100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Immanuel Can]

Silly! Immanuel, you are an atheist (infidel) to Islamism and you don't believe in Allah. What's the difference?

You've been reading too much Dawkins. That's the easiest question to answer.

You don't believe in King Arthur or Ichabod Crane, but you do believe in Teresa May and Donald Trump. And if my logic were as bad as Dawkins' I would ask, "What's the difference?"

Actually, most atheists generally simply don't much care about the God question any more than they care about the Allah question or Zeus question. They don't believe in deities per se and are thus more interested in the non mythological aspects of life (unless students of mythology).

Funny, then, that Atheists spend so much time on this issue. You would think they would consider it a done deal and move on. But they don't. And why? Because Atheism isn't rational, and so must be defended by continually renewed quantities of contempt. Unless they keep rehearsing this issue, their unfaith would collapse.

Check out this forum, for example. Most of the OPs regarding God are started by skeptics and agnostics, if not always by outright Atheists. Personally, I've never started a single post on any topic regarding God...yet I never find a shortage of places to post. Now, why is that?

But as you say, I now eagerly await Dawkins' new book on why he doesn't believe in Zeus.

[Immanuel Can]

If we argue that way, with religion just being part of a mix with all those other things, then the price is that religion is no longer different from those things.

Oh, I don't think that follows at all.

Firstly, it's not utterly impossible for there to be a religious motive for a war: the Islamists do it all the time. But secondly, it is very common for warmongers to try to "sanctify" their warmongering with reference to religious ideas. And I think it's very important for us to recognize the ruse and be able to get beneath it to the real motivations.

Nothing in a consistent exegesis of the Bible for example, will warrant a Crusade of any kind. So it's important to separate what a particular religion says from what people who abuse it are trying to make it say. If, like the Koran, a book does advocate crusades, that's one thing; but if, like the Bible it does not, then we need to know that, and see the propagandists' ruses for what they are.

We understand secular ideologies, nationalism etc. through the social sciences. Are you happy to do the same for religion?

Social sciences are but one door by which we understand these things. But I would say a proper, scientific study of the phenomenon of religion would be very healthy for many Atheists. Their ignorance is often central to their misconceptions, and a little data would really help, even if they were not inclined to be convinced to change their view. At least they'd be thinking more accurately, and not doing stupid things like treating all "religions" as if they were the same. It would really help them be clearer on the real limitations of their own view, if nothing else.

For example, we might explain the reasons somebody becomes a fascist by looking at their psychology (insecurity, a need to belong etc.) and by sociology (they are poor, their society is undergoing change etc.) Are you OK with the same being applied to religion; that we can explain religious belief as purely an individual response to social pressure?

I'm certain there are cases wherein that is the RIGHT explanation. Sometimes people DO cave in to social pressure, whether becoming religious or Atheists thereafter. But it's not a complete explanation. I'm absolutely certain there are people for whom social pressure has little or zero to do with what they choose to believe in that regard. I would consider myself in that camp.

You can tell that there are others because of the phenomenon known as conversion. Sometimes people choose contrary to their basic social milieu. If socialization were the whole story, that would never happen, would it?

[uwot]

Dunno what bible you are reading, Mr Can, but it clearly isn't the one that says this:

Deuteronomy 20
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

[uwot]

Silly! Immanuel, you are an atheist (infidel) to Islamism and you don't believe in Allah. What's the difference?

You've been reading too much Dawkins. That's the easiest question to answer.

You don't believe in King Arthur or Ichabod Crane, but you do believe in Teresa May and Donald Trump. And if my logic were as bad as Dawkins' I would ask, "What's the difference?"

Uh huh. And like the scientist he is, he would point out that Teresa May and Donald Trump are human beings, just like you, have overwhelming evidence in support of their existence, and whose hands you could shake. The only mystery being that you might wish to.

