In other words: we can’t look at the entire universe, we’re not omniscient. How can we say, for sure, that something doesn’t exist in the whole universe, without using a degree of faith — that is, belief without evidence to support it?
Well, it depends, in a way, on what you mean by “no god”: not that god, or no god at all?
It’s very likely that, by “god”, you mean the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh, as described in the Bible. If so, I can answer that one easily: do you need faith to say Odin doesn’t exist?
I’m sure that you don’t. You have no reason to believe in Odin, no evidence of his existence. Besides, Odin and all the other Norse gods are clearly anthropomorphic; that is, they’re exactly like humans, only “bigger”, more powerful. But with the same emotions, traits, character flaws, of humans. It’s safe to say that he’s made up by ancient Norsemen.
Well, all of that applies cleanly to your god, too! That’s why one doesn’t need any “faith” to say that he’s been invented by men, because there’s a lot of evidence in that direction, and exactly zero in the opposite one.
Besides, there are many logical arguments against the existence of an entity such as the Judeo-Christian god. Take the omnipotence paradox, or the problem of evil. The former is logically self-contradictory; the latter requires such convulted excuses (follow the link, they’re all examined in detail there) that it soon gets ridiculous.
But maybe you didn’t mean a god like that. Maybe you’re talking about a vast, cosmic being, who didn’t create the universe, but who is the universe. A being who, because it wasn’t invented by men, doesn’t have human traits; who isn’t focused on, or probably even aware of, our insignificant little planet, who isn’t concerned with trivialities (in the cosmic sense) such as “prayer”, “sin”, or “the afterlife”.
As suggested here, such a being, if it existed, would be completely undetectable by us, would not in any way interfere in our lives, or be concerned with us at all. In every possible sense, it is as if it wasn’t there; nothing we could do would affect it in any way. Much like the “do we live in a perfect computer simulation” questions, it is most likely impossible to know, and ultimately irrelevant to our lives (though there’s nothing wrong with being curious).
In both of the above cases, there’s also something definitive against the “you need faith to say it doesn’t exist” position: burden of proof. It’s always on the side of whoever claims something exists, and it’s him who has to provide evidence for that existence. If he doesn’t, the logical position is to say that his claim is false, and no “faith” is required for that.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
As an agnostic, I’ve never understood this argument. Why don’t you need faith to believe that Odin doesn’t exist. The concept of a Norse God who rewards the world’s best warriors with a seat in Valhalla is logically no more fantastic than a Judeo-Christian God, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or (my personal favorite deity) Bob.
I would think a reasonably intelligent Christian could simply state that their belief in God implies a belief that their are no other gods but him. Thus they have faith that Odin doesn’t exist.
Atheist on the otherhand, I don’t understand. Belief that no god (of any kind) exists to me seems a complete leap of faith. No matter how ridiculous you believe the claim to be. Gods, ghosts, leprechauns or whatever. Sure you can believe that it’s unlikely they exist as no evidence has been provide to prove that they do. But to believe with absolute certainty that they don’t exist has no actual basis without conclusive evidence.
And a belief without any basis in facts or evidence seems like a pretty good definition of faith to me.
Joe: what you seem to believe in is some kind of strange, unknowable reality, where everything is possible, and there are no rules, you can’t predict anything, and there is no such thing as “logic”.
That view, to me, is like how a very young child views the world, when everything seems magical and surprising, because he doesn’t have yet the experience or the understanding to know, for instance, that if he drops a rock, it is not as likely to go up as to go down.
Here, it’s the same situation. We are no longer children - neither individually, nor as a race. We do have some knowledge — incomplete, to be sure — about how the universe works, about what has happened before, about what is likely to happen if we repeat an experiment, and about what is likely to exist (because of available evidence) and what is not likely (because of lack of any evidence). We (atheists) remain open to any new evidence, but, until then, we use our experience, and logic, including inductive reasoning, to decide what is likely and what isn’t.
Besides, the burden of proof is certainly on the side that says things — especially supernatural things — exist.
