December 01, 2007

Unconvincing Arguments For The Existence Of God[s]

Minnesota Atheists Public Relations Officer August Berkshire has been working on and revising his list of "Unconvincing Arguments for God" [PDF] and the list has grown to be 34 items long including precise reasons why these facile arguments are flawed and why Atheists find it hard to take them seriously.

In this post i am going to take a handful of the unconvincing arguments and explain to the believers why the arguments shouldn't be made and why they are so easy to destroy.

God of gaps

The god of gaps argument is often thrown in at short notice when an Atheist or scientists says "I don't know". The assumption of the person making this argument is that if something can't be explained by science, that alone is evidence that god done it.

Evolution wouldn't favor a false belief

This argument goes something like "why would evolution favor a species incapable of seeing reality?". Of course this argument is flawed to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with evolution. Evolution doesn't favor the truth, It favors what if beneficial. God can be used to keep people behaving well, Much like santa does in children, And religion has been used in the past for controlling groups, Armies and societies. So where it is beneficial, Evolution will favor it, Regardless of how true it is.

Altruism

Some arguments are made that altruism is evidence of god because evolution rewards only selfish behaviour. While it is true that evolution does tend to reward selfish behaviour altruistic behaviour is evolutionary beneficial because it creates a more harmonious society. Evolution has taken advantage of the fact that if everyone is willing to help others there is more chance of the individual receiving help when they need it.

The “Fine-tuning” of the Universe

Some religious people argue that the six physical constants of the universe can only exist within a very narrow range to produce a universe capable of sustaining life. Therefore, since this couldn’t have happened “by accident,” a god must have done it. Again, this is a god-of-the-gaps argument. But beyond that, this argument assumes that we know everything about astrophysics – a field in which new discoveries are made on almost a daily basis. We may discover that our universe is not so “fine tuned” after all.

Another possibility is that there may exist multiple universes – either separately or as “bubble universes” within a single universe. Each of these universes could have its own set of constants. Given enough universes, by chance it is likely that at least one will produce and sustain life.

Pascal's Wager

Pascals wager sates that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in god. This is flawed for two reasons.
1) pascal assumes that someone can force themselves to believe something based on the inferred consequences of not believing.
2) Even if the wager is right, it doesn't do anything for proving that there is a god, Only that believing it might be best based on the consequences.

Pascals wager can be used as an argument for believing anything where disbelief results in punishment.

False Dichotomies

A false dichotomy is an argument that assumes only two answers are possible (if X is wrong then god done it) and is also an extension of the "god of gaps" argument. The false dichotomy argument is most common in arguments presented by creationists. In these argument the creationist never presents any evidence for their own position and only ever seeks to refute evolution (if evolution is wrong, god done it).
Religious people have a tough, if not impossible task to try to prove a god exists, let alone that their particular religion is true. If any religion had objective standards, wouldn’t everyone be flocking to the same “true” religion?
Instead we find that people tend to believe, to varying degrees, the religion in which they were indoctrinated. Or they are Atheists.

22 comments:

  1. This whole multi-universe nonsense is just as outlandish as having a God exist. It's ridiculous how you can believe that but not believe in a god.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The multiverse is just a possibility, nobody is saying it exists. People are saying it is a possible explanation as to why our universe appears to be "fine tuned".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah, it still seems early to make a prediction without evidence to support it. Is there any text on the subject? I'd like to read about it

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's not a prediction, Just a possibility.

    Then you can say that god creating the universe is also a possibility. The only reason you say multiverse is more possible is because it is related to science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I didn't say that it's impossible that god created the universe. The point is that the "possibility" of divine intervention isn't the ONLY possibility that could account for the universe appearing to be fine tuned.

    So as it isn't the only possible explanation it can't be used as the explanation unless it has evidence to support it, Which it doesn't.

    But then, Religious people don't say it's "possible" that god exists, Do they. They say he DOES exist and that he DID create the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The point is that the "possibility" of divine intervention isn't the ONLY possibility that could account for the universe appearing to be fine tuned.

    Now matt, you should get off the "damn fence" for someone who claims to be an atheist and says agnostics are fence sitting cowards, shouldn't you be totally opposed to the idea of a creator? You shouldn't even consider the possibility. If you are an atheist, you believe there is no god. period. there is no "possibility" involved.

    Also, if there are infinite universes, that also gives god an infinite number of chances to exist. And since there is infinite, chances are very likely that there is a god-like being that has the ability to create universes or transcend them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do i have to explain to you what atheist means again? You really should have this by now.

    An atheist is someone who disbelieves that there is a god. We are as sure about the nonexistence of god as you are about elves, pixies and unicorns. Are you completely sure that elves don't exist? Or are you currently convinced they don't exist through the complete lack of evidence to suggest otherwise?

    Understand your own position on fictional entities before you attempt to understand our position on them.

    "Also, if there are infinite universes, that also gives god an infinite number of chances to exist."

    it doesn't work like that. the multi-verse only gives rise to an infinite combination of physical constants. Not an infinite chance of fictional entities to come in to existence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. An atheist is someone who disbelieves that there is a god.

