Writting reply... going to be out of town till Monday. May not be able to respond till then.

Yesterday I went to the Feathered Dinosaurs exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. It was very interesting, and you should all go to see it.

I think it was Anovis that asked for what are atheist-style arguments. It was a while ago. Sorry this took so long, I had planned to respond but I didn't want to rush it.

Atheists tend to spend most of their time being agnostics, disproving the arguments of theists of why God must exist ("Design requires a designer", "Law requires a Lawmaker", "Complexity of life occuring by accident is highly improbable"). These deserve a separate response of their own, though you'll probably see them come up in most religious discussions.

However, there are some occassions when atheists can go on the offensive and state that God cannot exist (this is sometimes called 'strong atheism'). Agnostics should note that this is different from proving a negative ("There is evidence that God does not exist!"), which is impossible; it is dealing with logical contradictions in the common definition of 'God', of why the existance of God is impossible, before we can even begin to consider physical proof (existence of God is a priori impossible).

There's a few ways strong atheists do this.


1. God is all-powerful

"If God is all-powerful, can he create an object that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?

If yes, then God cannot lift it and is not all-powerful.
If no, then God cannot create it and is not all-powerful.

Therefore, God cannot be all-powerful."

This is a nice one to start with. It isn't really an argument for why God cannot exist, rather than argument for why you cannot be lazy with definitions and why the supposedly awe-inspiring quality of omnipotence is actually meaningless. Responses to the self-contradictory argument are usually things like "God can do anything logic allows" or "God is outside of logic" (this response is quite false, but for a rather long and elaborate reason). Either way, it is making us reconsider what 'God' actually is, and that is the purpose of this argument.




2. Problem of Evil

"If God is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, why does evil exist?

If God knows about evil, but does not have the power to undo it, God is not all-powerful.
If God knows about evil, but does not want to undo it, God is not all-good.
If God wants to undo evil, but does not know about it, God is not all-knowing.

Therefore, God cannot be all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, given the existance of evil"

There's lots and lots of different ways this one is given, the Epicurean paradox is the nicest phrasing (he was disproving the existance of multiple gods). They all deal with reconciling the existence of evil or suffering with the existence of a God that should be willing and able to end evil and suffering. I've tried to structure the argument in the least elegant and most systematic way (and we're also ignoring the self-contradictory argument above, or rather including it into the argument). This one is covered in theology with respect to what 'evil' is, and why evil cannot be an absolute quality in itself. (Instead 'evil' might be a 'lack of good', but that doesn't really address the argument much either).




3. Argument from Divine Hiddenness

"God exists and:

1. wants all humans to believe he exists before they die;
2. can bring about a situation where all humans believe in him before they die;
3. does not want anything which would conflict with and be as important as his desire for all humans to believe he exists before they die;
4. always acts in accordance with his most important desires.

If God were to exist, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).

Not all humans believe God exists before they die.

Therefore, God does not exist.
"

This seems like an elaborate one, but it is similar to the Problem of Evil in that it deals with the inconsistency between the real world and the world as it would be if God had certain desires, as well as the power to see them through.

As with the self-contradictory argument, the only way to conclude that God exists is to abandon the premise. In this case, the premises aren't just dealing with the properties of God, but with the properties of the real world as well, so they could be the rejected premises. Quite a common response is to reject the sentence "Not all humans believe God exists before they die", and suggest that atheists don't really exist or that everyone naturally believes in God. As an atheist, I think this is absurd, and a little distressing as I'm not entirely sure how to prove that I actually am an atheist, but as they cannot prove that I secretly believe in God (without touching on any of the other arguments), that rejection isn't going to go anywhere.

There's lots of discussion that can be spawned from this one in particular, but none of the premise rejections are logically coherent (they spawn other discussions, relying on other assumptions. Quite often this assumption is that God exists, when the very argument is to determine whether he does.)




4. Argument from Free Will

"If God has free will, then at any point in time he may either choose to do a certain thing or choose not to do it.

If God is omniscient, God knows everything that will happen in the future, including all of the choices he will make at any future point in time.

If God knows what choice he will make in the future, he will not be able to make the opposite choice.

Therefore, God cannot be both omniscient and have free will.
"

There's another version regarding the free will of humans, but the logic is the same: if God knows what we are to choose before we choose it, how are we free to choose otherwise?

This is one that can't be solved simply by redefinition, in that it requires you to redefine 'free will', 'knowledge' and 'choice', and as these aren't concepts reserved merely for theology (like 'omnipotence' is), theology cannot redefine them.

