Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Arguments Against The Existence Of God.

A website produces a pretentious list of Ten Arguments For the Non-Existence God. Or does it?
1) Where's the Proof? If God is so powerful, why doesn't he show Him or Herself?
A. The logical deductive proofs abound, and are without refutation. You could easily find them if you really wanted. Go ahead.

Empirical proof at Fatima and Lourdes, etc exists, and is not refuted just because you weren’t there to observe it; you must refute those empirical claims using empirical techniques. Go ahead.

Reveal himself? In what fashion would satisfy you? Would the quantum/conscious connection suffice? If not, then what is the mechanism which allows all material things to change between t=0 and t=0+?

And the non-physical gift of free will: would you have God revoke free will in favor of automatonism?

Why does your demand on God have any force with such a being? Are you a god or a superior being to God? Why do you think so?

Further, the demand for physical proof is a logical Category Error. One cannot rationally demand proof for the nonexistence of Category [!A] by searching only Category [A]. The insistence that only Category [A] exists is anti-logic, and is irrational.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. It is merely denialism in the form of Radical Skepticism, with no disproof given, even in the face of actual evidence..

Fails.
2) Why do Bad People Exist and Get Away With Things? If God is loving, why does he permit so much suffering in this world?
A. Bad people exist due to their free will to choose evil over good; their first choice is to reject the existence of evil as even existing in a universe which is closed and physicalist, a common Atheist position. Thus “all things are permitted” (Dostoevsky). If evil does not exist, then how can you ask about “bad” things and suffering as being evil? The question is posed out of a worldview which does not even believe that “bad” exists, and therefore that suffering is actually “bad”. So it is an attack on God for the purpose of justifying the contrary position. But the presupposition that “love” would produce a different outcome is false; a loving deity might provide a gift which involves having to deal with hardship and choices. So the underlying presupposition is false (False Premise).

Love does not mean perfect overprotection; such protection would eliminate free will rendering us automatons, thus it would trivialize human existence. (Automatons do seem to be the objective of most Atheist driven ethics, such as humanism, Virtue Ethics, and Nietzschean ethics).

Further, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; it is a deliberately false understanding of the nature of that agent, the nature of loving gifts, and is thus merely an attack on a Straw Man. Omnibenevolence is not a characteristic attributable to the Abrahamic theology. Nor is it even desirable. It is a false creation of Atheists.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. It is an attack on the existence of free will and the Straw Man of presumption of omnibenevolence, not on the existence of God.

Fails.
3) How Can One Say God Exists, But Not all those Other Gods? You know, the Indian ones, the Norse ones, the Roman and Greek ones, the Hawaiian ones? Everyone is talking about so many different deities, it's hard to suggest yours is "right".
A. Even the parsimony of Occam’s Razor suggests that there need be only one cause for the universe; if the Big Bang Theory is correct, there needs to have been a decision made to trigger the expansion, and that suggests a single agent with the capacity to have made the decision and then implemented it.

To argue that because "some" concepts are incorrect, therefore all concepts are incorrect is false; it is the Fallacy of False Association. Each concept must be analyzed in its own right.

Further, there is nothing either logically or empirically which prohibits the existence of agencies outside of our four dimensional universe, agents which might be either maleficent or beneficent by our standards. The question posed is very earth-centric and physicalist, and is without any merit because it is the Fallacy of False Association, as well as ignoring the “scientific” (e.g. String Theory) possibility of other dimensions and their contents, which map into our four dimensions.

Further still, the bible does not claim that there are no other "gods"; it abjures worshipping them.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. It is in fact a logical fallacy of the form Fallacy of False Association, and it is a false understanding of the Bible.

Fails.
4) Where are the Miracles? We certainly haven't seen any for a long time.
A. You have miracles to refute; go ahead and do so, making certain that your empirical data is available to all. Further, refute that quantum observation is entangled with consciousness, which implies scientifically that existence, all of it, depends upon a conscious observer. We’ll need to see your work on that.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; plus, it is a fatuous and false claim. There is no refutation of claimed miracles such as Lourdes and Fatima.

