The Cruel Sea
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 32
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Hi,
I am in the process of writing my ISP report. I have chosen to investigate the nature of atheistic beliefs and the arguments atheists present to jsutify their disbelief. Am i on the right track.
Focus Question
Outline the nature of values possessed by strong atheists and popular arguments they use to justify their values.
Synopsis
The focus of this report is to define what it is to be an atheist and making the distinction between a strong and a weak atheist. Once these terms have been defined I will set out to outline the values held by ‘strong’ atheists and the various arguments; both logical and evidential they present to justify their rejection and disbelief in theism or the existence of God or gods.
Defining Atheism
Atheism encompasses a broad spectrum of values. They range from a mere indifference to religion to an active and absolute denial and/or disbelief of theism and the existence of deities and/or supreme beings. The primary dispute between theists and non-theists is whether God exists. Atheists believe that the world can be explained through natural means alone.
For the sake of this report God shall be defined as the creator of the physical universe, a disembodied person who is omnipotent** (Revelation 19:6), omniscient** (1st John 3:20), perfectly good and benevolent**
Atheism, in its simplest form, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God or gods, thus contrasting with theism. Therefore, in a very general sense an atheist is merely someone who is not a theist. There are varying degrees of disbelief, ranging from mere doubt of the existence of God or gods to the absolute denial of their existence on the basis of logical and/or evidential argument. This is the distinction between a strong atheist and a weak atheist. The term weak atheism (also called negative atheism or implicit atheism) is used to classify the sceptical; those that disbelieve or doubt the existence of God or gods without any substantial evidence justifying the belief in God or gods. Contrary to this strong atheism (also called positive atheism or explicit atheism) asserts that God or gods do not or cannot exist, and are compelled to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that God or gods cannot and therefore, do not, exist as it is logically impossible. Current, scientific knowledge is enough to show that God or gods necessarily cannot exist.
Building the Case Against God
Arguments presented by Strong Atheists.
Just like a theist an atheist is subject to a burden of proof to justify their beliefs. The following arguments have been developed by strong atheists to justify their denial of an existing God or gods. They can be divided into two categories; evidential and logical arguments.
- Evidential Arguments (a posteriori)
The world is not the way that it would be if God existed
• Big Bang cosmology (the Atheistic Cosmological Argument)
• Mind-brain dependence (the Argument from Physical Minds)
Scientific evidence shows that conciousness and personality are highly dependent upon the brain. No mental reaction can happen without some form of physical action. Therefore the mind cannot exist without physical arrangements of matter. In other words, atheists believe a soul cannot and therefore does not exist. Theism states that the mind and spirit is not dependent on the human brain for existences; humans have a soul. Theism also proclaims that God is a disembodied mind.
‘…Since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds. But God is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, God probably does not exist…’
- Michael Tooley
1) God is a disembodied mind
2) No mental reaction can happen without some form of physical action.
3) If God is a disembodied mind he cannot exist as no mental reaction can happen without some physical happening.
4) Therefore God does not exist.
• Biological evolution
• Evil
Biological Role of Pain and Pleasure
• (Reasonable) Nonbelief or Divine Hiddenness
• Religious and Ethical Confusion
- Logical Arguments (a priori)
God is logically incoherent
• Ockham's Razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
• The Argument from Evil
The problem of evil is the problem of justifying the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God who oversees a world full of evil and suffering. If God is omniscient, then He knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to eradicate the existence of evil and suffering, then why does he not do so? A probable answer is that God does not do so because he does not exist.
(1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
(2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then the world would not contain evil.
(3) The world contains evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.
• Incompatible-Properties Arguments: a Survey
• God and Moral Autonomy
• The Freewill Argument For the Nonexistence of God
• A Disproof of God's Existence
• Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause
• The Case for a Coherent God
• The Coherence of God: A Response to Theodore M. Drange
• Is God Good By Definition?
• A Moral Argument for Atheism
• Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism
This last section is clearly unfinished and i was just wondering is this enough. I aim to elaborate upon each argument and write a conclusion. Is this adequate?