Actually, most atheists generally simply don't much care about the God question any more than they care about the Allah question or Zeus question. They don't believe in deities per se and are thus more interested in the non mythological aspects of life (unless students of mythology).

Funny, then, that Atheists spend so much time on this issue. You would think they would consider it a done deal and move on. But they don't. And why? Because Atheism isn't rational, and so must be defended by continually renewed quantities of contempt. Unless they keep rehearsing this issue, their unfaith would collapse.

Check out this forum, for example. Most of the OPs regarding God are started by skeptics and agnostics, if not always by outright Atheists. Personally, I've never started a single post on any topic regarding God...yet I never find a shortage of places to post. Now, why is that?

I don't think you researched that very thoroughly. A quick look at the first 5 pages of post in the Philosophy of Religion strongly contradicts that assertion.

But as you say, I now eagerly await Dawkins' new book on why he doesn't believe in Zeus.

I imagine he will leave that until people start trying to assert their political goals by insisting it is Zeus' will.

[Londoner]

Firstly, it's not utterly impossible for there to be a religious motive for a war: the Islamists do it all the time. But secondly, it is very common for warmongers to try to "sanctify" their warmongering with reference to religious ideas. And I think it's very important for us to recognize the ruse and be able to get beneath it to the real motivations.

No, you miss the point.

If you think warmongers may "sanctify" their warmongering with reference to religious ideas, how do you know that isn't the case with other things? All religious people may be using religion to "sanctify" their various secular desires.

You believe that you can tell when this is the case that other people are doing this, but they might believe exactly the same about you!

Nothing in a consistent exegesis of the Bible for example, will warrant a Crusade of any kind. So it's important to separate what a particular religion says from what people who abuse it are trying to make it say. If, like the Koran, a book does advocate crusades, that's one thing; but if, like the Bible it does not, then we need to know that, and see the propagandists' ruses for what they are.

Or perhaps in that paragraph you are using religion to "sanctify" your dislike of Muslims?

Me: For example, we might explain the reasons somebody becomes a fascist by looking at their psychology (insecurity, a need to belong etc.) and by sociology (they are poor, their society is undergoing change etc.) Are you OK with the same being applied to religion; that we can explain religious belief as purely an individual response to social pressure?

I'm certain there are cases wherein that is the RIGHT explanation. Sometimes people DO cave in to social pressure, whether becoming religious or Atheists thereafter. But it's not a complete explanation. I'm absolutely certain there are people for whom social pressure has little or zero to do with what they choose to believe in that regard. I would consider myself in that camp.

I'm sure you would consider yourself in that camp...but so would everybody! If you are going to make an exception for your own religious beliefs, you have got to explain why you think you are an exception. That is going to be tricky, since you are never going to be able to have an objective view of yourself.

You can tell that there are others because of the phenomenon known as conversion. Sometimes people choose contrary to their basic social milieu. If socialization were the whole story, that would never happen, would it?

I did not suggest it was; you will see I also mention psychological factors.

And just as people may become religious in a mostly non-religious society, so there will also be people who become communists in a mostly capitalist society, racists in a mostly non-racist society. If conversion was proof that our choice of religion is not the result of our psychology and social circumstances, then such individuals would prove that this is equally true of communism, or racism. So will you award communism and racism the same status as religion?

[Science Fan]

The doc sure knows how to lie on behalf of theism. The doc asked me why I blame everything on God. Since I don't believe in God, think the idea is delusional even, I never blame God for anything, nor do I praise God for anything. I just don't think about God unless some religious bigot is raising the issue first.

But, of course, almost every theist on here has been lying their asses off about atheists, so what else is new?

[Science Fan]

The problem of evil certainly rules out the existence of a god that is allegedly all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful. That means it rules out the Christian God, so the "proof" here does that. It's just a rephrasing of the problem of evil. However, it does not rule out other conceptions of God, and that is my criticism of the alleged proof.

