Some theist arguments reversed
IntroductionI think there are so many silly arguments for the existence of god out there. Sometimes it is hard to see what's wrong with them, and some are just obviously false. To illustrate how silly they are I have turned them into arguments to believe that there is not a god. I strongly believe that arguing with a theist and putting up these little modifications of their arguments when they tell you their favourite one will put them out of balance. Since they already believe in all the premises, except the little one which turns their argument into an argument against their god, it will probably appear very convincing to them.
The Moral ArgumentThe moral argument says that there exists an objective morality out there; some kind of moral code which exists just like the law of gravity, and which we can find out about. Of course they usually claim that this moral code is written in the bible, but some, such as the german philosopher Immanuel Kant, say it is written in our hearts. Because there would be no morality without a god, they say, there must be a god. The argument can be put as follows:
Pascal's WagerPascal's wager is a kind of bet, which says that theism has a greater benefit than aheism. The argument in a simplified form says that if there is a god, he will benefit believers while punishing unbelievers. If there is no god, then it doesn't matter what you believe, so believing in god will be a safe bet. Nothing can be lost and all can be won. This may sound good at a first glance, but what if you reverse the argument?
Let's see what happens if we assume that there is a god who punishes unbelievers, and that Christianity is false. After all, considering all the religions out there, shouldn't it be much more probable that Christianity is false than all other religions being so? And what if we consider the logically possible religions which have not yet been created here on earth? You wouldn't want to upset these gods, would you? I think you'd better stick to non-belief then.
Another argument could be made that god would want us to use what he has given to us. There is no reason to believe that there is a god, so if there is one after all, he will benefit us from not claiming to believe that he exists. If we, on the other hand, give up reason, he is likely to punish us. So the benefit is from being honest and holding the belief your minds says is the true one. If you do not believe in a god, the reversed argument says you should satisfy with that.
The Ontological ArgumentThe ontological argument exists in many versions. What they all say is something like this:
Back to Fredrik Bendz' homepage
Created: Sunday, March 21, 1999
Last update: Sunday, March 21, 1999