Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

No, none of the books you mention will do at all. You said in #37889

Hundreds or thousands of weighty volumes have been published attacking belief and defending non-belief with closely-reasoned arguments and evidence,

The clear implication in the sequence of posts just above  is that you are saying such books are proving the existence of God, which is why I queried it. This is, as has been pointed out, all to do with NPF and the onus is always on those who are the believers who have to prove, well, attempt to prove, the existence of the God they believe exists.

Please make your  position on this absolutely clear.

You talk about things being quiet when you did not get an instant response to your  list, but, you know, people rarely sit at the computer non-stop on a Sunday morning I think. I for instance am spending some time puzzling over the cryptic crossword.

[Roses]

No, none of the books you mention will do at all. You said in #37889The clear implication in the sequence of posts just above  is that you are saying such books are proving the existence of God, which is why I queried it. This is, as has been pointed out, all to do with NPF and the onus is always on those who are the believers who have to prove, well, attempt to prove, the existence of the God they believe exists.

Please make your  position on this absolutely clear.

You talk about things being quiet when you did not get an instant response to your  list, but, you know, people rarely sit at the computer non-stop on a Sunday morning I think. I for instance am spending some time puzzling over the cryptic crossword.

Steve tries to give the impression he is the knowledgeable one, whereas his posts are often way off the mark or deliberately insulting.

[Enki]

.......
Your list would be good in the Faith Sharing area.

Not really, Robbie, because the ethos of that board is all to do with the 'faith' perspective, rather than from a'the divine does not exist' perspective, as Gordon made clear in the opening post on that board.

[SteveH]

No, none of the books you mention will do at all. You said in #37889The clear implication in the sequence of posts just above  is that you are saying such books are proving the existence of God, which is why I queried it. This is, as has been pointed out, all to do with NPF and the onus is always on those who are the believers who have to prove, well, attempt to prove, the existence of the God they believe exists.

Please make your  position on this absolutely clear.

You talk about things being quiet when you did not get an instant response to your  list, but, you know, people rarely sit at the computer non-stop on a Sunday morning I think. I for instance am spending some time puzzling over the cryptic crossword.

It was a list of books arguing against belief, which is what I thought you wanted. There is also any number of books arguing for belief, obviously. My position on belief in God is confused, but I continue to be a practising Anglican.

[Nearly Sane]

No, none of the books you mention will do at all. You said in #37889The clear implication in the sequence of posts just above  is that you are saying such books are proving the existence of God, which is why I queried it. This is, as has been pointed out, all to do with NPF and the onus is always on those who are the believers who have to prove, well, attempt to prove, the existence of the God they believe exists.

Please make your  position on this absolutely clear.

You talk about things being quiet when you did not get an instant response to your  list, but, you know, people rarely sit at the computer non-stop on a Sunday morning I think. I for instance am spending some time puzzling over the cryptic crossword.

I think you have misread what Steve H was saying. He has not said there are books that prove the existence of gods but that there are many arguments against God's existence. He doesn't appear to be using the NPF but rather expressing a dislike for LR's approach. Whether that dislike has any real.justification is another matter but he's allowed to state what he feels.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree Susan has misunderstood Steve H's post. I thought Steve H was saying that there are books with reasoned arguments for non-belief in God rather than arguing the non-existence of God.

[Robbie]

Good to see you Gabriella, first time for ages. Your reasoned post have been missed.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Good to see you Gabriella, first time for ages. Your reasoned post have been missed.

Hi Robbie - thank you and good to see you. Hope you are feeling positive - you seemed a little unwell and also melancholy a few months ago due to events in your family.

I did post briefly a few days ago after a long absence. It's just very difficult to find the time to post. I am supposed to be doing a Newsletter - I am secretary and trustee of a charity - and so am procrastinating by doing something more interesting i.e. reading this Message Board    

[Robbie]

Oh yes so you did on the election thread.

When the charity newsletter is done come back here (until the next newsletter is due).

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Bad design in living creatures, if you assume they're designed.
Suffering, especially its extreme intensity in many cases, and its random distribution.
Inconsistency and gross immorality in the Bible.
Many religions, all believing different things.
Appalling behaviour of many believers.
Lack of answers to prayer.
Naturalistic explanations for human behaviour better than religious ones.
Occam's razor.
Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Morris Cerullo, Jim Bakker, and other repulsive snake-oil merchants.
Natural disasters.

Bravo Steve – that’s perfectly reasonable list of atheist arguments. It’s not however what Susan asked for, which was:

i.e. those with evidence of the non-existence of God etc.
Oh, really? Pleas list, say, ten of them.

To be fair, the proposition “god” is framed so as to be outside rational enquiry so no argument could provide “evidence for the non-existence of God”. What these (and other) atheist arguments do though is to falsify the arguments some attempt to justify their belief “god” – which is as much as they ever could do. That’s why I’m an atheist by the way: simply that I’ve never heard an argument to justify the claim “god” that I cannot identify as being logically false. That‘s not to say that there might not be a god (or gods) just as a matter of dumb luck for the theist (though he'd have to be even luckier for the one he happened to have guessed at also being the correct one), but it is to say that I’ve never been given a cogent reason to think theists are right.   