But, since Christianity and Islam are the two most evil religious currently around, at least this proof does disprove their alleged Gods.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think warmongers may "sanctify" their warmongering with reference to religious ideas, how do you know that isn't the case with other things? All religious people may be using religion to "sanctify" their various secular desires.

Some do. Some don't. It's not hard to tell the difference.

When somebody is just trying to "sanctify" a desire, it's because that desire is actually unsanctified by the Scriptures he's trying to use. So you read the book see what it says, and then judge whether they're using or abusing the text.

You believe that you can tell when this is the case that other people are doing this, but they might believe exactly the same about you!

The text itself will arbitrate, in such cases. If my text says, "Love your neighbor," and even "Love your enemies," then it doesn't warrant crusades or jihad. But if it says, "When you meet the enemies of Allah, kill them," then it does.

...your dislike of Muslims?

I don't have one. I like Arabs, and live with them every day. But I don't like Islam, which is a horrid ideology. Likewise, I work with Atheists all the time. I get along with them great; but I don't like their creed.

The people, I like; it's just the ideology I don't. And that's fair.

I'm sure you would consider yourself in that camp...but so would everybody!

Actually, no. Some people are content to be "culturally" this or that. The ideology itself, they don't care for much. How many Jewish people keep all 613 (or even all 10) of the commandments? But many people identify as Jewish. And you can observe that many Muslims do not keep the "Five Pillars," but still wish to identify as Muslims. Likewise, there are Easter-Christmas Catholics who reject Papal interdictions against birth control or abortion. These are just culturally religious, and most of them know it very well.

So will you award communism and racism the same status as religion?

Yes to the former, but the latter is probably more an emotive state or a claim of taste than an ideological one. Racism occurs in many forms, and in association with many ideologies, including Atheism -- look at eugenics, for example. And Atheism is also a "religion" of sorts, for it is a faith ideology. So I grant them all that status.

But "religion" itself (at least in current usage) isn't a term "religious" people generally use to describe themselves. It's an Atheist or skeptic's term, a collective noun with dismissive implication. I've never met a Catholic, a Hindu or a Muslim who was just happy to say, "I'm religious," without meaning their own particular ideology, not the others.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem of evil certainly rules out the existence of a god that is allegedly all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful.

You need to read something other than Atheist tracts.

The existence of evil doesn't "rule out" anything. There can be sufficient reasons for the allowing of evil, as has been widely shown.

Start with Leibniz, finish with Plantinga, and you'll see why you're wrong.

[Science Fan]

IC: I read a great deal, including books on physics, chemistry, neurobiology, biology, history, mathematics, philosophy, economics, etc., etc. Perhaps you should follow your own advise and read more than religious dogma?

The problem of evil rules out the Christian God. You can't claim God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, given the evil in the world. This is because an all-knowing God would be aware of the evil, and an all-powerful God could prevent the evil, and an all-good God would stop the evil. Yet, this is not what we observe, so we know no such God actually exists. This description of God, being all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, is consistent with the Christian and Islamic conceptions of God, so we can discard those two religious beliefs as believing in a God that empirically we know does not exist.

If it's immoral to not help someone in need, as Christianity alleges, then it follows from Christian dogma that God itself would be immoral for not helping those in need when it has the ability to do so.

[Science Fan]

IC: Isn't Leibniz the Christian apologist who claimed that this was the so-called best world God could create? Now, what was his actual basis for this assertion? He had none. Sorry, but Leibniz simply begs the question, and his argument does nothing to get around the problem of evil. No Christian apologist has ever satisfactorily answered the problem of evil, which is why it remains to this day a staple of basic philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem of evil rules out the Christian God.

I have no doubt you think so.

It just doesn't. Your curiosity about Leibniz shows you don't know the arguments. You write,

Isn't Leibniz the Christian apologist who claimed that this was the so-called best world God could create? Now, what was his actual basis for this assertion? He had none.

