Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How does one disprove God and prove free-will?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

My friends tell me that my atheism is based on faith just like their theism is. I try to argue that there is no evidence for the existence of God and that his existence would defy causality, free will, etc. They say that there is no evidence against it either(a common argument) and that free will does not exist. They say that free will is apparent. Are their stronger arguments through which one can disprove the existence of God and prove the existence of free will? In other words, is there a way to convince even the irrational?

There must be some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, is there a way to convince even the irrational?

There must be some way.

Yes. Exercise your free will by walking away from them until they stop being irrational. You may be able to convince them of your refusal to deal with the irrational.

I would recommend Peikoff's "Certainty and Happiness" for a definition of "evidence". He points out that there can be no evidence for the existence of God, because evidence, by definition, is related to something real. The existence of God is an arbitrary supposition and the rational way to deal with the arbitrary is to reject it. (I believe this is also covered in OPAR.)

This doesn't mean to reject everyone as a possible friend just because they believe in God. But it means that there are some arguments that will never be resolved if they insist on using faith, and calling reason or atheism another form of faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right to be disconcerted by your friend's demand that you disprove his claim. The key is to identify the assertion "God exists" for what it is: the arbitrary. He is the one making the claim so he is the one that has to show proof. This is called "the onus of proof" and it is a very important logical principle.

As an atheist, you should refuse to consider the matter further until some evidence is offered. By accepting his premise that you must disprove his claim, you have already lost the argument as this drops the onus of proof principle.

See "The Arbitrary as Neither True Nor False" in Chapter 5 of OPAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could you be expected to prove something dosen't exist when it's only definition is that it is beyond human comprehension? :D

Perhaps that is a rhetorical question, but I will point you to an appropriate answer just in case.... ;)

Don't bother to examine a folly—ask yourself only what it accomplishes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two statements can be derived from your disagreement with your friends (at least with respect to the god issue).

1. I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence of such existence.

2. I believe in a god because although there is no evidence of "his" existence, there is no evidence to "his" lack of existence.

Compare the two statements and apply Occam's Razor.

You could waste time explaining Occam's Razor to them if you want, but I'm of the opinion that other posters share in that you are wasting time arguing against irraitonal statements. (edited opinions to read statements)

Then for fun (or extra credit :D ) ask them if they are choosing to believe in god or if they have no choice in the matter. ;)

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could also make a concrete example of your point by asking them disprove all sorts of arbitrary assertions you create on the spot.

Point out that the pixie always sitting on your shoulder has the same epistemilogical status as their god.

If they indicate that the pixie might be actually be there, then walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point out that the pixie always sitting on your shoulder has the same epistemilogical status as their god.

Do you mean metaphysical status ?

On the topic at hand...it seems like you (tommyedison) must have better things to do with your friends. Why don't you just wait until it comes up in a context where it makes a difference - like where they're using it as an argument to try to convince you to do or not do something against your judgment - and then talk about it ? I think a few examples of your being unfettered by irrational beliefs (and exercising your free will, btw) will be a lot more convincing than any philosophical argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along the lines of what jfortun said (make an arbitrary assertion), tell your friend that you are God, and then demand that he disprove it. Then you can run them in circles the same way religious people do to everyone else and themselves.

They might even insist that you do something to prove that you are God, and then of course you have them. "What, demand proof NOW, when I'm standing here in front of you? You never needed proof before, when you'd never laid eyes on me. What's up with that?"

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence of such existence.

2.  I believe in a god because although there is no evidence of "his" existence, there is no evidence to "his" lack of existence.

I think that is wrong.

Belief is a matter of choice. Whether or not a God exists is arbitrary. There is no proof that it does, yet noone can prove its nonexistence. Therefore, you believe what you want to believe. I don't believe in god because I choose not to - not because I have some ultimate and infallible knowledge about existence. Thus, the only VALID questions concerning god are:

1. Why do you choose to believe in god?

2. Why do you choose not to believe in god?

Should someone answer that belief is not a matter of choice, then what is it? Is it a must or a no-no? If believing in god is not a matter of one's volition, then it is either always valid (everyone believes in god) or always invalid (noone believes in god), and the opposite is an anomaly; a supernatural phenomenon.

RadCap, if your sentence 1. was correct, that would suppose that you believe only what you can prove. However, when you prove something - you show it to be part of existence, you show its reality and concretize it - is there really room left for believing, or do you now KNOW this fact you've proven? If you know something, belief has no more room in this matter.

