The historical refutation
There is no longer any reason to believe in God: the atheist no longer even needs a counterproof.
If the proofs of God have failed and the belief can be explained without God existing, there is no longer a reason to hold it.
"The historical refutation" is an argument by Friedrich Nietzsche (Daybreak, 95) on the question "Does God exist?" (answer: atheism). Its claim: There is no longer any reason to believe in God: the atheist no longer even needs a counterproof. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P3). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 0 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.
Nietzsche does not try to prove that God does not exist. He changes method: explain how belief in God arose and why it gained so much weight. If that history explains everything, the belief has nothing left to stand on.
click a premise to reject it
Without the implicit premise: Without P3, the computer finds a case where the proofs are refuted and the history of the belief is known, yet a reason to believe remains (an experience, a testimony, a new argument).
Objections
3Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.
The genetic fallacy (Nietzsche himself, about morality) 1887 · attacks premise 3Saying where a belief comes from does not say whether it is true: one can believe something true for bad reasons. Nietzsche writes it himself of morality in The Gay Science: born of an error, its worth would still be an open question.
no reply
Saying where a belief comes from does not say whether it is true: one can believe something true for bad reasons. Nietzsche writes it himself of morality in The Gay Science: born of an error, its worth would still be an open question.
New proofs (Plantinga, Swinburne) 1974 · attacks premise 1Not all the proofs have been refuted: new versions (the modal ontological argument, the cumulative probabilistic case) are defended by leading philosophers. P1 is therefore disputed.
no reply
Not all the proofs have been refuted: new versions (the modal ontological argument, the cumulative probabilistic case) are defended by leading philosophers. P1 is therefore disputed.
C. S. Lewis ("Bulverism") 1941 · attacks premise 3The weapon cuts both ways: one can also tell where atheism comes from (revolt, the wish for autonomy). If origin were enough to discredit a belief, it would discredit both sides. One must first show that a claim is false before explaining why people get it wrong.
no reply
The weapon cuts both ways: one can also tell where atheism comes from (revolt, the wish for autonomy). If origin were enough to discredit a belief, it would discredit both sides. One must first show that a claim is false before explaining why people get it wrong.