A common response is that God does not exist within the restraints of linear time, but this doesn't resolve his 'free will', as omniscience requires that God has knowledge of all things in all times, even if his perception of time is radically different to ours.





5. The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God

Largely a response to TAG. I can't really do it justice in few words, read up on it here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html and other places. It largely deals with wooly concepts of 'morality' and the like. I don't really like it.





6. Chicken and egg

"If all things must be created, then God must too."

This one results either in an infinite series of Gods creating Gods, or the rejection of the premise and the conclusion that not all things require a creator. If God doesn't require a creator, why does the Universe?





x. Invisible Pink Unicorns

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

IPU is a satiric parody religion, revolving around the notion that the Goddess takes the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink. It is a parody of religion and the supernatural in general. Debates among followers are absurd and tortuous, satirizing many religions all at the same time. The overall 'point' of IPU is that there is no more reason to believe in a Christian God than there is in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Reductio ad absurdum with heavy emphasis on 'absurdum'.


These are a few of the nice little arguments. There are others that generally deal with physical evidence, and are about 'bad design' and that if everything around us really was created, it wouldn't be quite as messy and disorganised and generally unbeautiful. These ones are excellent for discussion, as they can touch upon biology, quantum mechanics, string theory, mathematics, the whole lot; but they're not really very elegant arguments. And then there's the Anthropic Principle, which is used as both evidence for and against the existence of God. That one deserves a thread to itselt.

If you only accept one or two of those strong atheist arguments, it will still result in a radically different 'God'. If God is not all-powerful, or all-good, or all-knowing, why is he God?

A radically different 'God' is exactly what strong atheism doesn't cover (yet), and polytheism in particular can open a whole new field of possibilities. Of course, all the gods still have to avoid self-contradiction (so none of them can be all-powerful), but they can avoid the Problem of Evil if one of them were all-good (but not all-knowing) and another was all-knowing (but not all-good). This alone would result in a fascinating mythology, and might create whole new logical problems.

This is the sort of thing that makes strong atheism interesting; following nothing but logic can take you down wholly unexpected paths.

Argument 2 is flawed/incomplete. It addresses:

1. Can God do it?
2. Will God do it?
3. Does God know about it?

But it does not address how God chooses to do it.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]Argument 2 is flawed/incomplete. It addresses:

1. Can God do it?
2. Will God do it?
3. Does God know about it?

But it does not address how God chooses to do it.[/QUOTE]

If God chooses not to undo evil, then God is not all-good.

No, that addresses whether or not God does it. Not how God does it.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]No, that addresses whether or not God does it. Not how God does it.[/QUOTE]

So evil doesn't exist? (because that too solves the Problem of Evil)

All I gotta say is my favorite quote/theory/whatever

"How do you know what is good, without knowing what is evil?"

Other than that, I'm staying out of this arguement.

mmhmm

If there is a George Lucas and he is generally a good man, can there be evil in Star Wars? And if there is a Tolkien and he is a good man, how can there be a Morgoth or orcs in middle earth?

Jar Jar.

No, you can easily adopt an approach to eliminate something that would require its existence for a time.

How do you know what is evil without knowing what is good?
How do you know what is evil when some people think it's evil and some people think it's good?
How do you know what is evil when some religions think it's evil and some religions think it's good?

The answer to all these questions is evil is subjective.

But George Lucas isn't all good by nature. The idea is that if god has the attributes of benevolance, omnipotence and omniscience evil cannot exit and/or god cannot have those attributes.



But it doesn't help the theist arguement. Because evil is defined by religion as is God. So the evil problem still exists.

This is where free will comes into play. The original universe was good, but when God created man He gave him the ability to choose or reject Him. If there was no evil and good was forced, the good would just be the good of automatons.

So God gave Man the free will to be evil.

But God still has the power to make Man not be evil, but he doesn't want to. Therefore, God is not all-good. Or he has the will and not the power, therefore he is not all-powerful. God cannot be both all-powerful and all-good and still result in the existence of evil.

(Don't confuse this with the actual 'free will' argument concerning the free will of God and his own omniscience. Try not to mix up several of these arguments, they're complicated enough on their own.)



That doesn't address the argument. Evil still exists now and God should have the power and the will to end it now.

Does he not have the power to end it now? Does he not have the will to end it now?

He lets us pick, otherwise we'd just be like robots doing good. He doesn't have to end it now, He can take His time which doesn't make Him any less powerful or evil. George Lucas in one sentence can make the empire lose, Palpatine die or he can write out a whole story about a struggle and how this struggle makes the characters change and become who George Lucas wants them to become, it doesn't make him any more evil or take away his ability to change anything in his universe.

