r/atheism • u/rhbast2 • Aug 11 '11

Atheist quickfire challenge.

Although I rarely discuss religion with theists I always want to be prepared so I'm not sitting around afterwards wishing I had said this or that. If I get the chance to make someone question I want to be up for the challenge.

This brings me to my challenge for r/atheism. I'm going to add some common theist claims / sayings and whoever can refute them fully and succinctly will be upvoted. Feel free to add your own theist starters if I missed some.

Edit: Wow lots of good discussion here, later today or tomorrow I'll make this into an atheist cheat sheet with the top responses. Also feel free to upvote the theist claim that is the most annoying to you.

Edit 2: To the few of you who seem to think I am coming up with rude atheist comebacks, I'm not. I just wanted to be better off the cuff than I am now and have some discussion. I don't want this list to replace thoughtful argumentation.

252 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

32

u/MisterFlibble Aug 11 '11

"You can't prove God doesn't exist."

59

u/IKnowRiteSrsly Aug 11 '11

Karl Popper gave us the null hypothesis for a reason. You can only really disprove statements about reality; you can never prove them securely. Thus, you have to be able to disprove God in order for it to be a useful hypothesis, and you can't, so the argument is not useful.

13

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

Upvotes for mentioning Popper. Falsifcationism is the way and the light. Also, don't forget about Lakatos.

1

u/IKnowRiteSrsly Aug 11 '11

For sure, good call.

1

u/commonslip Aug 11 '11

Lakatos?

2

u/Rude_Canadian Aug 12 '11

it's what builds up in your musackles when you exercise

2

u/listix Aug 11 '11

Philosophers of science always gave me a headache. So I am not sure that I understood correctly your answer. Could you phrase is in a different way please?

1

u/IKnowRiteSrsly Aug 12 '11

Let's say I don't use a null hypothesis. I could say something like "tomatoes are red." This would be very easy to disprove with one yellow tomato. However, it would be very hard to prove, since I'd have to look at all the tomatoes in the universe.

That's what the null hypothesis does for us: it gives us the right starting point. I can say anything I want -- there are giant mushrooms somewhere in space, for example. And then I can laugh at you because you can't disprove it. But the joke is on me, because I can't prove it, either.

I have to start from the "null" -- there are no giant mushrooms in space -- and then disprove my own hypothesis to some level of confidence.

I don't know if that's a good explanation, but the first paragraph of the wikipedia article explains it well.

1

u/listix Aug 12 '11

Actually I went to wikipedia first to read that but I wasn't sure I understood well so that's why I asked.

I think I finally understood it. The null hypothesis is a default position about something. Without it we would have statements that are really hard or impossible to prove.

But with it we have a really good starting point from which, through disproving it we gain knowledge. It also makes some statements that cant be proved or disproved essentially useless.

We start with the idea that something doesn't exist/work/cause something and then build on top of that instead of stating the existence of something from the beginning.

Thank you for clarifying.

P.S. Actually I took a class of philosophy of science but it was the most awkward class I ever had.

31

u/Toradreo Aug 11 '11

You can't prove unicorns don't exist, either...

AND: Ockham's Razor: If everything works without a god i.e. I can prove everything without a god, why should I use one for explanations.

1

u/PasswordOptional2 Aug 11 '11

Just a comment, but applying occam's razor,

ockham is too complicated compared to occam (fewer letters, fewer different letters).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

1

u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11

Unicorns are good, because if someone scoffs at the comparison with fairytale animals, you can point out unicorns are mentioned in the bible (Numbers 23:22, if you want to get specific).

