Atheism - AH RMPS

Presumption of Strong Atheism

The idea of someone’s atheist beliefs existing outside of outside of religion, and are developed by evidence that can exist without religion.

Presumption of Weak Atheism

When someone’s Atheist beliefs are a direct response to the existence of Religion and depend upon the theist claim of God’s existence.

W.K Clifford on weak Atheism

People should believe in things that have evidence to support them. Weak atheists rely on the beliefs of others to form their own opinions and have not developed their own arguments independent of religious beliefs, making their arguments mostly ineffective.

William Rowe on W.K Clifford’s belief argument

Despite there being no current evidence that clearly suggests God’s existence, it does not make atheism automatically correct. It also doesn’t eliminate the potential for evidence to exist in the future that proves God’s existence.

Anthony Flew on the presumption of Atheism

Weak atheism is flawed as the burden of proof falls upon the theist, not the atheist. When making an assertion such as ‘god exists’ the individual who makes the claim has the responsibility of proving it.

The incoherence of the God of Classical theism

The traits of the God - Omnipotence, Omniscience, omnibenevolence - create paradoxes which suggest that he doesn’t exist

The paradox of Omnipotence

Could God create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it. If yes, then he is not omnipotent as he cannot lift the rock, if no then he is not omnipotent as he cannot create such a rock.

G.B Keene on the paradox of Omnipotence

The question proves God’s Omnipotence instead of disproving it as it shows the extent of his power. It only seems to be paradoxical because of the phrasing of the question. If the phrasing of the question were to be changed to something like ‘any rock God creates, God can lift’, the paradox is dissolved.

The problem with divine omniscience

As an omnipotent being, God is able to see into the future and determine the events that will happen, meaning he knows the outcome of all human decisions. This implies that all human actions are predetermined, and therefore implies that free will cannot exist with an omniscient God

Boethius on the problem with divine omniscience

Since God is also Omnipresent, he does not experience time in the same way humans do. God exists in a timeless space where he is aware of the past and future as if it is the present. This means that he does not see events before they happen, as he simply sees everything all at once in a state of eternal present, maintaining human free will.

Kenny on Boethius’ idea of a timeless God

This idea is paradoxical as events in time do not happen all at once, so God cannot possibly experience events that are not pre determined before they happen in a timeless existence because the outcome is not confirmed until it happens.

Swinburne on Boethius’ idea of a timeless God

How can God love and relate to humans if he exists in a timeless state. The idea of a God such as this removes his human like nature making it harder to connect with him. God instead limits his knowledge of the future to preserve free will.

The problem of evil and suffering

the idea that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god cannot exist as the creator of earth because of the existence of evil and suffering

Saint Augustine’s theodicy

Evil was not created by God as it is the lack/absence of good. God created a perfect world and it was the disobedience of the first humans that created evil, not God. Many humans choose to misuse their free will in ways that cause suffering but God is not responsible for their decisions.

Mackie’s response to the Augustinian theodicy

God is omnipotent and has the potential to create humans with complete free will that do not have the potential to commit acts that cause suffering. It seems impossible to humans, but God supposedly beyond human understanding and is omnipotent, making this entirely possible.

Freidrich Shielermacher’s response to the Augustinian theodicy

Since human beings were created perfectly according to Augustine, then they could not possibly have committed original sin as a perfect human would not have the capacity to commit evil.

The Iranaeun Theodicy

Humans were deliberately created imperfectly as it allows for a soulmaking process that allows humans to develop their proximity to God, and eventually become ‘in his likeness.’ The existence of evil gives moral decisions value, as without the potential for evil, good actions are not truly good, and goodness means nothing.

John Hick’s expansion of the Iranaeun theodicy

Soulmaking is a slow process that allows humans to become truly good. It can only occur in a perfect world. Becoming perfectly moral can allow humans to become as close to God as possible. In the eyes of a creator, this is the best thing for humanity.

John K Roth’s response to the Irenaeun Theodicy.

The amount of suffering humanity endures is not proportionate if its purpose is truly to develop humans, and allow them to become closer to God. An omnibenevolent God would have created a balanced world where humans can develop their morality because of suffering, but the suffering is not extreme like it is in the world we currently live in.

Feurbach on the improbability of God

God is a man made concept, reflecting the desires of humanity. The nature of God is dependant on era specific culture and lifestyle. For example the Norse Gods reflected the violent culture that the Vikings valued. This shows the inconsistency and therefore improbability of God’s existence.

Karl Marx on the improbability of God

Religion is used by the elite to control the poorest people in society and keep them oppressed to the rich can continue exploiting them “religion is the opium of the masses”

Dawkins on the improbability of God

Human beings are too complex for one being to have created them in one moment. Evolution shows that humans are the product of a series of chance occurrences, suggesting the improbability of god’s existence.