    Right. They DO NOT BELIEVE. that is what disbelief is. You cannot, at least according to karen, who you seem to agree with often, disbelieve less than 100% otherwise it becomes doubt and you become an agnostic.

    Are you completely sure that elves don't exist?

    Well if the multiverse theory is to be believed, I am sure somewhere there are woodland humanoids with pointy ears who live for a long time. I see no reason why even in our universe elves cannot exist.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You are confused between disbelieving and being entirely certain of nonexistence. if someone disbelieves in something it means they think it doesn't exist. it doesn't mean they are certain it doesn't exist. It means they disbelieve that it does.

    At the moment i completely disbelieve 100% that there isn't a green elephant in my kitchen. Am i certain? No. Does that have any effect that i 100% disbelieve it? Of course not.

    But this has nothing to do with the topic. it's just another attempt by you to muddy the waters because you know, Yet again, You are in over your head.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
    –verb (used without object)
    2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

    That's what the dictionary says on disbelief. to have NO belief in.

    But this has nothing to do with the topic. it's just another attempt by you to muddy the waters because you know, Yet again, You are in over your head.

    And that was just another attempt to quash an intelligent debate that I am winning.

    ReplyDelete
  11. yes disbelief means to have no belief, i didn't think you would need that explained to you. What it doesn't mean is to have utter certainty that something doesn't exist. Which is the point i am continuously making to you.

    You can have 100% disbelief without utter certainty.

    You really have hit a new low if you need to have a discussion about the definitions of simple words and them claim it's an "intelligent debate" that you are "winning".

    ReplyDelete
  12. You can have 100% disbelief without utter certainty.

    Ok, let's try that.

    I believe in god 100%, but I am not sure that there is a god.

    That doesn't make any sense. You can't be 100% sure of something and not be 100% sure at the same time.

    You really have hit a new low if you need to have a discussion about the definitions of simple words and them claim it's an "intelligent debate" that you are "winning".

    Maybe I have, but I don't really care. You think that all people who believe in god are unintelligent primates who can't create a cohesive sentence so I am just trying to play the part for you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Okay fellas, enough of the pissing contest. I feel kind of bad for kind of taking this thing off topic initially.

    SORRY! :)

    Now it's over...DONE

    No more of this needless argument....and yes, it's an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "That doesn't make any sense. You can't be 100% sure of something and not be 100% sure at the same time."

    This is your problem. You don't seem to understand that amount of belief and amount of certainty are not the same thing.

    You disbelieve completely the statement that there is an elephant in your kitchen right? (well you will if you have any integrity), But at the same time you can't be 100% certain that there isn't.

    Why are you having such a hard time grasping such a simple concept?

    ReplyDelete
  15. You disbelieve completely the statement that there is an elephant in your kitchen right? (well you will if you have any integrity), But at the same time you can't be 100% certain that there isn't.

    If I, with 100% belief, believe that there is no elephant in the kitchen, I am certain there is no elephant in the kitchen.

    Also, if you are in fact admitting to the possibility of god, then this entire blog, the God Be Gone blog is totally idiotic because even the creator does not believe what he is writing about.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Matt you can be an agnostic, its ok, some of the finest minds I know of were agnostic -Darwin, Einstein to name but two. I have converted several times to various belief systems since being on this blog so its ok. So if someone believes in god but Is not certain there is one then that makes them an agnostic theist? So doesn't that make you an agnostic atheist? if this is so where does the fence sitting coward argument come in. presumably atheists, theists, agnostic atheists (presumably you don't consider yourself one) and agnostic theists (same reason you're not one) aren't fence sitting cowards then who are these fence sitting cowards? unless there are more pedantic rules and regulations to this atheist, theist, agnostic debate maybe its the peoples front of judea - splitters.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The only reason an atheist can say they aren't certain is because disproving god is impossible, It's called being intellectually honest, You should try it some time.

    but our inability to disprove it doesn't alter the fact that we completely disbelieve it as a result of the zero evidence in support of it.

    I'm going to start deleting your posts if you continue to shit all over my blog. Every post you make is wildly off topic and nothing but a game of semantics and attempts to muddy the water. Even when things are explained to you in childish language you still fail to understand. It's not about being right with you, It's simply about not admitting that you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  18. D said
    If I, with 100% belief, believe that there is no elephant in the kitchen, I am certain there is no elephant in the kitchen.

    What if it's invisible?

    Matt's right.
    The only reason we can't say we are sure there is no god is because we can't prove it. You can't prove a negative.
    But the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim, i.e. There is a god.

    The claim of no god is not extraordinary at all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ok, I understand what you guys are saying now. Sorry for not understanding, I guess the language just confused me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pascal's Wager is also a fool's bet, because even if gods existed (despite the utter lack of corroborating evidence for any of them, including jesus), how could the bandwagon believer know s/he chose the right god?

    ReplyDelete
  21. They wouldn't ...Guess that is where Faith come sinto play!

    ReplyDelete