My argument for atheism +

[Tom Fearnley]

My counter for atheism that beats all arguments for God: God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy - so how can he think thoughts or have knowledge? 

I suspect that there are a lot of Christian fundamentalists today who assume that God thinks in the way that people think. So if you're arguing against those people, what you say makes sense: it is impossible to think in the way that people think if you don't have the brains that people have. 

In fact I think this is a pretty obvious argument -- so obvious that no philosopher or theologian from at least the time of Plato has asserted that God thinks in the way that people think. 

Have you read Plato's Parmenides? As far as I can tell, this is the earliest written argument stating that God is absolutely simple. It says God doesn't "have" thoughts in the way that people have thoughts. It's a very difficult dialogue, and people continue to interpret it in different ways. However it has been enormously influential among people who think about God, following the Neoplatonic tradition (like that of Plotinus), and that tradition as it enters Christianity with Dionysius and Augustine. Theologians and philosophers who are not specifically Neoplatonic, as well (like Aquinas and Spinoza) also hold that God is absolutely simple, having no parts, and is absolutely impassible, having no changes or developments. So among any Christian who has studied these things, your argument that God couldn't possibly think in the way that people think would be old news -- dealt with millennia ago. 

Without a brain or neurons he couldn't create a universe or create anything else.

Here again you're assuming that a God would be like a big person, and could only create in the way that a person creates. So if the sola scriptura literalists at your local church are thinking in this way, you could present your argument there. (Not that they'd listen, probably.)

Maybe you yourself picture God in this way? I think it would be common among Sunday School kids or people who just haven't bothered to study the subject.

So when you say your argument "beats all arguments" for God, that may be true, if you ignore all the arguments ever made by any well-known theologian for the last 2500 years.

I haven't read it no thanks for the recommendation.

When there is no evidence of something where there should be we don't believe in that thing. There is no evidence where there should be that knowledge can come from anywhere but the brain. Could you define "big person" please? Why is there any other type of intelligent creation that doesn't involve the brain/neurons? There is no evidence for it where there should be.

What would those well know theologians argue that beats my argument against the arguments for God? For instance?

---

Atheism: The belief that God almost certainly doesn't exist.

Reason for this: There is no evidence for god where there should be (not just that "there is no evidence..." that's agnosticism.)

Counter from theists: God created the universe/did the fine tuning/created humans/the Kalam/The argument from contingency/the Fine Tuning argument etc etc.

My counter for atheism that beats all arguments for God: God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy - so how can he think thoughts or have knowledge? Without a brain or neurons he couldn't create a universe or create anything else.



I've never got any evidence that God can think without a brain or neurons.

The eye and brain are functionally connected; therefore, God*. Mind creates brain; Inanimate molecules don't decide to organize for brain development, then decide for mind development.

*I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. -  Psalm 139:14

The mind comes from the brain indirect evidence has shown ( and there maybe more I'm not aware of) and again what actual evidence do you have that you can think thoughts or have knowledge, which both come from brain matter, without a brain? There's no evidence for it.

[ThinkingIsThinking]

Nobody needs an argument for atheism.

All theists need an argument for theism--if they are to be rational--but they rarely give a proper one.

And even when they do--arguably--give a so-called 'proper' one ... it's nevertheless invalid. Even when it's a 'decent' attempt.

[Belacqua]

Could you define "big person" please? Why is there any other type of intelligent creation that doesn't involve the brain/neurons? There is no evidence for it where there should be.

What would those well know theologians argue that beats my argument against the arguments for God? For instance?

It looks as though every big religion has a popular version and an educated version. 

For example Americans tend to know Taoism through translations of the Tao Te Ching, so they think of it as kind of abstract and philosophical. But in China if you go to a Taoist temple, the outer hall is likely to have pictures of Hell so as to scare the rank and file into behaving themselves. 

When I say "big person," I am talking about the popular image of the Christian God. A human-like figure who has ideas and emotions and changes his mind and is basically like a man with extra power. This is the God you are arguing against. This is the God that William Blake (a Christian) called "Nobodaddy," since -- like every educated Christian -- he agreed that it doesn't exist.

It takes a lot of work to get past that "Sky Daddy" image. I suspect that most Christians are interested more in the ceremony and emotional support of religion, so they haven't done a good job of learning or explaining the real philosophy. For the most part you have to read lots of things and put in the work. 

This book might be a reasonable introduction: 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030020...taft_p1_i2

[LastPoet]

Could you define "big person" please? Why is there any other type of intelligent creation that doesn't involve the brain/neurons? There is no evidence for it where there should be.

What would those well know theologians argue that beats my argument against the arguments for God? For instance?

It looks as though every big religion has a popular version and an educated version. 

For example Americans tend to know Taoism through translations of the Tao Te Ching, so they think of it as kind of abstract and philosophical. But in China if you go to a Taoist temple, the outer hall is likely to have pictures of Hell so as to scare the rank and file into behaving themselves. 