False, actually. But you'll never know if you don't read Leibniz. And I'm certain you have no idea of the arguments of people like Lewis or Plantinga, both of whom have done stellar work in this area. There are very astute arguments as to why a world devoid of what we call "evil" would actually be significantly less free and desirable than a world in which some evils were allowed to exist.

But I can't make you read, so I suppose you'll just continue to believe as you wish. You can continue to imagine that Euthyphro is a deal-breaker...but you'll still be wrong. Having already written you two refutations of this argument, I see no reason in investing time in writing the same things a third time.

[Science Fan]

I'm fairly certain I am right on Leibniz, which is why you have offered nothing in addition to the point I made about him. I've also read his mathematics writings, and use his notation over Newton's when it comes to solving differential equations. Just try to use a separation of variables technique to solve a differential equation using Newton's symbol system, and you'll see what I mean. However, when it comes to his gibberish about religion, Leibniz has nothing to offer of any significance.

Anyone can note here that you have done nothing to refute the problem of evil. You simply ask people to believe that your god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, while it sat around on its ass watching mass genocide, women being raped, kids being abused, etc., etc. The facts show to any rationally-thinking person that your God is a delusional claim, nothing more.

[Rhodnar]

Your 'proof' seems not to preclude a completely just god that makes zero demands. Just trying to figure out the logic.

That is correct.

The confusion arises when some group cites some religion as the basis for their war, when the actual purpose is the acquisition of territory or resources or both.

I don't see this as a problem at all. It's a red herring, a distraction...Religions lead to wars, and populations are told that 'God' is on our side. When as was correctly pointed out most wars are fought simply to enrich the greedy. I'm perfectly willing to concede that there is absolutely no link between religion and conflict, if that'll get you back on track.

Why are you claiming that a god would have to be just? Some conceptions of god make that claim, but not all conceptions of god do. I see no logical reason why a god would have to be just. Or, a god could be just, but not all-powerful, and, therefore, not able to avoid the occurrence of injustice. Your argument simply raises the well-known issue called the problem of evil, which only refutes a certain conception of god, but does not rule out the numerous other conceptions that are out there.

Simply wishing to describe a more powerful being than oneself as a god, doesn't make them worthy of your admiration or devotion. To actually be worthy of being regarded as a 'god' a being must be 'truly just' first. All powerful, omnipresent, eternal, and omniscient, do not automatically make a being worthy of your devotion. North Koreans were devoted to Kim Jong-il, and 'apparently' he was all powerful, omnipresent, eternal, and omniscient. If he was telling the truth, shouldn't we all just worship him?

When is the being "truly just", If it's after death, then we know nothing about it.

Becoming 'truly just' is completely simply a matter of choice. You can start today. I made it and I'm nothing special. You just need to use empathy, compassion, and understanding to debug your brain.

How in the world does becoming “truly just” clear up all questions regarding the “nature of existence”?

Are you suggesting that regardless of a Being reaching a level of power and intelligence that allowed it to create a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets (i.e., all of reality as we understand reality to be – including us), it is nonetheless unworthy of the title of “God,” simply because it does not seem to fit your arbitrary requirements?

Yes.
You need to grasp the concept that all beings are equal, regardless of ability. You may not be as good at sport as an athlete, but an athlete is still just a being like yourself.
A creator being, is just the same, just a being like yourself. In order to be worthy of your devotion it must be 'truly just'. If it is 'truly just' it doesn't want your devotion.

Do you eat meat?

If yes, then how could you, yourself, be “truly just” from the perspective of cattle, or pigs, or chickens, or fish (as in “all beings” allegedly being “equal”)?

What about plants? are they living beings? and don't they deserve equal treatment, or do you feel it's OK to torture and kill any other living being so that you can survive?

I am a biological entity, living in an ecosystem. I'll be honest, if I didn't have to eat, I wouldn't miss it much. However; whist we're on the subject, having to eat doesn't justify the cruel treatment of what you eat.

