have the same reasons for disbelieving, I just disbelieve in one more god.
But then I realised that it’s not the same, because for a theist their belief provides another reason for them not to believe. As an athiest I might disbelieve in Zeus because you’d expect him to faff about, there would be lots of mysterious pregnancies etc etc. A theist might say the same, but there’s also that they believe in whatever deity, and that deity says Zeus doesn’t exist. Take away that belief - and they still have the evidence they see, the feelings they have, and so on. Take away that belief, and they wouldn’t necessarily become atheists; they might switch religions. It’s not equivalent.
Well, if you’re going to do both parts of the debate, then, I guess you win!!!
And you lose. 
You haven’t demonstrated that a belief in Santa Claus is equivalent to (let alone identical to) a belief in a creator god.
Does Harvard offer a doctoral program in Clausology?
You do have a point-they are in no way similar. One delivers toys to kids one day a year using magic, the other is an omnipotent and omnipresent deity that created the earth in seven days using magic. One is definitely more believable than the other-the question is, which one?
Hmmm…I’m stumped.
It is the theist’s burden to demonstrate that there IS a difference. “God” is their hypothesis, not ours. It’s their job to define it and distinguish it. The EVIDENCE for sky gods and Santa Claus is certainly identical
They offer courses on MYTHology too. So what? Theology is only a developed form of mythology. It’s a study of beliefs. The veracity of those beliefs is neither here nor there.
There’s not really an argument you can put forward to turn a general theist into an atheist. It is possible to sit down and make someone question their specific faith by attacking their holy book(s). If you really go at it and they’re intellectually honest, this may cause them to switch faiths or to become “spiritual” instead. Just have a Christian, as a personal challenge/spiritual journey, read the Bible from cover to cover. That should be enough to make them depressed and question many of their core beliefs. This might only turn them into a liberal Christian but, as far as I am concerned, that is a victory in and of itself.
As for a site which hasn’t been brought up yet, I was always partial to Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? It has an anti-Christian focus and uses very general emotional arguments which can be disregarded by general theists, but I find these work pretty well at planting a seed of doubt in the average Christian’s mind. Doubt and faith don’t seem to work out too well.
Actually, believing in Santa Claus is quite a bit less silly than believing in God, given that the claims made about Santa are literally infinitely less extreme.
The absurdity of most arguments for the existence of deities, and the insulting assumption that people who try to convert you are doing you a favor (hinting at their own insecurities), are good enough arguments for atheism for me. YMMV.
The thing is, while some of these folks are talking out of their asses, it’s true that people genuinely have religious experiences where they see God and feel his love/presence. For example, when I went to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, I wrote out a prayer that went something like, “Please show us the light of Your love and the warmth of Your compassion, and unite us so we can live in peace”, on a little slip of paper, stuck it in the wall, touched the wall, closed my eyes and was instantly flung into something that resembled an intense drug trip, which culminated in an intense lightness and warmth. I have my own reasons for having discredited that experience later, which I don’t particularly feel like expounding upon right now, but at the time I felt it was very real and concrete evidence that God existed. When someone says they know God exists because they’ve felt His love/presence, I tend to believe them; unless they’re talking out of their asses, it really is very real for them, and any attempt to try to discredit it from the outside can do nothing but foster even more animosity and frustration–which the world doesn’t need any more of. At that point, I honestly believe it’s best to leave well enough alone.
FTR, the people I’ve known who have felt the love/presence of God(s) have tended to be the most secure in their faith, and thus the least irritating and insistent of the believers. Usually I can learn a lot about the believer’s viewpoint from these people and really have a constructive conversation where both of us can learn and grow, if I ignore my drive to point out the irrationality of their belief system. Remember, believers have just as strong an inner drive to point out the perceived flaws in our system as we do of theirs, and they’re also under pressure from their families, their churches, their spiritual and religious leaders and their subculture in general to push their faith system on us. Any believer who doesn’t attempt to convert you should be admired for his/her restraint, especially if they’re Christian or Muslim, since those two groups in particular seem to come under the most pressure to conquer the world for their beloved God.
Isn’t it also possible that those individuals who have that experience are experiencing a universal divine force and interpreting it within their cultural context, so that the different gods can be considered to exist as manifestations of one or more divine forces? I’m not saying I believe that, I’m just saying that maybe it’s not as black-and-white as you would argue. (Although in general, the “how can your faith system be absolutely true when you would have been just as devout as a Catholic if you were only born 80 miles to the south?” argument is sound, and is one I use from time to time.)
Bryan, I think that we can agree that it is reasonable to be suspicious of pushy people on either side. I have never found you to be pushy and that’s why I was puzzled by your earlier negative comment. Thanks.
What if the theist responds with “Prove Occham’s Razor” and “Occham was a theist”? (I’m not saying that I take that position myself.)
