Logical arguments for atheism attempt to show that the concept of God is self-contradictory or logically inconsistent with some known fact. In the jargon of the philosophy of religion, the former type of logical arguments are sometimes called incompatible-properties arguments. These arguments attempt to demonstrate a contradiction in the concept of God. If an argument of this type were successful, it would mean that the existence of God is impossible; there is a 0% probability that God exists.
Logic and Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument (1997) by mathew
If you want to be able put across a rigorous and convincing argument, you should read this document. Recommended for anyone who is going to be involved in debate or discussion. Included is a list of common fallacies to beware of.
Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause (1996) by Quentin Smith
Smith presents a logical argument for atheism based upon the incompatibility of "God is the originating cause of the universe" with all possible valid definitions or theories of causality.
A Disproof of God's Existence (1970) by Michael Martin
'God' in one sense that is widely accepted in non-academic circles is self contradictory and thus that God in this sense cannot exist. Martin first gives a rather informal exposition of the disproof, followed by a more formal version. Finally, Martin defends the disproof against possible objections.
The Freewill Argument For the Nonexistence of God (1997) by Dan Barker
Dan Barker argues that two of the traditional divine attributes are incompatible with one another: divine freedom and divine foreknowledge.
God and Moral Autonomy (1997) by James Rachels
Rachels defends an argument for the nonexistence of God based on the impossibility of a being worthy of worship.
Incompatible-Properties Arguments: a Survey (1998) by Theodore M. Drange
Ten atheological arguments are presented (and briefly discussed) in each of which there is an apparently incompatible pair of divine attributes.
The Case for a Coherent God (n.d.) by Joseph A. Sabella
Sabella critiques each of the arguments sketched by Drange.
The Coherence of God: A Response to Theodore M. Drange (2003) by Ralph C. Wagenet
Wagenet argues that the arguments sketched by Drange do not prove the incoherence of the Christian god.
Is God Good By Definition? (1992) by Graham Oppy
Oppy presents a logical argument based upon an alleged fact of metaethics: the falsity of moral realism. If moral realism is false, then that is a fact that is incompatible with God's existence.
Logical Arguments from Evil [ Index ]
An index of all articles in the Modern Library related to logical arguments from evil.
A Moral Argument for Atheism (1999) by Raymond D. Bradley
Bradley argues that the God of the Jewish and Christian scriptures are incompatible with a known fact. What is the known fact? (a) That it is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone acts that violate our moral principles. Why is the God of the Jewish and Christian scriptures incompatible with that fact? Because (b) according to Judaism and Christianity, any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible. Furthermore, (c) the Bible tells us that God does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles. According to Bradley, (a) is incompatible with (b) & (c).
Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism (2003) (Off Site) by Quentin Smith
Smith argues that if the future is infinite, as contemporary astronomers believe it is, then moral nihilism is true if both moral realism and aggregative value theory is true. He then argues that this conclusion implies that God does not exist. Thus, Smith's argument may be reasonably classified as a logical argument from moral nihilism to atheism.
Review of Jordan Howard Sobel's Logic and Theism (2006) by Theodore M. Drange
Jordan Howard Sobel's Logic and Theism is long, abstruse, and technical, but valuable for those who have an interest in its topics. Those looking for arguments based on empirical phenomena said to be best explained by the God hypothesis should look elsewhere. Sobel's focus is, rather, issues of definition and logical structure. He addresses everything from the ontological argument to the fine-tuning argument, demolishing all of the main arguments for God's existence. Moreover, he argues that the kind of omnipotence and omniscience that theists ascribe to God is incoherent, and defends both evidential and logical arguments from evil against the existence of God. Finally, he turns to a discussion of practical reasons for belief in God, such as those invoked by Pascal's wager. No cutting-edge research on these topics should omit Sobel's work.
Note: the definition of a logical argument for atheism was taken from Paul Draper, "Evolution and the Problem of Evil," in Philosophy of Religion (3rd ed., ed. Louis P. Pojman, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1998), p. 220.
Jeffery Jay Lowder maintains this page.