Support of a claim

[pshun2404]

Hi, I am new here and agnostic, and was looking for an intelligent answer (or non-answer)....

I do not know one way or the other whether or not there is a god but I noticed in my studies of Philosophy that it is a huge topic producing around 15 or so arguments demonstrating the probability for, and yet none that I could find actually negating the probability. Can you help direct me to philosophical studies that demonstrate there cannot be a god(s) or designer (I know the one is not necessary argument and am not looking for a barrage of insults)...I see many people make the blanket claim that there is none, so please show me some arguments, factual basis, or direct me to accepted philosophers who I may read on this subject.

Thanks

[Cyberman]

Personally, I tend to go towards the notion that the existence of a god ought to make life extremely difficult or even impossible for humanity. You could never know from dawn till dusk whether this is the day that some divine vengeance is going to rain down, or the laws of physics might be rewritten. Obviously this is nowhere near a formal study, at least to my woeful knowledge. It does have the advantage of reflecting reality as we commonly experience it.

IronChariots.org has a page detailing "Arguments against the existence of god" that might at least point you in the proper direction.

[popeyespappy]

The problem with many of the arguments for the existence of god is even though the argument is valid it may not be sound because a premise it contains is a presupposition. For example the cosmological argument in all its many forms all boil down to one thing. That one thing is a necessary being that was the first cause, and that necessary being is defined as god. However the simple truth is that presupposition may be false. The universe may not require a cause, and may itself be necessary.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

The existence of god isn't really a philosophical question though? I mean if you're looking to definitively determine if god exists, the only avenue available is the scientific method. Even if god could logically exist, until you find evidence supporting his existence, you still cannot say he exists. However because the god hypothesis is so poorly defined (what is a god?), it's not testable.

In short: how are we to answer the question when no one has determined which question to ask?

[Minimalist]

When philosophy begins to deal in facts rather than semantics I'll pay attention to it.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence for any of the gods which humanity has seen fit to invent throughout history.

Thinking about that last sentence should give you some idea of an answer, though.

[bennyboy]

Hi, I am new here and agnostic, and was looking for an intelligent answer (or non-answer)....

I do not know one way or the other whether or not there is a god but I noticed in my studies of Philosophy that it is a huge topic producing around 15 or so arguments demonstrating the probability for, and yet none that I could find actually negating the probability. Can you help direct me to philosophical studies that demonstrate there cannot be a god(s) or designer (I know the one is not necessary argument and am not looking for a barrage of insults)...I see many people make the blanket claim that there is none, so please show me some arguments, factual basis, or direct me to accepted philosophers who I may read on this subject.

Thanks

You can easily prove there's no God, under a particular definition. For example, you can disprove the Christian God with omni-3 arguments.

You can't prove an undefined. Try proving "X does not exist," without knowing what X is. So proving that NO God, under any kind of definition, exists is hopeless.

[Angrboda]

For better or worse, many of the arguments are scattered amongst works having to do with atheism as a whole rather than tightly focused on this specific topic. I will caution though, that I suspect philosophical arguments against the existence of God are likely similar to those for his existence — persuasive to those already convinced, and unmoving to those not already persuaded.

All my books are in boxes right now, but two come to mind off the top of my head.

(Michael Martin, ed.)




by Victor Stenger

---

A few resources you might find useful:

The at infidels.org

The similarly named , also edited by Martin.



And Graham Oppy's excellent discussion of the ontological arguments in the aptly titled, .



While it's seldom stated formally, I suspect the most popular argument against the existence of God is an argument as to the most probable explanation with respect to other hypotheses. This is an argument which is usually framed using Bayesian probability analysis and compares various hypotheses which might account for the evidence — including fraud, mistake, misunderstanding, and so on, as well as the absence of positive evidence. I think many atheists are vaguely thinking in these terms in rejecting most theist arguments, even if it isn't rigorously stated. (Baeysian probability is not my forte, but there was a paper which I read a while back which walked through the analysis with respect to the fine-tuning/design argument; if I can locate that article, I'll post it.)

Finally, I'm not sure whether it specifically addresses your question or not, but J.H. Sobel's is regarded as one of the most logically rigorous treatments of the theological arguments. (I haven't read it myself; formal logic and I don't get along.)




And while the following books deal more with criticizing the arguments for God rather than against, you may find them useful.

by Michael Martin is both well-regarded and quite comprehensive. I haven't read it yet, but a brief skim of the reviews at Amazon suggest that it may be a bit cursory in its treatment as well as missing some more current arguments. (I own a copy, and a look at the table of contents seems to bear this out.)



by George H. Smith is another frequently mentioned text. The author's stated purpose being to "demonstrate that the belief in God is irrational to the point of absurdity." I think he does a decent job at that, but his arguments in other areas, including a detour into Objectivist ethics, are less compelling.

---

If you are studying the philosophy of theism, it's recommended that you familiarize yourself with the work of Stephen Toulmin concerning the nature of argument. While I'm not a big fan of his framework, my impression is that it's very popular among theists, likely because it gets away from a strict form of argument based on logical deduction and into one that is, if less rigorous, kinder to theist arguments. Anyway, Toulmin is somewhat controversial, but an important thinker to know if you are wading into the philosophy of religion and theist arguments, as it is frequently cited. (, Stephen Toulmin)

---

And finally, on a related topic, Graham Oppy and Nick Trakakis have written a five volume, 1300 page which is quite comprehensive as well as being well regarded. The set retails for $415, but used copies can be had for under $150. A substantial investment, but likely worth it if you intend to do serious study of western religious philosophy. (I purchased the set a couple months back, but confess I haven't even opened a single volume.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

... You could never know ...the laws of physics might be rewritten.

Actually, I think the same about atheism. If the natural order is arbitrary then it can arbitrarily change.

[Cyberman]

Problem there though, Chad, is that we already know - for a given value of 'know' anyway - that the natural order isn't arbitrary. The other problem of course is that has nothing to do with atheism, so you just wasted a torpedo on the wrong target.

On the other hand, as I say if reality is governed on the whim of a god, there would be no reason to suppose that anything would work consistently and actually every reason to suppose that they wouldn't.

[downbeatplumb]

Hi, I am new here and agnostic, and was looking for an intelligent answer (or non-answer)....

I do not know one way or the other whether or not there is a god but I noticed in my studies of Philosophy that it is a huge topic producing around 15 or so arguments demonstrating the probability for, and yet none that I could find actually negating the probability. Can you help direct me to philosophical studies that demonstrate there cannot be a god(s) or designer (I know the one is not necessary argument and am not looking for a barrage of insults)...I see many people make the blanket claim that there is none, so please show me some arguments, factual basis, or direct me to accepted philosophers who I may read on this subject.

Thanks

Arguments without evidence to back them up are just so much verbal masterbation and not worth the time it takes to read them.