[quote comment="14409"]Joe: what you seem to believe in is some kind of strange, unknowable reality, where everything is possible,[/quote]
Yeah it’s called THIS universe. I have no issue with people determining something is unlikely based on lack of evidence. The overwhelming majority of all possible events are unlikely. Just the mere likelihood of us having this conversation depends on countless variables dating back billions(or thousands depending on your belief) of years and is so infinitessimal that even the fastest most powerful supercomputer couldn’t even begin to calculate the odds.
[quote comment="14409"] and there are no rules, you can’t predict anything, and there is no such thing as “logic”.[/quote] I can’t find the section of my post that says this. I don’t have a problem with rules or logic. There is tons of evidence to prove the existence of gravity. Pretty much everything we ever do proves it exists.
What I do have issue with is certain completely unfounded beliefs being determined to be more likely than others. Can you explain to me why believing in a Judeo-Christian God, Allah, or Shiva is any more or less rational than believing in leprechauns, Odin, or Invisible Spaghetti Monsters. Is popularity the deciding factor in how rational a person’s belief is?
[quote comment="14409"] Besides, the burden of proof is certainly on the side that says things — especially supernatural things — exist.[/quote]I think you may have misunderstood the concept of burden of proof. Check out the last paragraph of the wikipedia article. It’s statement on the existence of extra-terrestrial life has always been my understanding of the burden in these types of cases.
There is simply no evidence to support the existence or non-existence of a Supreme being. They are both bold, unproven claims. So they both demand an equal amount of faith.
[quote post="238"]What I do have issue with is certain completely unfounded beliefs being determined to be more likely than others. Can you explain to me why believing in a Judeo-Christian God, Allah, or Shiva is any more or less rational than believing in leprechauns, Odin, or Invisible Spaghetti Monsters. Is popularity the deciding factor in how rational a person’s belief is?[/quote]
Hey, but we completely agree on that! Unlike believers, I do think that, since there’s as much evidence for Yahweh as for the FSM, both are equally as likely to exist: in any words, as unlikely as possible, since both were obviously invented by humans (though one was invented much earlier, and is quite popular these days… but what does that matter?).
As I said, on that we agreed. What you seemed to imply, however (and I’m sorry if I misunderstood you), was that we couldn’t say that any of them didn’t exist, because we don’t know everything (true) and we don’t have any evidence that they don’t exist; therefore, it’s arrogant to say so. Here, we disagree. We can use what knowledge we have, what experience we have, and, through induction, determine that some things are ridiculously unlikely. The universe is not unknowable, just because we have no perfect knowledge. This isn’t a binary thing.
As for burden of proof, there IS some evidence that there is no god, at least as how we usually define the term. It’s not definitive evidence (that is, proof), but there is some, such as the problem of evil, or the way that theists’ claims are usually self-contradictory, or the fact that many of their “proofs” of God’s existence have turned out to have a natural explanation, or the fact that no supernatural “powers” or events survive scientific study. It may not be possible to disprove the existence of a god completely (though there’s also the omnipotence paradox, if we’re talking about an omnipotent god, which they usually are), but many of the other believers’ claims have been disproved. Since everything in the universe suggests that it is 100% natural, it’s my opinion, that we’re not departing from zero evidence (unlike in the wikipedia example), that there are logical arguments against the theists’ claims, and, therefore, that the burden of proof is on their side.
The odds are easily calculated: they are 100%.
[quote]I can’t find the section of my post that says this. I don’t have a problem with rules or logic. [/quote]
The entirety of the post is arguing against logic. You are arguing, and even state explicitly that everything is possible, but through logic we know that in fact there are vast areas which are in fact impossible. Square circles, defined infinities, omnipotent beings are all clearly and necessarily impossible. Nothing in this requires faith.
As for the burden of proof it still lay squarely upon the one who wish to claim that there is some being for which there is not only no evidence, but which is impossible as well. Simply stipulating that the burden of proof lay upon others to disprove in no way supports the existence of any such being, nor does it shift the burden of proof.