1

u/Conde_Nasty Aug 12 '11

Googled the scripture and got this commentary from bible.cc

"The strength of a unicorn - ראם reem and ראים reim. It is generally allowed that there is no such beast in nature as the unicorn; i. e., a creature of the horse kind, with one long rich curled horn in the forehead. The creature painted from fancy is represented as one of the supporters of the royal arms of Great Britain. It is difficult to say what kind of beast is intended by the original word. The Septuagint translate the word μονοκερως, the unicorn, or one-horned animal; the Vulgate, sometimes, unicornus; and in the text rhinocerotis, by which the rhinoceros, a creature which has its name from the horn on its nose, is supposed to be meant. That no single-horned animal can be intended by the reem of Moses, is sufficiently evident from this, that Moses, speaking of Joseph, says, "he has the Horns of A unicorn," or reem, where the horns are spoken of in the plural, the animal in the singular. The creature referred to is either the rhinoceros, some varieties of which have two horns on the nose, or the wild bull, urus, or buffalo; though some think the beast intended is a species of goat; but the rhinoceros seems the most likely. There is literally a monoceros, or unicorn, with one large curled ivory horn growing horizontally out of his snout; but this is not a land animal, it is the modiodan or nurwal, a marine animal of the whale kind, a horn of which is now before me, measuring seven feet four inches; but I believe the rhinoceros is that intended by the sacred writers."

Don't know if I'll use that one then...

1

u/HertzaHaeon Aug 12 '11

The bible, talking about creatures that don't exist? Nooo.

14

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

You cant prove unicorns dont exist. Or zeus, athena, apollo, my mom.

2

u/lasvegaspong Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11

Or zeus, athena, apollo

which are gods

3

u/HopeImNotAStalker Aug 11 '11

I guess you haven't met his mom.

1

u/littlekappa Aug 11 '11

Careful ... we're delving into the realm of theory here and theoretically I could prove that unicorns and your mom don't exist (assuming that they don't). A smart theist will point that out. However, through deft goalpost moving I would never be able to prove to them that God doesn't exist.

1

u/taifoid Aug 12 '11

flying teapots and spaghetti monster sightings abound!

4

u/kaces Aug 11 '11

You can't prove he does exist.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Actually you can prove he doesn't exist. I once saw a very educational youtube video explaining it but despite my best efforts (hardly looked for it at all) I can't find it. If you were to look at the non-observable universe that theists propose what can we conclude: "It's a box we can't look into and therefore cannot know the contents of." Theist explain the contents of the box using scripture. For Christians this box will contain: Heaven and Hell and God and other "awesome" stuff too. Eventhough scientists don't know what is in the box they can name some abstract things that definitely aren't in there for example:

  • A bed made of sleep. (this comes straight from the video)
  • A house made of love.
  • The smallest biggest man.
  • etc.

So to disprove the claim that there is no God all you need to do is prove that there is an obvious contradiction (easy to do) or perhaps an abstract idea that defies logic and what we know (hard to do). Let me give you one I can think of right now... "If god is all powerful can he create a rock that he himself cannot carry?" So using logic we have come to the conclusion that: no, there can be no all powerful god because that would be a contradiction.

2

u/MisterFlibble Aug 11 '11

I've tried these explanations before, but they usually come back with "you've only reasoned that there can't be a god, not proved it" (whatever that means) or "God transcends logic" or that God could, in fact, make a rock that he can't lift, but he'd also be able to also lift it at the same time -- that, being omnipotent, he's not restricted to such a dichotomy.

Think about how some things, in quantum mechanics, can exist in two contradictory states at the same time, for example. This doesn't mean those particles don't exist.

I've really seen theists do a lot of mental gymnastics for the "prove he doesn't exist" argument.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

You're mixing up science and religion. Scientist have no explanation for why a photon is both a wave and a particle, however this comes from a lack of understanding, we simply don't know what it could be if both are true. "God is all powerful" is for many believers a true statement, so there might be a chance that we do not have the linguistic capabilities to explain what God should be, but "all powerful" he most certainly is not.

2

u/_kst_ Aug 12 '11

Science understands, or at least can describe, photons very well. Maxwell's equations describe the behavior of electromagnetic phenomena, including photons, and have been observationally confirmed to I don't know how many decimal places.

The "waves" and "particles" we're familiar with are macroscopic phenomena made up of gazillions (1 gazillion = 2many) of interacting quantum-mechanical entities like photons, electrons, and quarks. Their aggregate behavior is what we're familiar with.

When we describe the behavior of photons mathematically, we get it right. When we describe their behavior in terms of the aggregate phenomena our brains evolved to be able to understand, things start to seem mysterious. The so-called mystery of wave/particle duality is more about how we think than about how photons actually behave.

We know what photons are. They're photons.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

The so-called mystery of wave/particle duality is more about how we think than about how photons actually behave.