So the two sentences you wrote would go, IMO:

1. I don't believe in god because I choose not to.

2. I believe in god because I choose to.

The first is the rational choice, for the only way to deal rationally with arbitrary is to reject it. The second is the irrational choice.

If you want to know the reasons, ask the why questions I wrote above. Expect more from a person who gives answer 1. than from a person who gives you answer 2. The person who gave you answer 2. has abandoned rationality anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What, demand proof NOW, when I'm standing here in front of you?  You never needed proof before, when you'd never laid eyes on me.  What's up with that?"

The trick is not to let them ask you to prove the non-existence of god.

I think that the reason why believers are so touchy about the issue of existence of god is because many of them accept this as an objectivist would accept the basic axioms of objectivism. The only difference is that believers often don't know what axioms are and those who do would intentionally trap you into the issue of disproving it, their goal being perhaps some petty attempt to convince themselves of the truth of that which they accept as an axiom by means of your failure to do so (all of their rationalizations for your stating the opposite included).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick is not to let them ask you to prove the non-existence of god.

I think that the reason why believers are so touchy about the issue of existence of god is because many of them accept this as an objectivist would accept the basic axioms of objectivism. The only difference is that believers often don't know what axioms are and those who do would intentionally trap you into the issue of disproving it, their goal being perhaps some petty attempt to convince themselves of the truth of that which they accept as an axiom by means of your failure to do so (all of their rationalizations for your stating the opposite included).

The only axiom I know Objectivism is based on is reason. And one even provide a rationalization as to why one must use reason as an axiom, not faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only axiom I know Objectivism is based on is reason. And one even provide a rationalization as to why one must use reason as an axiom, not faith.

Objectivism has 3 axioms - A is A, existence exists and consciousness is conscious (of something). See more about them in Wiki or in OPAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is wrong.

I think you are wrong and that my summation is perfectly valid.

Edit: I'm not RadCap by the way.

Also, there can be evidence to indicates something without actually providing proof positive. (i.e. circumstantial evidence)

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is wrong.

Belief is a matter of choice. Whether or not a God exists is arbitrary. There is no proof that it does, yet noone can prove its nonexistence.

When I've searched the web for discussion about belief being volitional, I've come up with a pretty evenly divided set of arguments. To me, this indicates a lack of clear definition. It seems that a discussion of belief could be held in the "Metaphysics and Epistemology" area.

Religionists tend to favor your point - that belief is arbitrary and volitional; atheists tend to favor the view that belief is not arbitrary - that what one believes is a result of experience and rational reflection. One can choose not to reflect - to keep experience unanalyzed and unintegrated, so in this sense beliefs are volitional, but only indirectly. Once one has integrated the evidence, what one believes is no longer volitional.

This begs the question: What does it mean to believe ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I've searched the web for discussion about belief being volitional, I've come up with a pretty evenly divided set of arguments. To me, this indicates a lack of clear definition. It seems that a discussion of belief could be held in the "Metaphysics and Epistemology" area.

Religionists tend to favor your point - that belief is arbitrary and volitional; atheists tend to favor the view that belief is not arbitrary - that what one believes is a result of experience and rational reflection. One can choose not to reflect - to keep experience unanalyzed and unintegrated, so in this sense beliefs are volitional, but only indirectly. Once one has integrated the evidence, what one believes is no longer volitional.

This begs the question: What does it mean to believe ?

This is a false alternative, common in many areas but rearing its ugly head in a more fundamental issue here. "Volitional" does not imply "arbitrary." If it takes an act of volition to come to hold a belief--i.e., if you have to choose to believe something (and I think that is the case)--that says nothing about whether your reasons for choosing to do so were objective or arbitrary in any given case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I've searched the web for discussion about belief being volitional, I've come up with a pretty evenly divided set of arguments. To me, this indicates a lack of clear definition. It seems that a discussion of belief could be held in the "Metaphysics and Epistemology" area.

Religionists tend to favor your point - that belief is arbitrary and volitional; atheists tend to favor the view that belief is not arbitrary - that what one believes is a result of experience and rational reflection. One can choose not to reflect - to keep experience unanalyzed and unintegrated, so in this sense beliefs are volitional, but only indirectly. Once one has integrated the evidence, what one believes is no longer volitional.

This begs the question: What does it mean to believe ?

Dictionary.com offers these definitions:

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?

To credit with veracity: I believe you.

To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

All these, except perhaps 3, which is not of much consequence in this particular discussion, alludes to me a choice.

1. I choose (not) to accept sth as true or real.

2. I choose (not) to credit sth with veracity.

It seems to me that according to these definitions, accepting that anything is real is belief. All knowledge is thus belief.