I am in the process of writing my ISP report. I have chosen to investigate the nature of atheistic beliefs and the arguments atheists present to jsutify their disbelief. Am i on the right track.
Focus Question
Outline the nature of values possessed by strong atheists and popular arguments they use to justify their values.
Synopsis
The focus of this report is to define what it is to be an atheist and making the distinction between a strong and a weak atheist. Once these terms have been defined I will set out to outline the values held by ‘strong’ atheists and the various arguments; both logical and evidential they present to justify their rejection and disbelief in theism or the existence of God or gods.
Defining Atheism
Atheism encompasses a broad spectrum of values. They range from a mere indifference to religion to an active and absolute denial and/or disbelief of theism and the existence of deities and/or supreme beings. The primary dispute between theists and non-theists is whether God exists. Atheists believe that the world can be explained through natural means alone.
For the sake of this report God shall be defined as the creator of the physical universe, a disembodied person who is omnipotent** (Revelation 19:6), omniscient** (1st John 3:20), perfectly good and benevolent**
Atheism, in its simplest form, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God or gods, thus contrasting with theism. Therefore, in a very general sense an atheist is merely someone who is not a theist. There are varying degrees of disbelief, ranging from mere doubt of the existence of God or gods to the absolute denial of their existence on the basis of logical and/or evidential argument. This is the distinction between a strong atheist and a weak atheist. The term weak atheism (also called negative atheism or implicit atheism) is used to classify the sceptical; those that disbelieve or doubt the existence of God or gods without any substantial evidence justifying the belief in God or gods. Contrary to this strong atheism (also called positive atheism or explicit atheism) asserts that God or gods do not or cannot exist, and are compelled to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that God or gods cannot and therefore, do not, exist as it is logically impossible. Current, scientific knowledge is enough to show that God or gods necessarily cannot exist.
Building the Case Against God
Arguments presented by Strong Atheists.
Just like a theist an atheist is subject to a burden of proof to justify their beliefs. The following arguments have been developed by strong atheists to justify their denial of an existing God or gods. They can be divided into two categories; evidential and logical arguments.
- Evidential Arguments (a posteriori)
The world is not the way that it would be if God existed
• Big Bang cosmology (the Atheistic Cosmological Argument)
• Mind-brain dependence (the Argument from Physical Minds)
Scientific evidence shows that conciousness and personality are highly dependent upon the brain. No mental reaction can happen without some form of physical action. Therefore the mind cannot exist without physical arrangements of matter. In other words, atheists believe a soul cannot and therefore does not exist. Theism states that the mind and spirit is not dependent on the human brain for existences; humans have a soul. Theism also proclaims that God is a disembodied mind.
‘…Since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds. But God is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, God probably does not exist…’
- Michael Tooley
1) God is a disembodied mind
2) No mental reaction can happen without some form of physical action.
3) If God is a disembodied mind he cannot exist as no mental reaction can happen without some physical happening.
4) Therefore God does not exist.
• Biological evolution
• Evil
Biological Role of Pain and Pleasure
• (Reasonable) Nonbelief or Divine Hiddenness
• Religious and Ethical Confusion
- Logical Arguments (a priori)
God is logically incoherent
• Ockham's Razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
• The Argument from Evil
The problem of evil is the problem of justifying the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God who oversees a world full of evil and suffering. If God is omniscient, then He knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to eradicate the existence of evil and suffering, then why does he not do so? A probable answer is that God does not do so because he does not exist.
(1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
(2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then the world would not contain evil.
(3) The world contains evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.
• Incompatible-Properties Arguments: a Survey
• God and Moral Autonomy
• The Freewill Argument For the Nonexistence of God
• A Disproof of God's Existence
• Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause
• The Case for a Coherent God
• The Coherence of God: A Response to Theodore M. Drange
• Is God Good By Definition?
• A Moral Argument for Atheism
• Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism
This last section is clearly unfinished and i was just wondering is this enough. I aim to elaborate upon each argument and write a conclusion. Is this adequate?