two arguments disproving God

[bpesta22]

Proof against god (as creator of the universe or shaper or worlds):

Argument I

If god exists, then god is a causal agent.
Causal agents have noticeable effects on reality.
God has noticeable affects on reality.

Argument II
If god exists then appealing to god can explain things about reality.
Appealing to God can explain things about reality.

Those are my givens; does anyone quarrel (i.e., think they are false) with any of the statements above? (footnote 1)

I can add a few premises more based on logic, explanation via the scientific method, and my experience:

P) God does not have noticeable effects on reality.

Support: Nothing I've seen ever seems to require a non material explanation. We may not currently have the answer, but nothing suggests that the answer will come only by appeal to the non material (side argument: God is non-material. If materialism is the only way to explain everything, than god explains nothing).

If you buy the above, logically god does not exist from Argument 1 and modus tollens.

And, since the burden of proof is on those making the claim that god exists, the burden would be to provide evidence of god's measurable effects on anything in this world.

P) God does not explain anything. Support: Every goddidit argument I have seen is question begging, circular, or in some way logically deficient. Further, god based explanations for reality are always post facto, and are either vacuous or incorrect.

Again, the burden would be on the theist to show that appeal to god actually explains reality in a way that materialism cannot. The classic example of theistic failure in this regard is the design argument. God seems to explain the dilemma that all effects need causes. Yet, the same argument used to show the universe needs a cause is equally valid (despite kalam's circular revision) at showing that god needs a cause.

Therefore, argument II also shows that god dont exist.

footnote 1: If you attack the initial premises with "how can a mere human understand the motives and acts of a god" then I would submit to you that such a god is worthless / sterile / impotent.

If we can't understand him with direct evidence of his existence, nor logic, argument, the scientific method, then his existence has no bearing on our existence. In such cases, positing that an unknowable god did it would be no different from positing an unknowable pink unicorn did it. Even worse, appeal to god here would add nothing to any explanation but: goddidit. Appeals to god here would then be just place markers denoting our ignorance on this or that topic. The place-markers remain until and if science figures one out-- goddidit then gets replaced with the real explanation of the thing in question.

[Dogdoctor]

If god doesn't want to be detected and god is much more intelligent han us then god won't be detected. Why should appealing to god provide understanding of anything?

[AgingYoung]

Proof against god (as creator of the universe or shaper or worlds):

Argument I

If god exists, then god is a causal agent.
Causal agents have noticeable effects on reality.
God has noticeable affects on reality.

...And, since the burden of proof is on those making the claim ....

Are you claiming that Causal agents have noticeable effects on reality? Could you provide some proof of that claim? It doesn't seem to follow to me.

This seems like the dorky logic another poster mentioned.

Put the cheerios down. Move away from the cheerios!

Gene

[bpesta22]

Are you claiming that Causal agents have noticeable effects on reality? Could you provide some proof of that claim? It doesn't seem to follow to me.

This seems like the dorky logic another poster mentioned.

Put the cheerios down. Move away from the cheerios!

Gene

Mmmm cheerios!

Wouldn't it be almost by defnition?

How do we ID / Label something as a causative agent? By showing it has effects on something else.

[Dogdoctor]

There could exist a god which wishes to remain unknown for now for reasons unfathomable by us perhaps until we achieve a level of understanding adequate to achieve whatever purpose said god has. This god may have an effect on us but it is undetectable for now or maybe will never be detected. This of course means there is no need to believe or worship but it may be selecting the right type of people through evolution (and maybe providing a little undetectable push here or there) Yes it is rather pointless as a method of understanding the world but this means little to reality as what is real is real regardless of what we think. It remains a possibility.

[AgingYoung]

bpesta22
How do we ID / Label something as a causative agent? By showing it has effects on something else.
My quibble isn't with a causative agent effecting reality; my quibble is with assuming we'd notice.

Gene

[Kopji]

Argument I

If god exists, then god is a causal agent.
Causal agents have noticeable effects on reality.
God has noticeable affects on reality.

The question I would ask is 'what would a god-less universe look like?'
You and I would say - 'it looks exactly like this one'.
And yet a believer might claim that we suffer from a kind of spiritual blindness - they see God's hand in all things while we do not.

Argument II
If god exists then appealing to god can explain things about reality.
Appealing to God can explain things about reality.

I don't understand this part. People do appeal to God all the time as an argument to authority. Maybe that works sometimes.

P) God does not have noticeable effects on reality.

Again, to the believer, reality must be God's doing. A strategy of 'falsifying God' would require us to somehow step outside the universe and examine it from outside the proposed Deity's influence. I do not see a way to solve this.

And, since the burden of proof is on those making the claim that god exists, the burden would be to provide evidence of god's measurable effects on anything in this world.

I know believers don't see it this way though. Believers feel that they can do nothing to make someone believe - it requires God's action... and sometimes it serves God's purposes to not reveal himself. Also, this would be the foundation of a claim of 'God's action' in the world - that God changes people. Faith then, becomes a kind of evidence of God's existence.

P) God does not explain anything. Support: Every goddidit argument I have seen is question begging, circular, or in some way logically deficient. Further, god based explanations for reality are always post facto, and are either vacuous or incorrect.

Logic and reason are philosophical concepts that require a certain discipline and practice to use. I may sound cynical in this, but religion is largely based on authoritarianism which has little use for reason or logic.

footnote 1: If you attack the initial premises with "how can a mere human understand the motives and acts of a god" then I would submit to you that such a god is worthless / sterile / impotent.

So how is God relevant?
Maybe God exists as a useful cultural or social idea.
But that leads to a different question about the value of belief - quite a different argument.