Talking about the art of smearing. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give any reasons?

Sure.

Belief is a matter of choice.
Sure it is and it's usually based on some reasoning. Statements such as...

1. I don't believe in god because I choose not to.

2. I believe in god because I choose to.

do NOT summarize the issue as post forth in the original post, and they are not stand alone. They ALWAYS beg further questioning to find the reason. Choosing to believe something or not believe something without any further reasoning is arbitrary.

Whether or not a God exists is arbitrary. There is no proof that it does, yet noone can prove its nonexistence.
There is no need to prove the lack of existence of something for which there is no evidence to prove it exists in the first place.

if your sentence 1. was correct, that would suppose that you believe only what you can prove.

No it doesn't. That's what several christians liked to say though when I have discussed this issue. My statement #1 is a specific stand alone statement and says nothing more that what others CHOOSE to assume if they try to read more into it than is there. As I said before, there can be evidence of something that falls well short of proving that something. For instance, some people take the Bible itself as evidence. Some people take the existence of the earth, seas, stars, people, etc. etc. as evidence to support their beliefs. For the sake of argument, even if you give them credit for that being evidence of a supreme being (which I don't), it's still non-conclusive, but enough for some to "believe".

There are many things in this world that one can believe in without have definitive proof. Sit on a jury sometime and that may provide you with a good example. So therefore, if I state I believe or do not believe in something, it only should presuppose that I have a reason for that specific belief or lack of belief. Should anyone read more into it than that, that's their problem, not mine. Thus in stating whether I believe in something or not, rather than further begging questions of why I choose to or not to choose to, I give the reason in the statement.

So my post as written stands as a valid summation of the original post. I seperated it from the issue of choice because if someone doesn't believe in choice, arguing with them is pretty much pointless. It would be like an automaton going through the motions of deterministic action. Whether I continue to argue with them or just turn and walk away, they will believe that thats what was determined to happen anyway so I save myself the time.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is wrong.

Belief is a matter of choice. Whether or not a God exists is arbitrary. There is no proof that it does, yet noone can prove its nonexistence.

Let us assume that God exists. By God I mean the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God who is defined as omnipotent and omniscient and all-benevolent.

The existence of such a God would mean that free will does not exist. Because if free will existed, then that would mean that what we choose to do is not in God's hands which would mean that God is not omnipotent and therefore God is not God.

(I hope you will not deny the existence of free will)

Another popular atheistic argument is that can God create a rock which He himself cannot lift?

Because if God cannot create such a rock, then he is not omnipotent and is therefore not God and if He can create a rock which He cannot lift, then again he is not omnipotent and there not God.

If one must accept the existence of God, one must accept faith and abandon reason because faith and reason are opposites.

The existence of God poses such glaring contradictions that God cannot exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I understood a logical denouncement of god from Objectivism is because of the negative construct the irrationality places on the consciousness.

What I mean by negative construct is as follows:

To believe in god is to have gotten that concept from some source (the bible, koran, spiritual books not affiliated with christianity, or passed on through traditions). Those sources also provide a moral code established by a 'god' through the people that wrote them or passed them down through stories (10 commandments, buddhist teachings of morals, what rules and laws the koran places, etc etc)

To believe in a god is to accept a moral code. If you follow a moral code that you do not hold true then it establishes guilt, confusion and conflicts within yourself when you do not follow that moral code. How is a human being supposed to follow a moral code that is against human nature? The reason why I say that the belief in god is against human nature is because of what it requires of us.

When one accepts such moral code they automatically accept the values that moral code implies so when they have pre-marital sex then they are contradicting their moral beliefs (consiously or unconsciously). Depending on their basis of god, they violate a variety of different morals. It may be anything that they do, smoke a cig, have an alchoholic bevarage...if it violates a moral code that the god implies then it is causing a moral conflict within oneself (if they know it or not) and they are hindered by guilt.

Most people accept these 'violations' and call them sins, and say that no man is without sin, but to get into heavan (the christian sense) they must submit themselves to an unworldly (illogical) god and not be of 'worldly' things and ask this unknowable figure for forgiveness. To not be of worldly things implies to not follow ones own rational self interest and move through the world as a rational human being.

Living with the guilt, confusion, and conflicts because of your moral code only means suppression of a human being and a slow growth as an individual (if growth is possible).

This may not disprove god, but it's one hell of a good argument on why not to believe in god.

That may not be the official Objectivist philosophy of god, but that is what I got out of it.

~Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...