But they do exist. Whether they count as a 'hero' depends on what people think the word 'hero' means. It is possible to disagree, for some people to think they are a hero, and others that they are not. But they are not disagreeing about whether the person exists.

(I see that seeds has also made the same point)

I'm neither stating that 'creator(s)' do or do not exist. To me the question of their existence or non-existence is irrelevant. This might be clearer for you if you click this link to my post on the meaning of life. viewtopic.php?t=21176.

The problem of evil certainly rules out the existence of a god that is allegedly all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful. That means it rules out the Christian God, so the "proof" here does that. It's just a rephrasing of the problem of evil. However, it does not rule out other conceptions of God, and that is my criticism of the alleged proof.

But, since Christianity and Islam are the two most evil religious currently around, at least this proof does disprove their alleged Gods.

The concepts of good and evil come from intelligence. A cat killing a mouse, is not evil, it is following evolved programming. However; this didn't stop 'intelligent' life throwing cats on fires or off tall buildings, because they were clearly 'evil'.
A 'truly just' creator wouldn't allow a 'devil' or an 'evil force' to exist in its creation. You are free to do as you choose, good or bad. Any 'outside' influence would negate your freewill.
I know that "good" and "bad" are just constructs of the mind, but we have minds and we live in a community.

[Londoner]

Me: All religious people may be using religion to "sanctify" their various secular desires.

Some do. Some don't. It's not hard to tell the difference.

When somebody is just trying to "sanctify" a desire, it's because that desire is actually unsanctified by the Scriptures he's trying to use. So you read the book see what it says, and then judge whether they're using or abusing the text.

But you do not present any reason for believing that your judgement is any more valid than theirs.

The text itself will arbitrate, in such cases. If my text says, "Love your neighbor," and even "Love your enemies," then it doesn't warrant crusades or jihad. But if it says, "When you meet the enemies of Allah, kill them," then it does.

The Crusaders and other violent Christians would beg to differ. Peaceful Muslims would too. You still do not explain how you know your judgement is any better than theirs.

I don't have one. I like Arabs, and live with them every day. But I don't like Islam, which is a horrid ideology. Likewise, I work with Atheists all the time. I get along with them great; but I don't like their creed...The people, I like; it's just the ideology I don't. And that's fair.

If you are only saying you don't like something, that you find it horrid, that is telling us something about you, not the things you are describing. I am sure you have likes and dislikes, we all do, but the question is whether we are also asserting other people should think as we do.

Actually, no. Some people are content to be "culturally" this or that. The ideology itself, they don't care for much. How many Jewish people keep all 613 (or even all 10) of the commandments? But many people identify as Jewish. And you can observe that many Muslims do not keep the "Five Pillars," but still wish to identify as Muslims. Likewise, there are Easter-Christmas Catholics who reject Papal interdictions against birth control or abortion. These are just culturally religious, and most of them know it very well.

If I am just 'culturally religious' and am aware of that fact, then I cannot use religion to "sanctify" secular desires. I cannot lie to myself; I cannot say both 'I do not really believe in God' and also 'God wants me to kill Muslims'.

But here we are discussing the case of those who do claim to believe in God, and do use God to justify their actions. And the question we are discussing is which way round those two things are. How do we know that they don't believe in whatever God will act as justification?

Me: So will you award communism and racism the same status as religion?
Yes to the former, but the latter is probably more an emotive state or a claim of taste than an ideological one. Racism occurs in many forms, and in association with many ideologies, including Atheism -- look at eugenics, for example. And Atheism is also a "religion" of sorts, for it is a faith ideology. So I grant them all that status.

Then religion is just one of many ideologies, all of which arise from psychological and sociological factors. No need for God. That you happen to like one religion and dislike another is just an accident of circumstance. There is no question of any one being any more true than any other, any more than being born 'British' is more true than being born 'French'.