Bonjour798's Challenge Thread! Theists, Beware!

[bonjour798]

I'm not getting many theists' responses to my other thread - although one theist made a noble effort to address Reason 2, Reasons 1, 3, and 4 are untouched. I think I'm not getting replies because I titled it "Hello, Everyone," so I'm making a new thread with a more aggressive title where theists can address my arguments for atheism.

Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher, defines God as follows.

"I take the proposition 'God exists' (and the equivalent propositon 'There is a God') to be logically equivalent to 'there exists necessarily a person without a body who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things.'" (The Existence of God, p. 7)

An atheist is a person who believes that God, so defined, does not exist. I will present four quick reasons for being an atheist.

Reason 1: Free will does not exist.

If God exists, then God has free will, per Swinburne's definition. But it is extremely difficult to say what free will is supposed to be. Indeed, the notion of free will appears to be positively incoherent: An action must be either caused or uncaused, but it is not free if it is caused or if it is not caused. Therefore, neither free will nor God exists.

Reason 2: Consciousness requires a brain.

If God exists, God is conscious without a body, per Swinburne's definition. But everything conscious that we know of has a brain. It is more reasonable to conclude that consciousness is a process that occurs in brains than to believe that it is a substance in itself which can have an existence independently of the brain. Therefore, God does not exist.

Reason 3: The problem of evil disproves God's existence.

If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly moral, per Swinburne's definition. If such a being existed, then evil would not exist. But evil does exist, in overwhelming quantity. Some apologists attempt to get out of this argument by deploying a free will defense, but as we have seen, free will does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist.

Reason 4: Occam's Razor "shaves off" the claim that God exists.

Given the lack of objective positive evidence for the existence of God, it is simpler to attribute belief in God to the intellectual vices and emotional needs of the believer than to an actually extant deity. In cases like this, we can safely appeal to Occam's Razor to "shave off" the claim that God exists, just like we do the claim that leprechauns exist. Therefore, in the same sense in which we say leprechauns do not exist, we can reasonably say God does not exist.

I look forward to your responses.

 

[Willamena]

But... if you take "God" as being only that one image, you automatically make "atheists" out of a lot of theists.

 

[bonjour798]

But... if you take "God" as being only that one image, you automatically make "atheists" out of a lot of theists.

I agree that it would be unreasonable to be too strict about a theist's exactly conforming to my definition. I don't adopt that sort of strictness is necessary or desirable to present some arguments against the general concept of God, however. And if someone believes in a "God" that doesn't have free will, consciousness, or perfect moral virtue, do we really want to call them a theist anyway?

 

[Sir Doom]

Just for clarity, I do not agree with the definition for god presented, but that's less important than the thread topic, so here goes my best shot!

Reason 1: Free will does not exist.

If God exists, then God has free will, per Swinburne's definition. But it is extremely difficult to say what free will is supposed to be. Indeed, the notion of free will appears to be positively incoherent: An action must be either caused or uncaused, but it is not free if it is caused or if it is not caused. Therefore, neither free will nor God exists.

If god is omnipotent, then it most certainly has free will. If such a being exists than it can do anything its imagination can cook up hence it is free to apply its will to all things. Unfortunately, this more or less destroys free will for everything else that exists.

Reason 2: Consciousness requires a brain.

If God exists, God is conscious without a body, per Swinburne's definition. But everything conscious that we know of has a brain. It is more reasonable to conclude that consciousness is a process that occurs in brains than to believe that it is a substance in itself which can have an existence independently of the brain. Therefore, God does not exist.

Again, you are leaving omnipotence out of the equation. You cannot impose any limit upon omnipotence or it isn't omnipotence. So, if god is omnipotent, could it cause a normally free-floating consciousness to exist within the brains of humans. Yes it can. It can do anything.

Reason 3: The problem of evil disproves God's existence.