I don't necessarily accept all these arguments, and some are only arguments against certain types of belief, but they are arguments that are used.

See above. Yes, and correctly so – but only to demolish (or at least to provide contra-indicators to) various of the arguments people attempt to justify their belief(s) in god(s). 

Why I am not a Christian - Bertrand Russell
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker - ditto
God is Not Great - Christopher Hitchens
In God We Doubt - John Humphries
The End of Faith - Sam Harris
Breaking the Spell - Daniel Dennett
Atheism: a Very Short Introduction - Julian Baggini
Atheism: the Case Against God - George Smith
The Natural History of Religion - David Hume

A nice reading list for the rational thinker (though presumably Alan Burns would instantly self-combust if ever he opened one of them to read what it actually said ; - ) ) but again all they do (and all they can do) is to examine critically and to find to be false the arguments made for theism, successfully so in my view. Russell especially with his celestial teapot analogy makes very plain that not being able to disprove a proposition does not imply that the proposition is true, and moreover that it would be a fool’s errand even to try. If I posit leprechauns as a real thing but place them outside any sort of rational enquiry for example, that you cannot provide“ evidence of the non-existence of” leprechauns does not for one moment imply that I’m right.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, none of the books you mention will do at all. You said in #37889The clear implication in the sequence of posts just above  is that you are saying such books are proving the existence of God, which is why I queried it. This is, as has been pointed out, all to do with NPF and the onus is always on those who are the believers who have to prove, well, attempt to prove, the existence of the God they believe exists.

Please make your  position on this absolutely clear.

No Susan - the clear implication is that you have got yourself in a muddle and misunderstood what Steve H said in his post. In #37888 LR says "A certain poster accuses me of not providing any evidence to support my non belief." LR then muddles non-belief in a god with non-existence of a god by apparently equating the two concepts as being the same.

Steve H corrects LR in #37889 by stating that "Hundreds or thousands of weighty volumes have been published attacking belief and defending non-belief with closely-reasoned arguments and evidence, so why can't you come up with a few? Actually, to do you justice, you do mention the apparent cruelty of God as described in the |O, but that's about it."

Susan then chips in with #37890 where she also equates non-belief with non-existence while quoting Steve H's post #37888 about non-belief.

Steve responds in #37892 with a list of books that back up his post quoted by Susan that there are books with reasoned arguments for non-belief. He also states in #37892 that "I don't necessarily accept all these arguments, and some are only arguments against certain types of belief, but they are arguments that are used." (My emphasis)

In #37894 Susan quotes Steve's above post and while still being in a muddle about the difference between non-belief and non-existence has now got into a further muddle by confusing non-existence with existence as she says "The clear implication in the sequence of posts just above you are saying such books are proving the existence of God, which is why I queried it."

So it appears Susan has read "non-belief" as "non-existence" in Steve H's posts and then erroneously made the leap to NPF rather than engaging brain to understand what was actually written.

[Nearly Sane]

SteveH,

Bravo Steve – that’s perfectly reasonable list of atheist arguments. It’s not however what Susan asked for, which was:

To be fair, ....

All of this is based on Susan Doris's misunderstanding of what Steve H was saying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gabriella - nice to see you back again,

Steve responds in #37892 with a list of books that back up his post quoted by Susan that there are books with reasoned arguments for non-belief.

Yes they are, but that's all they are (or could be).

He also states in #37892 that "I don't necessarily accept all these arguments, and some are only arguments against certain types of belief, but they are arguments that are used." (My emphasis)

But they're not "arguments against certain types of belief" (except in the loose sense that it's not a good idea to have those beliefs on the basis of the arguments attempted to justify them). Rather they're arguments that undo the arguments that theists attempt to justify their beliefs, which seems fair enough to me. This might at first sight seem pedantic, but it isn't - the beliefs themselves and the arguments to justify them are two different things.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

All of this is based on Susan Doris's misunderstanding of what Steve H was saying.

Misunderstanding or not, that was nonetheless the question Susan asked - which is why SteveH's spirited response did not address that question. As I said though, to be fair nothing else could have addressed it either. He'd have been on safer ground saying something like, "No arguments can do that Susan, but here's a list of arguments that falsify the arguments theists make to justify their beliefs".

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Misunderstanding or not, that was nonetheless the question Susan asked - which is why SteveH's spirited response did not address that question. As I said though, to be fair nothing else could have addressed it either. He'd have been on safer ground saying something like, "No arguments can do that Susan, but here's a list of arguments that falsify the arguments theists make to justify their beliefs".

Which made her question specious because he hadn't made the claim. And made your further comments irrelevant to what he was saying.



ETA checking back what SD asked was for those books
i'.e. those with evidence of the non-existence of God etc.' So what Steve did precisely answered the question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Which made her question specious because he hadn't made the claim. And made your further comments irrelevant to what he was saying.

Nope – if SteveH thought Susan’s question was specious, his response should have been “your question is specious”. Posting arguments that don’t address the question – whether specious or not – is missing the point.   

