Belief

[theVOID]

Oooh, sounds like fun.

1. "Nature encompasses all that exists."

2. "[Some] deities are claimed to 'exist' outside of nature."

3. "Therefore, these supposed deities do not exist."

Fail

Nature as you have described here is incompatible with the other picture of "nature" and "super-nature"; Their boundaries are usually defined by the presence or lack of material interaction. These things would still "exist" yet there is a distinction that can be made, thus to say that "nature encompasses all that exists" is either a concept that is inconsistent with the one the person you are debating actually holds, or is a bare assertion for which you would have the burden of proof.

1. "Nothing is not created."

2. "Something is created (and Something cannot be self-creating)."

3. "Therefore, the uncreated creator is Nothing."

Gah. The Ancient Greeks were right all along! It's Chaos!

You assume all things that exist (are things) are products of a creation.

Things don't necessarily need to be self creating (which at first thought seems logically impossible, and in any case, that's a positive claim), but if it had always existed (for instance if 'nothing' is impossible) then it can easily "transition" it's self from one state to another by means of it's own effects on it's self, any feedback loop has this capability as a bare minimum requirement.

The burden of proof is yours

---

1. If god exists he is an immaterial being
2. All beings are wholly material (as referenced by all of reality)
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Assumes this being is immaterial, unless this is more of a refutation of an immaterial being claim and not a blanket disproof of gods you have a bare assertion.

2. Is an inductive argument, it's also the Black Swan fallacy. "We've only ever seen white swans therefore no black swans exist" - The best you can really do here is criticise a presented explanation involving an immaterial being as being entirely inconsistent with all background knowledge. Example by analogy, if you find Swan droppings, and you've only ever seen white swans, then for someone to suggest that it's from a black swan is to suggest something inconsistent with background knowledge, yet this does not mean that it was necessarily not a black swan. If it's not necessary then it's not proof, making your "Therefore" require the prefix "probably".

1. If god exists he would want all humanity to come to beleive in him and is capable of eliminating reasonable unbelief
2. Reasonable unbelief exists amongst humanity
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Assumes something about the character and motives of this being. Again this would only be applicable to a being who is defined specifically as wanting that, which I doubt many theists believe because it's clearly not the case.

1. If god exists then he is capble and willing to eliminate evil
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Has the same problems as your last two Premise 1's.

1. If god exists then he is just and merciful and judges us all on our death
2. On judgement hell is a destination for some humans, but as a punishment in neither just nor merciful
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Same assumptions again. I think you should really be phrasing these more like "If a just and merciful god exists he judges us all on our death" They might not be as comprehensive, but you're going to avoid flaws in your argument that are easily demonstrated.

2. Just nor merciful by what standard?

1. If god exists then he is allowed us freewill and does not interfere with our decision making
2. God commands us to beleive in him, and only him, else we will suffer consequences (OT) and as a consequence tries to interfere with our decison making
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Should be "If a god who has allowed us free will exists, he does not interfere with out decision making" I'm aware of some theologians who would dismiss the idea of entirely "free" will. They are in the smaller numbers but none the less it helps your argument to change the phrasing.

2. I think this is very much true.

3. Should be "therefore a god who gives us free will and influences our decisions does not exist"

Aside from the correction in phrasing it's a good argument, best served as a refutation.

1. If god exists then he is a purely immaterial being capable of changing events in the universe
2. The universe requires a material cause and effect mechanism to change events in the universe (as referenced by all of reality)
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Same problem, try not to spread the blanket too far, holes appear as you stretch it.

2. This is another Black Swan. Again the best use of this induction is to point out that it's an explanation inconsistent with background knowledge.

1. If god exists he is the creator of the universe and wouldn't choose to create the universe from disorder given the unpredictable results
2. The universe started from disorder
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. You make assumptions about the character and motivations of the god again.

2. This may very well be a false premise, especially should some concepts of the singularity be true, that would be a single dimensionless net neutral quanta of energy, and I really doubt you can get any more order than that.

Nice try, but your running into trouble in places.

[Lethe]

Nature as you have described here is incompatible with the other picture of "nature" and "super-nature"; Their boundaries are usually defined by the presence or lack of material interaction.

Interesting, so that would mean certain aspects of the universe could potentially be "unnatural" as well.

You assume all things that exist (are things) are products of a creation.

Not quite, nothing still exists (but by nothing I should have referenced the nothing of physics). True nonetheless though. It's a fallacious argument, the only time I've actually used it was to show the flawed reasoning behind the uncreated creator/first cause scenario.

