Why do you not believe in God?

[Mystic]

Disbelief in God, just means you don't believe in God. If you look up the dictionary, disbelief is defined as inability or refusal to believe in something.

Denial of God's existence, would mean you state God doesn't exist.

The argument from evil, is an argument that denies God existing. An evil/apathetic Creator is not worthy of worship, hence, not a god.

[The Grand Nudger]

@ktulu Oh sure, so long as we're willing to create some never-before heard of god to argue over, we could argue that point all day long. We'd only be arguing about an idea though, not a god.

[ktulu]

KCA is question begging "the cause", the conclusion is not sound. It's a bout as flawed an argument as they come.

How is it question-begging? It seems to be in a logically valid form:

1. For all x in X, P(x) --> Q(x).
2. P(y), where y is in X;
3. Therefore, Q(y).

Well, it is question begging because premise 1 breaks all things down into things that begin to exist, and things that do not begin to exist. In order for the argument to not be question begging, the subset of things that do not begin to exist needs more elements other then "THE CAUSE". Otherwise your argument becomes:

1. Everything that begins to exist, except for THE CAUSE has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist (due to THE CAUSE)
3. Therefore the universe has THE CAUSE.

I can kick KCA around more if you want to in a different thread, I don't want to douchjack this thread.

[Mystic]

1. Everything that begins to exist, except for THE CAUSE has a cause.

No the conclusion is that the cause didn't begin to exist..

[ktulu]

@ktulu Oh sure, so long as we're willing to create some never-before heard of god to argue over, we could argue that point all day long. We'd only be arguing about an idea though, not a god.

True, but I consider myself a pragmatist epistemologically. Save for "cogito ergo sum" there is no absolute certainty. The best one can do is narrow the epistemic frame of reference. The smaller the frame the more certain you can be regarding any one statement.

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually Mystic, thats loaded in the premise when they make the distinction. So it's unsurprising that they reach this conclusion.

[ktulu]

1. Everything that begins to exist, except for THE CAUSE has a cause.

No the conclusion is that the cause didn't begin to exist..

hehe, yes, that is the conclusion, but it is question begging because you are using it in your premise.

see if you can spot the flaw in this argument

p1. Smorkledrufs bind hydrogen molecules to oxygen molecules to create water.
p2. Water exists.
c. Therefore Smorkledrufs exist.

[Whateverist]

We don't need a reason not to believe in God unless we think we've seen some pretty tempting indication of god activity. I tend to save my effort for finding reasons not to believe stuff for when it starts to seem as though that stuff might really be out there. We're not even in the yellow zone on my indicator.

I don't really need a reason to justify my disbelief either, but I've heard agnostics say that gods could potentially exist. I just explained why they can't.

Why I just so happen to be agnostic myself but I completely missed being convinced by your argument. Are you sure you put the convincing part in it?

Now just as I am content to confess harboring no god-beliefs, so I am also content to leave the lack of god-knowledge at the I-don't-have-it level. So there may yet be some evidence to rule gods in or out. Be sure to let me know if you find the convincing part.

[Simon Moon]

No the conclusion is that the cause didn't begin to exist..

That's an unsupported assertion that requires demonstrable evidence.

Then to make it worse, you take this unsupported assertion and use it in your premise.

[CliveStaples]

Well, it is question begging because premise 1 breaks all things down into things that begin to exist, and things that do not begin to exist. In order for the argument to not be question begging, the subset of things that do not begin to exist needs more elements other then "THE CAUSE". Otherwise your argument becomes:

1. Everything that begins to exist, except for THE CAUSE has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist (due to THE CAUSE)
3. Therefore the universe has THE CAUSE.

I can kick KCA around more if you want to in a different thread, I don't want to douchjack this thread.

No, that's not true. Say that the set of things that "begin to exist" is B, and everything else is in B'. Let Q(x) be the proposition "x has a cause".

According to your argument, if B' = {THE CAUSE}, then (1) becomes:

1. For all x in B, except for THE CAUSE, Q(x)

But this is not question begging; there is no exception being made for THE CAUSE, since THE CAUSE is not in B.

And how do you know that THE CAUSE doesn't begin to exist?