Fails.
5) If God Created Everything, What Created God? Doesn't using God as an answer for what created things defer the question and ignore the main issue?
A. The other horn for this Radical Skeptical (and rather obtuse) dichotomy/dilemma is an infinite regression. What is the evidence for an infinite regression? None. Like “infinite universes”, the argument presents a fantasy as an option in a fantasy dichotomy, a dichotomy which posits no grounding for any origins whatsoever. Yet this fantasy is proposed out of a worldview of physicalism/materialism, which actually believes in a closed universe, and does not believe in any regression at all, much less an infinite regression.

If there is no grounding in an original source for existence, then there is also no grounding for any morality. Any morality derived by Atheists under such a proposition is merely their opinion: volatile and personally derived subjectively and relativistically, and therefore without value. The lack of principles under Atheist rejectionism also applies to argumentation, and this is an example of the result of unprincipled argumentation.

The infinite regress required by such a statement is irrational; it requires the existence of agencies placed a hierarchical fashion infinitely, with no origination for their agencies or their existence. What, then, is the proof for this under a physicalist/materialist worldview? None: they do not believe it. Once again, the parsimony of Occam can be invoked to help refute this issue.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; it is a childish sophistry posed as an illogical and faux conundrum. It is a rhetorical issue, only.

Fails.
6) Geological Evidence Contradicts the Bible, Koran and other Religious Texts The earth appears to be much older and more naturally occurring than any religious scriptures seem to acknowledge.
A. First: No, that is false. The Bible does not claim any time frame other than allegorically, metaphorically. This claim is a literalist attack, from a worldview that hates Biblical literalism. The Bible, including the OT, contains many types of literature, not just literal narrative.

Second: How does that prove that God does not exist? It does not even relate, because it is an attack (false) on ecclesiasticism, not on the existence of a creating agent for the universe. The argument has no bearing on the existence of God.

This is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; if anything, it is a Red Herring Fallacy which points off of theology and toward ecclesiaticism.

Fails.
7) Hypocrisy Among Religious People Why is it that some of the most fervent believers don't believe in abortion but support the death penalty, which directly contradicts one of the ten commandments... which they claim to know and honor?
A. Judeo-Christians do not claim to be morally perfect; only Atheists claim that for themselves, since Atheists get to create their own morals to suit themselves and to match their preferred behaviors (e.g. homosexuality, Scientism, Humanism/totalitarianism, Consequentialism/Utilitarianism, etc.)

Why do most Atheists support the killing of the innocent but decry the humane killing, by the state, of killers of the innocent? Atheists who support abortive dismemberment and killing of pre-born humans have no moral right (much less moral authority) to question those who support the humane punishment of those who kill innocent post-born humans.

This is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. And the argument is based on a false premise: the presupposition that Christians are perfect creatures rather than struggling humans dealing with moral decisions.

Fails.
8) Isn't It Very Possible the Whole "Immaculate Conception Thing" Was a Cover Up... ...for an unwanted pregnancy?
A. You might as well just claim, by implication rather than actual evidence, that the entire NT is false, since the immaculate conception is perfectly integrated into the entire metanarrative. Your accusation is thus required to deal with the entire metanarrative. The accusation being Radically Skeptical and physicalist/materialist in nature, the entire metanarrative thus requires disciplined empirical evidence for its disproof, not just innuendo. This question does not qualify as evidence for anything whatsoever. And it does not bear on the existence of God.

And as we see with every question posed, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. This question is merely an injection of Radical Skepticism as innuendo with no possible proof of its accusation: none.

Fails.
9) If Believers So Ardently Subscribe to the Idea of Heaven... ...why are people afraid to die?
A. Where is your proof that this accusation is true? The actual evidence suggests that this is false; in hospitals it is observed that the most raucous wailing during pre- and post-death is by those with “no belief”, and the opposite by those with belief. This is a false premise, and the conclusion does not bear on the existence of God.