When I say "big person," I am talking about the popular image of the Christian God. A human-like figure who has ideas and emotions and changes his mind and is basically like a man with extra power. This is the God you are arguing against. This is the God that William Blake (a Christian) called "Nobodaddy," since -- like every educated Christian -- he agreed that it doesn't exist.

It takes a lot of work to get past that "Sky Daddy" image. I suspect that most Christians are interested more in the ceremony and emotional support of religion, so they haven't done a good job of learning or explaining the real philosophy. For the most part you have to read lots of things and put in the work. 

This book might be a reasonable introduction: 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030020...taft_p1_i2

Good luck with that, Bel.

[GrandizerII]

Could you define "big person" please? Why is there any other type of intelligent creation that doesn't involve the brain/neurons? There is no evidence for it where there should be.

What would those well know theologians argue that beats my argument against the arguments for God? For instance?

It looks as though every big religion has a popular version and an educated version. 

For example Americans tend to know Taoism through translations of the Tao Te Ching, so they think of it as kind of abstract and philosophical. But in China if you go to a Taoist temple, the outer hall is likely to have pictures of Hell so as to scare the rank and file into behaving themselves. 

When I say "big person," I am talking about the popular image of the Christian God. A human-like figure who has ideas and emotions and changes his mind and is basically like a man with extra power. This is the God you are arguing against. This is the God that William Blake (a Christian) called "Nobodaddy," since -- like every educated Christian -- he agreed that it doesn't exist.

It takes a lot of work to get past that "Sky Daddy" image. I suspect that most Christians are interested more in the ceremony and emotional support of religion, so they haven't done a good job of learning or explaining the real philosophy. For the most part you have to read lots of things and put in the work. 

This book might be a reasonable introduction: 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030020...taft_p1_i2

Would you consider theistic personalism to be an educated stance on the matter of God? Because that's a major difference in stance among educated Christians.

[Belacqua]

Would you consider theistic personalism to be an educated stance on the matter of God? Because that's a major difference in stance among educated Christians.

Ah, good question. 

I confess I've never been inspired to read anything by William Lane Craig. Maybe because I associate him with the Kalam argument, which I don't like.

Nor do I know much about personalism. (And I'm not in a position to watch the video right now.) As I understand it, that view doesn't hold to complete simplicity or impassibility. But it also doesn't argue that God is a physical thing with a brain somewhere. Does that sound like a fair description to you? 

So I guess I don't know enough to judge. I don't know how they can make the arguments they do. My first reaction is just that they are stretching the definition of "person" farther than it should go. To me, a person has [is] a body. 

But I shouldn't be too narrow -- there are educated views of God which aren't strictly classical, either Thomist or Neoplatonic. Anybody who reads Blake, as I do, (or Hegel) has to work on Jacob Boehme also, and he is wildly different from the classics. Yet his description of God as a spirit which develops through the minds and actions of people is a beautiful idea. In this case, God not only has a physical brain but he has a lot of them -- but they happen to be all the brains of all the people.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nobody needs an argument for atheism.

All theists need an argument for theism--if they are to be rational--but they rarely give a proper one.

And even when they do--arguably--give a so-called 'proper' one ... it's nevertheless invalid. Even when it's a 'decent' attempt.

Actually, arguments are needed for strong or positive atheism.  This is the claim 'Gods do not exist.'  It differs from weak or negative atheism which is, 'I do not believe that gods exist,' for which arguments are unnecessary.

It's like the difference between 'Coffee is bad for you' and 'I don't like coffee'.  If no arguments are presented for the former, the proposition is at the least suspect and at the most untenable.  The latter is an opinion, which can stand without being justified.

That being said, it is important to remember that people who don't like coffee are to be treated with suspicion, as they are probably stinking Commies, as well as pigeon fanciers.

Boru

[Alex K]

There is no evidence for Aliens: I assume you're agnostic about aliens however?

Yes, indeed, because of plausibility considerations and lack of specificity.

[Belacqua]

Actually, arguments are needed for strong or positive atheism.  This is the claim 'Gods do not exist.'  It differs from weak or negative atheism which is, 'I do not believe that gods exist,' for which arguments are unnecessary.

For thinking adults in a society, arguments are also necessary for weak atheism.

It's just that the arguments seem so obvious to us that we may not recognize them as arguments. 

Suppose you're happily living your life as a weak atheist, and some weirdo comes along and tells you that God created the world in six days. If you accept this, you're not an atheist any more. If you reject it, you're still an atheist. Why would you reject it?

Probably you reject it because you are committed to two arguments (=standards of judgment, =reasons):

1) the Bible isn't a reliable source for scientific facts, and 
2) real science tells us that the world wasn't created in six days.

These are commitments that we have. We are very sure that they are true, and we use them to evaluate statements about miraculous interventions and Jesus appearing on pieces of toast, etc. 

In our time and place and social class, these things seem like such obvious truths that we barely think about them, and I have no intention of arguing against them. But they are still arguments.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some people just don't put stock into everything random nutbars say.