a couple atheists in this thread have claimed to have negative proof. And, in their particular case, the burden of proof is on THEM. But most respondents don't claim to have such knowledge. Yet the latter group has made the case multiple times that their disbelief is reasonable. If you gloss over those well-reasoned arguments this has zero chance of developing into an honest debate.
Which arguments 'against' the existence of God do you consider well-reasoned?
He wasn't calling any arguments against the existence of deities well-reasoned. I believe that he was saying that rejecting insufficiently supported claims of deities is reasonable. I suspect that you agree.
If you don't believe God should or could be doing anything, then how can you believe that if there were a God some things would happen (or wouldn't happen) and that the fact that these things are or are not happening is evidence that there is no God?
Should and could imply the existence of this god. Would does not. I am uncomfortable saying what something I don't believe exists could or should do.
Incidentally, regarding your previous post about what would constitute evidence of a god sufficient to convince a skeptic, I did give you an answer, and I thought a good one. I don't recall a reply from you. I merely gave you the definition of evidence in my answer: whatever experience made the likelihood of a deity greater to degree that its existence seemed likely.
I also mentioned that I couldn't think of any evidence that could do that. Nothing occurring within this universe could not be the work of a sufficiently evolved naturalistic civilization. From Arthur C. Clarke: "
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Saying that it's likely that nothing could convince the skeptic of the existence of the supernatural might frustrate him (or her), but it is logically possible that gods exist and that that fact cannot be demonstrated sufficiently to justify belief.
Logic is not a valid tool to get to the truth about God, since God is not subject to logic. Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God.
That's an unsupported claim, one I don't accept. There is no evidence of any reality except nature, nor any evidence that anything is exempt from logical scrutiny.
And if I were willing to throw out reason in the assessment of claims of deities, I'd have to throw out everything in this post, since it is all based in reason. Some theists might applaud that. I would consider it the greatest sin possible to commit against the self - suspending reason. It's the foundation of my worldview.
What is the evidence that no gods exist?
There can be no evidence that no gods exist. We can rule out certain specific deities because of the illogical and contradictory claims made about them, but a god like the theist deity about whom nothing is claimed apart from it being the sentient creator of our universe can never be ruled out without a test that distinguishes between what the world would look like if that deity existed versus having never existed.
There is no argument that makes a compelling case that no deity exists. But there is a compelling argument that no interventionalist deity exists, that is, one that modifies our reality whether by leaving revelation, answering prayer, or performing miracles. I've given it to you a few times, but I don't recall you're ever having commented on it, so I won't make the full case again here, but just remind you that the argument, which I call restricted choice, is the one with the coin flip argument. Is the coin perfectly loaded to flip tails every time? Suppose that we were unable to touch the coin to weigh or X-ray it, for example. The only test is a coin flip. How many consecutive tails would it take to convince you that the coin was loaded and could never come up heads?
Probably more than ten, but probably less than a thousand. Have you proved the coin is loaded after 1000 consecutive tails? No, but you've made a compelling case, one good enough to prevent reasonable people from betting on heads. The argument says that while it is true that if [A] the coin is fair, then two results are possible, heads [R1] or tails [R2], but if the coin is perfectly loaded, only [R2] tails will be seen. This is what is meant by restricted choice. When the outcome is restricted to the same one of two (or more) possibilities
Now we apply the argument to the universe we inhabit:
- If it was ruled by an interventionist god [A], we might have a holy book that clearly could have been written by any man [R1] or not [R2]. If no such deity exists , we would not [R2].This world contains no such compelling writings [R2].
- If our universe were ruled by an interventionist god [A], we might not [R1] or might [R2] have regular laws of physics, since an interventionalist deity might vary the strength of gravity, for example. If no such deity is running the universe we would have fixed laws [R2].
- If our universe were ruled by an interventionist god [A], we might not [R1] or might [R2] see convincing manifestations of this deity. If no such deity is running the universe we never would [R2].
In the past, I've shared about a dozen of these [A]->[R1]/[R2], ->[R2] restricted choice situations. Think of each as a coin flip, all coming up 'tails' [R2]
We can never proved the coin was loaded however many times we flip it*, and this argument doesn't disprove anything either however many times it turns up tails [R2], but it is a compelling argument that there is no god running the show - good enough to ignore those who claim otherwise. Not that it is needed. The simple inability of the theist to sufficiently support his claims is enough to reject them. But this argument goes beyond simply saying there is insufficient evidence to believe. It says there is evidence that the claim is wrong. The absence of expected evidence for an interventionalist god is evidence (not proof) of its absence.
*
@Twilight Hue - I'd say that your claim that gods don't exist because they keep failing to manifest is equivalent to saying that the coin is loaded because it keeps coming up tails. That's understandable, but the problem there is that one can never prove anything with induction (Hume), just disprove by falsification (Popper). The coin could come up heads next time, however unlikely that might be, and a deity could show up tomorrow, however unlikely that may be. It isn't necessary to claim that gods don't exist, and as others have noted, when you do, you assume a burden of proof that you cannot meet. Do you need or want to make a claim that other atheists see as making a claim to knowledge that they know you cannot possess?
This argument says nothing about the existence of noninterventinalist god like the deist god. Absolutely nothing can be said about the likelihood that a deity exists or existed that doesn't know we exist, is indifferent that we do, is incapable of modifying our world, or any other scenario in which R1 (a convincing holy book, clear divine manifestation, etc..) would not be expected. So we cannot even estimate the likelihood of such a deity existing at 5%, 50%, 95%, or any other number, because we have no basis to choose any of these numbers beyond hunch.
I saw your post yesterday about wishing you could escape theism, how unhappy your beliefs make you, and what you would give up to be rid of them. I am really very sympathetic. Instead of gender dysphoria, you suffer from belief dysphoria. One could say that you're a believer trapped in an unbeliever's body. It's one of the oddest predicaments I've seen here. May I suggest that if I understood you correctly and you are sincere in your desire to escape theism, consider the restricted choice argument. The argument for rejecting theism is the same one as the argument against betting on the next flip being heads.
Your chief impediment here seems to be your belief that your holy books reveal a deity [R1]. Not to any skeptic telling you otherwise. It's like one of the many tails flips looks like heads to you. Others tell you that that is not what heads looks like. So what's holding you back? You want out, and not recognizing that there is nothing in any holy book beyond the capability of man to write unaided by a deity even in the face of multiple competent critical thinkers telling you otherwise is keeping you in. I don't understand how that can happen.
But good luck with that and with your domestic issues. I found unbelief comforting relative to believing that all that suffering was preventable, but was allowed to occur anyway. Animals attack and kill one another. A good god makes animals all vegetarians. He doesn't set them upon one another like its cock fighting. My godless world is much more acceptable to me that the alternative. It's just bad luck when some doe-eyed child dies of leukemia today, not the will of some malicious or indifferent deity. And then as a theist, one is forced to make excuses why that really is a good thing. I've shared this here before, from The Atheist Experience out of Austin, TX, a cable call-in and talk show. Host Tracie Harris said,
"
You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God."
Christian caller Shane felt the need to make that a good thing by saying: "
True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you."
I'm so glad to not have to do what that guy feels he needs to do to defend his deity in the face of clearly immoral behavior, nor to have to defend any of the indefensible positions theists often find themselves in.