This is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. And it is a false proposition, obviously made for rhetorical purposes with the hope that it is not refuted.

Fails.
10) Prayer's Ineffectiveness Prayer has a spotty success rate, to put it gently.
A. Double blind studies with both humans and animals show otherwise. And God is not a candy machine, as Atheists reductively surmise: there is no reason to expect that a prayer inserted will deterministically produce a goody in return. That is not the purpose of prayer. This premise is another Straw Man Fallacy. And it does not bear on the existence of God.

This is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; it is the injection of false expectations – unstated – and a false conclusion – with no evidence for its veracity.

Fails.

Conclusion:
This List does show some of the common Atheist positions, and it allows us to dismantle them all right here in one place. There must be some better arguments for Atheism, but all that I have seen involve either Radical Skepticism, Denialism (of responsibility for forming a valid argument), or Straw Men and other rhetorical fallacies.

I have made the persistent request for disproof of a creating agent for the universe, and I never have received any such proof, either empirical or disciplined deductive. From this it is parsimonious to assume that Atheism is not based on either evidence or logic, as claimed; rather it is based on emotional neediness, and nothing more.

16 comments:

Steven Satak said...

Nice work, Stan. And you kept each refutation brief and to the point. I like this post.

It still amazes me how they can substitute emotional appeal for honest reason and act shocked that the one is not 'as good as' the other. I really think their egoism has gotten them to a place where they are no longer able to see self-contradiction simply because they don't want to.

Anonymous said...

Why do Bad People Exist and Get Away With Things?

That's a really bizzare question.
People exist... because they act on bad thoughts and negative emotions,they are then classified as bad people.

Humanism claims that people are inherently good.So if bad people exist then it's inherited from their predecessors.Thus making them unaccountable for their actions even the good ones.

Anonymous said...

Stan

Have you read The Emporor's New Mind by Roger Penrose?
I'm hoping to borrow it from my local library soon.
I heard he claims that human consciousness could be transfered to machines in the future.He also claims that consciousness is not algorithmically deterministic but he's still an ardent atheist.

Is Penrose,like his colleague Hawkings, philosophically challenged? Or am I missing something?

Stan said...

I haven't read that, but I'm adding it to my list. (Quite long, my list).

All philosophers are logically challenged (not philosophically challenged). Philosophy is what any particular philosopher says it is. So there are lots of philosophies, probably more than there are philosophers. The question becomes, how logical/rational is any given philosophy, and how does it match reality (and which reality). Each philosopher gets to define his own reality as well.

Given that science hasn't defined reality very successfully so far, then how does one discriminate between reality propositions? That is the loop hole that allows the story telling of evolution (for example) to be called "fact". The definition of "fact" is reality as they decide it to be.

The same goes for whatever is inside black holes, the Higgs Boson, the subconscious homunculus, and the illusion of free will, to list a few.

Anonymous said...

All philosophers are logically challenged (not philosophically challenged). Philosophy is what any particular philosopher says it is

That's why I've suspended reading any philosophy books...maybe indefinitely and concentrating more on math,quantum physics and logic.

Unknown said...

I'm not sure "EmceeBC" is really into atheism so much as he is into making lists. He links to his "10 Reasons God Exists" list, and has links to other lists at the bottom of each page.

I suspect he just went out and cribbed the list from somewhere without actually putting too much thought into it. His "10 Reasons God Exists" has a few clunkers in it, as well.

Unfortunately, the site requires registration to comment or vote.

Unknown said...

I enjoy a good syllogism, and I think rewriting most of the proofs syllogistically would highlight their absurdities.

Here's our syllogism:

P: If God exists, then A.
P: Not A.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

So what do we get?