If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly moral, per Swinburne's definition. If such a being existed, then evil would not exist. But evil does exist, in overwhelming quantity. Some apologists attempt to get out of this argument by deploying a free will defense, but as we have seen, free will does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist.

This is an attempt to fit god into morality instead of the other way around. As the being is omnipotent by definition, than all things stem from it. Perfect morality is a given for such a being as it defines the term itself. Again, you can't limit omnipotence. Just as you and I can find morality in all actions given the correct circumstances, so too could an omnipotent being find the creation of evil as a necessary function of perfect morality. Just because its impossible for us to see why, doesn't mean it isn't so.

Reason 4: Occam's Razor "shaves off" the claim that God exists.

Given the lack of objective positive evidence for the existence of God, it is simpler to attribute belief in God to the intellectual vices and emotional needs of the believer than to an actually extant deity. In cases like this, we can safely appeal to Occam's Razor to "shave off" the claim that God exists, just like we do the claim that leprechauns exist. Therefore, in the same sense in which we say leprechauns do not exist, we can reasonably say God does not exist.

I've heard this one a lot, and it is a good argument. However, the concept of "simpler" is only a product of our human imagination. The universe does not work this way, it just seems to. We attribute "simple" and "complex" where we perceive it and for every simple thing there are a million complexities. Consider this:

Would it not be simpler if a rock was just a rock and not a vast, nearly incalculable collection of molecules?

Would it also not be simpler if the rock was just a collection of molecules as opposed to even more vast collection of atoms?

Would it also not be simpler if the rock was just a collection of atoms instead of the impossibly tiny sub-atomic particles that they are made of?

I could go on and on. The answer to all of these questions is both yes and no. You could find simplicity in the micro world, or you could find complexity. This is just a trick of human perception and cognitive reasoning. We assign complexity, we don't discover it.

To say, "All things real or imaginary, past, present and future are the product of one single thing." This is as simple as the universe can get.

 

[Draka]

I agree that it would be unreasonable to be too strict about a theist's exactly conforming to my definition. I don't adopt that sort of strictness is necessary or desirable to present some arguments against the general concept of God, however. And if someone believes in a "God" that doesn't have free will, consciousness, or perfect moral virtue, do we really want to call them a theist anyway?

Why on earth would you not call a theist a theist just because they don't share one particular concept of what Deity is? Who is this "we" that is determining who is and is not a theist based upon a very limited description of one concept of Deity?

 

[bonjour798]

Just for clarity, I do not agree with the definition for god presented, but that's less important than the thread topic, so here goes my best shot!

You're the first to try to address all of my arguments, then. Thanks!

If god is omnipotent, then it most certainly has free will. If such a being exists than it can do anything its imagination can cook up hence it is free to apply its will to all things. Unfortunately, this more or less destroys free will for everything else that exists.

This is an interesting answer, although it's fairly unorthodox. Most theologians don't say that God can do things that are logically impossible or incoherent. I think Descartes held the position you're suggesting here, but very few follow him. Of course, the unorthodoxy of your argument does not damage it whatsoever, so a more substantive reply is needed on my part.

I guess my question would be how you could be justified in believing in a God that can perform incoherent actions. I don't see how you could justify such a belief. Maybe you could just believe in it by faith, but that doesn't seem like a good way to find out the truth about reality.

Again, you are leaving omnipotence out of the equation. You cannot impose any limit upon omnipotence or it isn't omnipotence. So, if god is omnipotent, could it cause a normally free-floating consciousness to exist within the brains of humans. Yes it can. It can do anything.

See above.

This is an attempt to fit god into morality instead of the other way around. As the being is omnipotent by definition, than all things stem from it. Perfect morality is a given for such a being as it defines the term itself. Again, you can't limit omnipotence. Just as you and I can find morality in all actions given the correct circumstances, so too could an omnipotent being find the creation of evil as a necessary function of perfect morality. Just because its impossible for us to see why, doesn't mean it isn't so.

See above.