The burden of proof is yours

And I've gotten nowhere in disproving leprechauns, wendigos, furies, wizards, goblins, invisible flying ninja robot monkeys, or Darth Vader. Nor have I proven that I am indeed, not God. What burdens I have...

[theVOID]

Nature as you have described here is incompatible with the other picture of "nature" and "super-nature"; Their boundaries are usually defined by the presence or lack of material interaction.

Interesting, so that would mean certain aspects of the universe could potentially be "unnatural" as well.

Only if by unnatural you mean "not of the material reality" or something to that effect. You can't so easily use terms like "unnatural" as they occur in one model of reality and then expect the other models to conform, what you would consider "unnatural" in the other model might simply be "immaterial".

You assume all things that exist (are things) are products of a creation.

Not quite, nothing still exists (but by nothing I should have referenced the nothing of physics). True nonetheless though. It's a fallacious argument, the only time I've actually used it was to show the flawed reasoning behind the uncreated creator/first cause scenario.

Lets make a distinction here and call the Physics "nothing" the Vacuum. They are entirely different concepts. I don't know if your argument still works as a proof that "god" does not exit, but if we make the distinction then we have:

1. The Vacuum is not created (likely true).
2. "Something" is created (things that are not the vacuum cannot create themselves).
3. Therefore the uncreated creator is (probably) the Vacuum.

It seems to turn it into a positive argument for creation out of vacuum energy.

The burden of proof is yours

And I've gotten nowhere in disproving leprechauns, wendigos, furies, wizards, goblins, invisible flying ninja robot monkeys, or Darth Vader. Nor have I proven that I am indeed, not God. What burdens I have...

Don't make claims positive claims you can't justify?

[Paul the Human]

I believe that there are no gods, but I would not state "there are no gods"... if you see what I mean. People claim that god(s) exist and I do not believe the claims. Over the years, I have come to believe that there are, in fact, no gods at all... but I realize that I do not know this to be absolutely true... so I cannot say that there are definitely no god(s). Knowledge is not needed for belief.

If I were to say, "There are no gods in existence", I would hold a burden of proof, but all I'm saying is that I believe there are no gods in existence... so the only thing I am required to prove is that I honestly believe that there are no gods... not that there truly aren't any.

I find it amazing that anyone, after giving it some honest thought, can believe that god(s) are real. Why? The only conclusion I can come to is that the desire for god(s) to be real is overriding the perception of reality.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I find it amazing that anyone, after giving it some honest thought, can believe that god(s) are real.

Argument from incredulity and irrelevant..

In asserting " I believe that there are no god" you have made a positive claim and attract the burden of proof. (OK, of falsification. Lots of luck with that; you'll be the first in recorded history)


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...magination

[Paul the Human]

Here's the thing... I don't care. I believe that there are no gods. I have no desire to prove that there are none, as I am aware that it cannot be proven nor disproved. Knowledge is not needed in order to hold a belief. And, yes... I am incredulous that anyone can actually believe in god(s). I find the claim itself to be... incredible. So what? I could lie, like many others, and say that I simply do not believe the claims that god(s) exist, but the truth is... I believe that they do not. It would take some pretty compelling evidence to change that belief.

[ib.me.ub]

Here's the thing... I don't care. I believe that there are no gods. I have no desire to prove that there are none, as I am aware that it cannot be proven nor disproved. Knowledge is not needed in order to hold a belief. And, yes... I am incredulous that anyone can actually believe in god(s). I find the claim itself to be... incredible. So what? I could lie, like many others, and say that I simply do not believe the claims that god(s) exist, but the truth is... I believe that they do not. It would take some pretty compelling evidence to change that belief.

Why thank you for the re-affirmation.

[Paul the Human]

Why thank you for the re-affirmation.

Sure. Whatever.

[ib.me.ub]

Why thank you for the re-affirmation.

Sure. Whatever.

My pleasure.

[Captain Scarlet]

Nice try, but your running into trouble in places.

Thank you for the forensic dismantling of my sylolgisms. I braindumped rather than thinking this through, but I glad someone did (and for that matter did a better job than me). Clearly you're right, evidential disproofs often carry the burden of the problem of induction, hence evidential conclusions should probably state 'probably'. Of the logical disproofs there are so many and whilst they give deductive conclusions, they are mostly subject to theological 'ah but' becuase the god concept can be morphed into any shape the theologian wants to make the refutation work. Are you convinced by any logical disproofs?