Proof 2:
P: If God exists, there wouldn't be bad people.
P: There are bad people.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

Proof 4:
P: If God exists, there would be (observable) miracles.
P: There are no (observable) miracles.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

Proof 7:
P: If God exists, there wouldn't be hypocritical religious people.
P: There are hypocritical religious people.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

And my favorite:

Proof 8:
P: If God exists, the Immaculate Conception would be true.
P: It's possible the Immaculate Conception isn't true.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

Stan said...

These are all valid forms of modus tollens. However, they are all non sequitur, because every premise is a false proposition.

I.e., it does not follow that IF [bad people exist], that such an assertion, which is true, has any bearing on the existence of God.

Each and every one of his "proofs" suffers from the same or similar illogic.

Stan said...

A clue to certain phony arguments is the fact that they are posited as questions, rather than arguments. The intent is to make the respondent make the counter-argument against a phony argument which has the form of innuendo, rather than a coherent argument. This is a Leftist favorite also.

By attaching a false conclusion to a true premise, and then asserting that the premise is true - and it obviously is true - the arguer has hoped to conceal the fallacy by using a valid format, and a valid premise, but with a false, non sequitur conclusion.

It might work on the unwary, but I suggest that we should all not be unwary.

Unknown said...

@Stan: Exactly! Which is what makes syllogisms such a wonderful tool. Simply recasting the arguments syllogistically makes the non sequiturs so glaring in most cases no further rebuttal is even necessary.

"This is a Leftist favorite".

True, but I think not only. It's also a favorite of conspiracy theorists. "Well,then what do you make of....?", "How do you explain....?", "Isn't it possible....?", "Doesn't it seem odd that....?" And so forth, the intent being to toss off so much innuendo the unwary listener is overwhelmed.

The Immaculate Conception is my favorite of the arguments because the second postulate isn't even an assertion of truth, only of possibility.

OK, I'll stop bothering you now :)

Unknown said...

Whoops: "premise", of course, not "postulate".

Eric Hyde said...

I'm really enjoying this article, but could you help me understand what is meant by this: "Would the quantum/conscious connection suffice? If not, then what is the mechanism which allows all material things to change between t=0 and t=0+?"

Stan said...

One of the principles of quantum mechanics is that a particle exists only as a "probability wave" until it is observed by a conscious observer.

That was frustrating to Einstein who famously complained, "you mean to tell me that the moon doesn't exist when I'm not looking at it?"

Yet the experimental data is conclusive, in the favor of quantum mechanics.

If existence requires a conscious observer, and if existence changes at every "quantum" of time, if I may call the smallest increment of time that, then the continuance of existence from one point in time to the next - including motion from previous position to next position - requires conscious observation on a universal scale just to satisfy quantum existence.

Berkeley forsaw this in his philosophy, and the following limerick exchange occurred:

God in the Quad

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

Stan said...

Here's another grouping of Berkeley-type observation limericks:

Some Berkeley Limericks

(The first one is due to Ronald Knox. The source of the second is unknown. The last two limericks are the handiwork of Roderick T. Long.)

There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."


Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God

If objects depend on our seeing
So that trees, unobserved, would cease tree-ing,
Then my question is: Who
Is the one who sees you
And assures your persistence in being?

Dear Sir,
You reason most oddly.
To be's to be seen for the bod'ly.
But for spirits like me,
To be is to see.
Sincerely,
The one who is godly.

http://faculty.otterbein.edu/AMills/EarlyModern/brklim.htm

Eric Hyde said...

Ah, okay, thank you. It's been awhile since I've devoted any amount of time to quantum mechanics but I do remember this now. Personally, I think it is a powerful argument, the problem I see is the amount of techincal knowledge one much have a quantum research to be convinced by it. Many atheists I know can barely get over the consciousness, cognition, and values bump - and those are things within everyone's daily experience, but still falls on deaf ears. I wonder how many atheist would ever be convinced by the quantum/conscious connection.

uchitrakar said...

Our slogan: If special theory of relativity is not a pseudo-science, then mystical experience is not a hallucination. That means if special theory of relativity is not a pseudo-science, then God is real.

One can visit my website www.sekharpal.wordpress.com for further details.