ETA checking back what SD asked was for those books
i'.e. those with evidence of the non-existence of God etc.' So what Steve did precisely answered the question.

Did you mean to say that? The books SteveH listed (and no other books either) provide “evidence for the non-existence of God”, and nor to do they claim to.

Anyway, I’m not going to die in a ditch over this except to say that the point here is that generally atheist arguments (and books) falsify the arguments used to justify theistic belief, not the beliefs themselves. Perhaps closer to doing that is attacking the real world consequence those beliefs can have – the appalling damage the RCC does with its contraception ban for example. What’s true/false and what’s good/bad are different matters though: a faith belief could be wholly false and yet do more good than harm if enough people acted on it, and vice versa.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Nope – if SteveH thought Susan’s question was specious, his response should have been “your question is specious”. Posting arguments that don’t address the question – whether specious or not – is missing the point.   
 

Did you mean to say that? The books SteveH listed (and no other books either) provide “evidence for the non-existence of God”, and nor to do they claim to.

Anyway, I’m not going to die in a ditch over this except to say that the point here is that generally atheist arguments (and books) falsify the arguments used to justify theistic belief, not the beliefs themselves. Perhaps closer to doing that is attacking the real world consequence those beliefs can have – the appalling damage the RCC does with its contraception ban for example. What’s true/false and what’s good/bad are different matters though: a faith belief could be wholly false and yet do more good than harm if enough people acted on it, and vice versa.

It doesn't matter that you disagree with Steve that the books do not show evidence for the job existence of god. What I wrote was quoting Susan Doris's question. I have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with any of the point Steve was making.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It doesn't matter that you disagree with Steve that the books do not show evidence for the job existence of god.

Yes it does - that was the point. Susan asked a question and SteveH gave what he thought was an answer to it. It wasn't though, and that's all I said. 

What I wrote was quoting Susan Doris's question.

Yes and I quoted it too, which is why I knew that SteveH's reply didn't answer it as he thought it did. Whether it could be answered at all (ie, whether the question was ill-founded or specious) is a different mater.

I have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with any of the point Steve was making.

It's simple enough - I was merely repositioning the discussion from the cul-de-sac it had entered by contextualising atheist arguments as actually being critiques of the arguments theists make to justify their beliefs, rather than critiques of the beliefs themselves.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Gabriella - nice to see you back again,

Yes they are, but that's all they are (or could be).

But they're not "arguments against certain types of belief" (except in the loose sense that it's not a good idea to have those beliefs on the basis of the arguments attempted to justify them). Rather they're arguments that undo the arguments that theists attempt to justify their beliefs, which seems fair enough to me. This might at first sight seem pedantic, but it isn't - the beliefs themselves and the arguments to justify them are two different things.

Hi BHS

Thank you and good to see you're still here. Don't some atheists argue that atheism is the default position? That is not the same as arguing against theist arguments for belief in gods. Though I have no idea if the default position line of reasoning is in any of the books mentioned by Steve H.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi again Gabriella,

Thank you and good to see you're still here. Don't some atheists argue that atheism is the default position?

Thank you too.

Yes. It’s an iteration of a larger principle too – namely that when the burden of proof for a proposition isn’t satisfied, there’s no good reason to accept it as true. That’s why a-theism is to theism what a-leprechaunism is to leprechaunism. 

That is not the same as arguing against theist arguments for belief in gods.

Yes it is insamuch as when those arguments are found to be false, then the burden of proof test is necessarily failed. That’s essentially what “atheist argument” entails: it’s the scrutiny of the theists’ attempts to satisfy the burden of proof requirement and finding them to fail. 

Though I have no idea if the default position line of reasoning is in any of the books mentioned by Steve H.

It’s baked in – once you’ve reached the conclusion that none of the arguments used to justify theism are sound, the “default” position of atheism applies necessarily (burden of proof again).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I was thinking more along the lines of the argument that you need to be introduced to the concept of gods or leprechauns or brought up with these concepts in order for there to even be the possibility of holding a belief in them. So if you have never been introduced to the concept the default position is atheism or a-leprechaunism.

What do you call someone who has a lack of belief in leprechauns because they have not been introduced to the concept?

[SteveH]

Hi BHS

Thank you and good to see you're still here. Don't some atheists argue that atheism is the default position? That is not the same as arguing against theist arguments for belief in gods. Though I have no idea if the default position line of reasoning is in any of the books mentioned by Steve H.

Non-belief in anything is always the defsult position. You should only believe in anything if there's good eviidence or logical arguments for it. The more intelligent and well-educated religious would agree, but would say that there's enough evidence to justify belief in God.

[SusanDoris]

Non-belief in anything is always the defsult position. You should only believe in anything if there's good eviidence or logical arguments for it. The more intelligent and well-educated religious would agree, but would say that there's enough evidence to justify belief in God.

Unfortunately, they never ever produce that (objective) evidence.

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside

Thank you for #37909 and subsequent  posts.

When I went to respond, I could notquite find the ones I was looking (listening) for.

[SusanDoris]

No Susan - the clear implication is that you have got yourself in a muddle and misunderstood what Steve H said in his post

I am old - yes! Muddled - definitely Not!!