Yes it does.

Compare two Gods. There is one God that sees evil, and stops it. Evil is no longer occuring. That God has promoted good. The second God sees evil, and does not stop it. Evil continues. That God, although having the exact same power as the first, has allowed evil to continue.
The first God is 'more good' because he promotes good. The second God is 'less good' because there is less good occuring in his Universe than the first God's. And because God is supposedly all-good, he will always and only be what is perfectly good.

However, we observe that evil exists, so 'our God' cannot be the first one.


(You don't have to make 'George Lucas' analogies. I don't care about Star Wars, and I've no idea what you're talking about)

I fail to see how giving Man such a choice has any bearing on God's alignment.

Also, God is not defined as a "he" or "she".



The simple existence of evil has no relevance and the purpose behind allowing evil to exist is unknown. But, it would be the purpose that determines the answer to the question.

The mere existence of evil does not refute the statement that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.

I think your argument is very naive. Many people in this thread are doing it, so I will address them all: Who are you to judge what god should and should not do? You can't say "if he didn't do this then he isn't all powerful". You don't know god's greater plan at all. Maybe god doesn't do everything the way we think it should be done because HMMM he is a GOD, and we are mere mortals?? C'mon people. You can't make silly assumptions like that. Not to mention your argument is moot because free will wouldn't exist if you didn't have the free will to be evil. Your not thinking clearly Mort-Hog. If god made it "impossible" to be evil or something, what would that mean?? It's clear that free will would not exist, unless somehow you removed any kind of possibility for evil acts in the world, which is pretty damn ridiculous considering how the world really works. You need to back up your position better because you are using some pretty shotty arguments.

I'm not being naïve, I'm just not including unnecessary clutter that would confuse the argument. I'm structuring my arguments in short steps (rather than one massive spout).

I don't care about "God's plan". I'm questioning God's existence, so of course I'm going to question any 'plan' he has. "God works in mysterious ways, so shut up!" simply isn't going to work on me.


Statement 1: Evil exists.

Statement 2: God exists

Statement 3: God is all-powerful

Statement 4: God is all-good

Statement 5: God wants to spread good (from 4)

Statement 6: God has the power to spread good (from 3)

Statement 7: Therefore, God will not allow evil to exist (from 5 and 6)

Conflict between 1 and 7


Now, I imagine the step you're going to question is Statement 5 (I don't think 'spread good' is a very good phrase, it makes me think of strawberry jam. but strawberry jam is good, so perhaps the problem is minimal. Still, alternate phrasing might be preferable.)
So I'll elaborate on Statement 4:

Statement A: There are two Universes, with two respective Gods

Statement B: One God allows evil to exist in his Universe

Statement C: The second God does not allow evil to exist in his Universe

Statement D: The first God's Universe contains more evil than the second God's (from B and C)

Statement E: Therefore, the second God is more good than the first (from A and D)

Now consider that our God is all-good (from Statement 4), 'our God' must be more good than any other possible God, so 'our God' must be the second God.



Several of you have said that this conflicts with 'free will', and it certainly does. But not allowing 'free will' is not in any way 'evil'. If anything, this is another reason why God cannot exist (but I didn't include it into that argument because it would result in a huge number of statements). Assuming that 'free will' exists. But considering 'evil' exists, then 'free will' probably does too, and 'God' gets the double whammy.

But anyway, address that series of Statements, and try and structure your argument similarly. It cuts through all of the unnecessary crap and will make your logical fallacies easier to spot.

Well, Mort, it's going to have to work for you or you can step away from this discussion. You are using very weak logic that fails to address all issues adequately and you attempt to redefine things that have been taught in religion for ages.

Now, you can either prove that it is impossible to choose a method of elimination that maintains the goodness of God (which, obviously, you have yet to do), or you can retract.

Ignoring arguments simply because you think "it doesn't work for you" or just because you disagree does not make your argument right.

The problem is that it requires the existence of God, when that is precisely what we're trying to determine. It is a circular argument.

It was my understanding that #2 isn't addressing the existence of a God but rather the existence of a God that is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful?

I won't use starwars, i'll use Tolkien's world instead. In his universe, Tolkien can manipulate anything but wants good to win in the end. Why can't he state the silmarillion in one sentence saying "Morgoth goes poof and Middle earth is happy."? Simply because Tolkien uses evil to develop characters through friction doesn't detract from his ability to control anything in his universe or make Tolkien any less of a good man. This is why an All powerful and all good God can exist when there is temporary evil because He can use evil and turn it into a greater good or use evil to strengthen the good.