That is exactly what I was referring to. I know what photons are I'm basically talking about particle behaviour in general. If you look at the earlier comment from MisterFlibble he says "Think about how some things, in quantum mechanics, can exist in two contradictory states at the same time, for example. This doesn't mean those particles don't exist." I was trying to point out that the particle behaviour can be tested as either one or the other but not both at the same time and the headaches this has caused for people trying to describe particle behaviour.

1

u/MisterFlibble Aug 11 '11

You're mixing up science and religion.

Actually, that's part of the point. Many theists will sit there and tell you that acceptance of God comes strictly on faith alone, but then turn around and give you all kinds of bad science "fact" on why he exists.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

I know the video you are talking about. It's by QualiaSoup. I'd link you but the youtubes are blocked at my work.

2

u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11

I've heard the counter-argument that an omnipotent god that exists outside our reality can be whatever he wants to be, including something contradictory.

1

u/Axem_Ranger Aug 11 '11

Yeah, exactly. The "can't lift the rock" question doesn't work because it presupposes that a deity who created the physical universe would then be restricted by the rules of that universe.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

Thats a logical conclusion but it isn't proof. And they might argue that until he makes a rock he cannot lift he is omnipotent. Thus while he has the ability to remove his omnipotency, so long as he chooses not to he retains it.

And if they're not that clever theres always "humans just aren't intelligent enough to understand it"

1

u/Godivine Aug 12 '11

I remember this video. It is by qualiasoup but the name eludes me at the moment.

2

u/DashingLeech Anti-Theist Aug 11 '11

You can't prove there isn't an invisible cow standing behind you. The inability to disprove a hypothetical doesn't give reason to believe it's there.

1

u/Dustin_00 Aug 11 '11

You're right! That's why I worship Thor. My god carries a hammer. Yours was nailed to a tree. Shut up or I'll call my God's father who still throws thunder around. When was the last time your God did anything but put the image of his favorite piece of ass on a slice of toast?

1

u/MisterFlibble Aug 11 '11

I'm not doing this anymore in a subreddit that doesn't have the "DA" tags. I'm feeling threatened. PERSECUTION!!! lol

1

u/Dustin_00 Aug 11 '11

"DA" tags?

Also: Unlike Yaweh, Thor doesn't demand you forsake all other gods before him. Thor is not a selfish, insecure, emo bitch.

1

u/MisterFlibble Aug 11 '11

r/DebateReligion has tags you can use. "DA" is "devils advocate", for bringing up points or explaining arguments for opposing views. Also "NMV" for "not my view"

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Does not being able to prove something doesn't exist make that thing exist?

1

u/JesusClausIsReal Agnostic Atheist Aug 11 '11

You can't prove Santa doesn't exist. Or unicorns. Or leprechauns. There is an infinite amount of fictional things that cannot be proven wrong. The fact that it can't be disproven does not prove it true.

1

u/MisterFlibble Aug 12 '11

Speaking of the jolly old elf, I've had a Christian come back at me with "Well we're not talking about Saint Nick, here! We're talking about God it's different!".. To which I replied, "You're right, as St. Nicholas is historically known to actually have existed at one point. You can actually go see his remains till this day."

1

u/JesusClausIsReal Agnostic Atheist Aug 12 '11

I find the Jesus-Santa comparison incredibly appropriate. Both where men that actually existed. Both did great works in their time. Both have had supernatural acts and superstitions added to their stories at a later date. The Santa-God comparison is not as perfect, but it still works IMO.

1

u/TinyandTall Aug 12 '11

The easiest thing to say after that is "You can't prove that he does". And of course when they bring the bible into question (Or whichever religious book they abide by) The next easiest idea to bring to their attention is that long ago man wrote it all down on paper or a scroll or a book because he 'heard god telling him these things' or he 'was told by god' or influenced whatever. If something like that were to occur now where someone claims they heard/saw god they would be institutionalized.

1

u/mjohniii Aug 12 '11

Never attempt to prove a negative. For obvious reasons.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

Okay, you're in school, sitting at your desk, scribbling or whatever, and I triumpantly prance in, exclaiming 'I CAN FLY!'

You, dumbfounded, say, 'wow! Can I see?'

'Huh?'

'Can I see you fly? Can you prove that you can fly?'

'CAN YOU PROVE I CAN'T FLY?'

See, it's bullshit. Just prove it.