I've heard this one a lot, and it is a good argument. However, the concept of "simpler" is only a product of our human imagination. The universe does not work this way, it just seems to. We attribute "simple" and "complex" where we perceive it and for every simple thing there are a million complexities. Consider this:

Would it not be simpler if a rock was just a rock and not a vast, nearly incalculable collection of molecules?

Would it also not be simpler if the rock was just a collection of molecules as opposed to even more vast collection of atoms?

Would it also not be simpler if the rock was just a collection of atoms instead of the impossibly tiny sub-atomic particles that they are made of?

I could go on and on. The answer to all of these questions is both yes and no. You could find simplicity in the micro world, or you could find complexity. This is just a trick of human perception and cognitive reasoning. We assign complexity, we don't discover it.

To say, "All things real or imaginary, past, present and future are the product of one single thing." This is as simple as the universe can get.

I don't think simplicity is completely subjective. It's used by scientists to evaluate scientific theories.

 

[bonjour798]

Why on earth would you not call a theist a theist just because they don't share one particular concept of what Deity is? Who is this "we" that is determining who is and is not a theist based upon a very limited description of one concept of Deity?

How else would you suggest I go about classifying people as theists or non-theists?

 

[Draka]

How else would you suggest I go about classifying people as theists or non-theists?

Simple, those who hold a belief in any concept of Deity are theists. Those who don't are non-theists. Now, if you have issue with one particular concept of Deity then you are more than welcome to address and debate it, but taking on one concept does not actually challenge theism in general. This is something that gets done over and over here. Someone takes on one base concept of what Deity is and thinks if they can debunk that one concept then it somehow proves that theism itself is irrational. In order to do that you'd have to debunk every single deity concept imaginable and one simply can't do that.

 

[bonjour798]

Simple, those who hold a belief in any concept of Deity are theists. Those who don't are non-theists. Now, if you have issue with one particular concept of Deity then you are more than welcome to address and debate it, but taking on one concept does not actually challenge theism in general. This is something that gets done over and over here. Someone takes on one base concept of what Deity is and thinks if they can debunk that one concept then it somehow proves that theism itself is irrational. In order to do that you'd have to debunk every single deity concept imaginable and one simply can't do that.

Okay, that's reasonable. Thanks.

I hereby qualify my claim to: "Nothing that exists has free will, a disembodied consciousness, omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect moral virtue. Further, many of the concepts which we frequently refer to as 'gods' are not instantiated in reality."

Is that better, by your lights?

 

[Draka]

Okay, that's reasonable. Thanks.

I hereby qualify my claim to: "Nothing that exists has free will, a disembodied consciousness, omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect moral virtue. Further, many of the concepts which we frequently refer to as 'gods' are not instantiated in reality."

Is that better, by your lights?

The last part, due to metaphorical and allegorical dissemination of myth, can't truly be said. The first part, however, would be much easier if you just said that the monotheistic stance of the Abrahamic religions is faulty and show why. JMO

 

[bonjour798]

The last part, due to metaphorical and allegorical dissemination of myth, can't truly be said. The first part, however, would be much easier if you just said that the monotheistic stance of the Abrahamic religions is faulty and show why. JMO

Yeah, that would be a lot easier. I'll say "the Judeo-Christian God" in future.

 

[Draka]

Yeah, that would be a lot easier. I'll say "the Judeo-Christian God" in future.

Would be wise, as with the arguments you present you're bound to have Hindus, Pagans, Mystics, and many more, who will poke holes in them. Sorry about this, it's just a nitpick of mine as it is done so frequently here. The claim that theism is wrong because of one god concept when theism is so much larger than that.

 

[bobhikes]

Reason 1: Free will does not exist.


Reason 2: Consciousness requires a brain.


Reason 3: The problem of evil disproves God's existence.


Reason 4: Occam's Razor "shaves off" the claim that God exists.

.