Maybe we should just get off this subject, lets get back to the original topic. I must say i have seen some pretty weird things in my life. I cant explain them tho

What if God is incompetent?

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]It was my understanding that #2 isn't addressing the existence of a God but rather the existence of a God that is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. A God might exist, but he cannot be all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful.

And if he were all-knowing, he wouldn't need a 'plan' anyway.



Then what makes him God?

But you've yet to prove that given the flawed logic put forth in #2.

I find it hilarious that you even attempt to make assumptions about the way god would work, and then pass it off as a golden truth. Give it up. If god does exist, he is beyond human understanding.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]If god does exist, he is beyond human understanding.[/QUOTE]
How can you be sure?

Because he doesn't understand.

But there is no such thing as absolute free will. Our choices we make are made within a frame our past, physiology, genetics, relationships, ... have defined.

Damn, I have to say this too much. Let's give some examples.

-I'm a spoiled little rich kid. Chance of being religious goes down.
-I'm above level intelligence. Chance of being religious goes down.
-I live in a time and place with great stability, ie no wars, economic stability, ... Chance of being religious goes down.
-My parents are both atheists (they have never pushed their views onto me though). My family is only catholic on paper. Chance of being religious goes WAY down.
-I live within the western world influence sphere of the Christian god, of course demonstrably the only right god, so my chance of choosing the RIGHT god go up a bit. Thank the heavens I wasn't born in Pakistan or Vietnam or something.
-I was born last in a birth order of three. Meaning I was raised more liberal than my older siblings. Chance of being religious goes down. (Sulloway, FJ (1995)).
-I'm extremely skeptical of any forms of authority. I do not 'choose' so - my body and mind just reject authority which hasn't been earned. Could be partially genetic, at least to some extent learnt. Chance of being religious goes down.
-Had I died before age twelve (but after age four!) I would've gone to heaven. But now, because of the bad luck of surviving, I'll go to a place of eternal torture.
-My country became secular very fast. Had I been born 50 years ago, odds would've been better for me. Even better 100 years ago, and so on.... Note: they would've been worse had I been born 2000 years ago.
-I learn about religion and it's recurrent laws at uni. Believe me, chance of being religious goes down.
-I'm a big fan of science, both its methods and its findings. Chance of being religious goes down.
-etc etc etc....

You also call people 'evil', and label others 'good' which, as I've said before, is probably the most dangerous psychological dynamite humanity has ever known.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]But you've yet to prove that given the flawed logic put forth in #2.[/QUOTE]


Logic isn't 'flawed', logic is fallacious. You've not given a fallacy.


Your previous suggestion about God having a 'plan' was a circular argument. (which isn't actually a fallacy, it's just a perfectly useless argument. If we insert your suggestion into the argument, then it all cancels down to "If God exists, then God exists". There isn't actually anything wrong with that statement, it just isn't very useful)

It doesn't "cancel" down to that because the argument itself requires the assumption that some supernatural entity, which we have labeled a God, exists. That one argument simply exams the existence of one that is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing. It's kind of silly really, because athiests don't believe in any such entity, yet the #2is not even an argument without assuming the existence of one.

I don't have the list of fallacies memorized nor the time to go through them but the error in your #2 argument lies with the failure to prove that any purpose behind why evil has not been eliminated and can't still be all-good. You can't prove something unless you prove all cases. And this has nothing to do with a "plan." We are talking about purpose.

I don't think you understand arguments very well..

We have several premises, which lead to a logical contradiction. This means that one of the premises must be wrong. Atheists will reject Statement 2, "God exists", and this will resolve the conflict. And this is probably the simplest way to resolve the conflict.

Even with "God's purpose", you still haven't resolved this conflict, because you have to reject one of the premises or show that the logical discourse is fallacious. You haven't done either.

I understand them very well. I've indicated where your argument goes wrong but you seem to have some wild fantasy that it doesn't apply.

Here it is plain and simple: Your argument is insufficient. Adapt it to actually be something conclusive.

Also, even if it wasn't a fallacious argument as you put it, it is no argument to reject the existence of a God because now atheists have prove that there is no other solution to the conflict.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]It was my understanding that #2 isn't addressing the existence of a God but rather the existence of a God that is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful?[/quote]



I'm not following you. For one, there's no logic in 2, so it can't be flawed - it's just a statement, a premise. Maybe I haven't been following very well, but so far you haven't pointed out how statement 1 and statement 7 aren't in conflict.

could be ghosts, could be a crappy-*** camera with light leaks. stupid people not knowing how to take care of their gear.