That would be under the “mistaken” part, in that they genuinely do feel something but can’t accurately discern what it is they feel.
The comeback to that is “Aha! So people can be wrong about specifics, but not wrong in that they feel God exists!”. The problem with that is that God doesn’t exist, a universal divine force does. If people can mistakenly assign attributes of their cultural upbringing to a force that doesn’t have them, you can’t say anything about that force, other than it exists and can be felt. And this is bearing in mind the possibility that being wrong about characteristics means you’re likely to be wrong about it’s existence entirely. And of course the general chance anyway that you could be wrong.
Feeling/knowing something and personal experiences like that in general just aren’t that good - taken alone, anyway.
Edit: I don’t consider proseylatizing a sign of weakness in one’s own opinions, whether it’s from theists or atheists. Both sides generally have genuinely good reasons to preach; in some cases, i’m sure it can be to hide insecurities, but I need more than just them being preachy to assume weakness of thought.
The proof of it, such as there is one, is that it works. And there really isn’t any alternative besides wild guesses. The space of imaginable explanations for even very simple things is so immense that eliminating the simplest ones and working your way out towards more complex ones is the only practical method of discovering the truth.
As for Occam being a theist, so what ? Just because he got one ( or even quite a few ) things right doesn’t mean he was right about everything. And at any rate, when he was alive it made far more sense to be a theist; among other things, evolution, the only plausible non-religious explanation for the development of life, had yet to be thought of. And even if he HADN’T been a theist, he’s hardly have dared admit it.
Who says it’s a mistake? Spirituality and religion are different for any two people–or, as “my people” say, “two Jews, three opinions”. The general conception of either God or the pantheon as a collective whole is pretty consistent between religions and across cultures, it seems, even if the specifics vary widely. When such fundamental concepts as “to like” vary between cultures, despite having similar general implications–as, I believe, is illustrated by the linguistic difference between English “to like”, which represents it as an action that you take on the thing you like, and Spanish “gustar” or “to be pleased by”, which represents it as an action that the thing you like takes on you–it’s reasonable to suggest that a universal divine force can be interpreted as a different god or collection of gods without invalidating all of the gods thereby deduced.
That doesn’t mean that it’s rational to go from there to “well, the god(s) as portrayed by the particular book which applies must be the real ones” without further investigation of the phenomenon. The reason I eventually discredited my own religious experience was not because I interpreted it as coming from God whereas someone else might have interpreted it as coming from the Greek pantheon or the Aztec pantheon or what-have-you, but because buying into any one particular view of that divine force would inevitably involve accepting one specific set of beliefs about that force, which would contradict with other sets of beliefs about that force. It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s an important distinction to me. From my own experience, I’ve concluded that, if the believer in question can reconcile those issues within him/herself, it’s not my place to deny him/her that and it’s only going to lead to irritation and frustration on both sides if I do. In time, their convictions will probably either strengthen or weaken, but which direction they go in will be a result of their own deeply personal journey. Once you really, truly, honestly “see the light” in this way, it’s no longer a question of what other people tell you about the rationality of this side or that, but of what you find in the midst of your own journey.
Of course, a lot of atheists probably think I’m a total kook now. So be it. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Well, AIUI, people who have this kind of religious experience tend to have a lot of common elements across cultures and generations. I’ll have to do some research to back that up, though.
I’m not suggesting the existence of the gods themselves is invalidated. That one person may be certain a god is one way and another certain the other doesn’t say anything about either god’s existence; it’s a problem of people, not gods.
I do see what you’re saying; two people may worship gods differing in the specifics but similar in the general. I think there’s a few problems with that, though. What we may see as a base, similar belief across many people doesn’t necessarily mean it’s actually similar. Most religious people would say “Ah, my god is a god of love”. You could say that that’s a good base point. But what do they actually mean by that? Who is to be loved? What kind of love is it? In what manner is it displayed? What seems to be a basic point often isn’t.
The other problem is that it only takes one person to show that people may be fooled. If there’s one religion in the world that honestly believes that god is a particularly hateful being, that’s enough to show that people can be misled. Commonality can help us say “well, it’s more likely that the many are right, rather than the few”, but it’s not a certainty. And it’s the certainty i’m arguing against.
That’s probably true. I think that that can kinda lose you perspective though… I know from my own experience that i’m often wrong, so even if i’m certain of my rightness on something and a person who criticises seems clearly an idiot, I do still honestly try to think about it and see if they’re right. It may be my personal journey, but frankly I don’t trust myself to travel alone.
Ah, we’re all kooks in our own ways. I believe free will and predestination can co-exist, and i’m in favour of cannabalism. 
Common elements are often only common in name only. But i’d be interested to see the fruits of your labour.
There’s no need for an argument. The complete lack of support of any proposed incarnation of god says it all. Why would someone argue in favor of a negative?