Reason 1 prove free will does not exist. If you look through the history in the RF you will see the battle goes on whether is does or doesn't. Atheists and Theists are on each side. I myself an Atheist believe I can prove free will does exist.

Reason 2 again you are saying that nothing other than a brain can create consciousness. The RF would disagree with you. People have debate if the internet was conscious or computers. You can't make statements without proof.

Reason 3 are you defining evil or is god defining evil. Just because you see human suffering or animal cruelty and you define it as evil does not mean God defines it as evil. Remember if there is a god this is just waiting place. You must accomplish something to move on. Maybe this suffering is going to allow you greater things under god.

Reason 4 Really Occam's Razor this is just an unthoughtout statement.

Why don't you look around get a feel for the site engage in some debates, search the history. A lot of what you stated has already been debated and then come at us with some thing interesting.

 

[bonjour798]

Reason 1 prove free will does not exist. If you look through the history in the RF you will see the battle goes on whether is does or doesn't. Atheists and Theists are on each side. I myself an Atheist believe I can prove free will does exist.

Interesting. Why do you believe free will exists?

Reason 2 again you are saying that nothing other than a brain can create consciousness. The RF would disagree with you. People have debate if the internet was conscious or computers. You can't make statements without proof.

I'm well aware that some people would disagree with me.

Reason 3 are you defining evil or is god defining evil. Just because you see human suffering or animal cruelty and you define it as evil does not mean God defines it as evil. Remember if there is a god this is just waiting place. You must accomplish something to move on. Maybe this suffering is going to allow you greater things under god.

We should apply the Principle of Credulity to our perception that evils occur.

Reason 4 Really Occam's Razor this is just an unthoughtout statement.

This isn't an objection.

Why don't you look around get a feel for the site engage in some debates, search the history. A lot of what you stated has already been debated and then come at us with some thing interesting.

You should present your reasons for disagreeing with my arguments, or at least provide a link, instead of gesturing at the forum archives and telling me that refutations of my arguments are in there somewhere.

 

[Storm]

Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher, defines God as follows.

"I take the proposition 'God exists' (and the equivalent propositon 'There is a God') to be logically equivalent to 'there exists necessarily a person without a body who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things.'" (The Existence of God, p. 7)

If you want to debate "theists," you shouldn't use Christian definitions as the standard.

 

[ChristineES]

First off, welcome to the RF, Bonjour798. I've seen you, but never properly welcomed you.

These kinds of arguments don't really work for theists. For one thing, we have faith in God, because there is no proof for God. If there was proof for God, then it wouldn't faith- it would be a fact. And there are many different kinds of theists, different religions that worship God, and mainly, different ideas for the very nature of God (not that we can really understand the nature of God). We have no way of knowing what God's intent would be or even His purpose.

Nice to meet you.

 

[bonjour798]

If you want to debate "theists," you shouldn't use Christian definitions as the standard.

Good point. Thank you. I'll take this into account in the future.

 

[bonjour798]

First off, welcome to the RF, Bonjour798. I've seen you, but never properly welcomed you.

Thank you.

These kinds of arguments don't really work for theists. For one thing, we have faith in God, because there is no proof for God. If there was proof for God, then it wouldn't faith- it would be a fact. And there are many different kinds of theists, different religions that worship God, and mainly, different ideas for the very nature of God (not that we can really understand the nature of God). We have no way of knowing what God's intent would be or even His purpose.

I certainly don't think I can damage your faith with reasoning if your faith is not based on reason. (I hope it's clear that I don't say that to be snarky or rude.) My claim is simply that reason does lead to atheism with respect to the Judeo-Christian God.

Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you, too!

 

[Storm]

My claim is simply that reason does lead to atheism with respect to the Judeo-Christian God.

In some. If you want to claim it as an absolute, I'm going to ask for proof.

 

[bonjour798]

In some. If you want to claim it as an absolute, I'm going to ask for proof.

Well, I gave some brief reasons in the OP that we could discuss.