Evidence for God's nonexistence

[Autodidact]

There are a couple of threads going on about evidence for God's existence. At some point, an uneducated theist will usually ask what is the evidence for God's non-existence, which then devolves into a usually unsuccessful effort to educate the poster about how stupid it is to shift the burden of proof for the existence of a supernatural being, which the poster will never give up, because they know it will lead to them losing the argument.

Anyway, instead of having the argument about burden of proof, I thought it might be interesting to go ahead and have a thread about the evidence for the non-existence of God.

Got any?

 

[Dan4reason]

There are a couple of threads going on about evidence for God's existence. At some point, an uneducated theist will usually ask what is the evidence for God's non-existence, which then devolves into a usually unsuccessful effort to educate the poster about how stupid it is to shift the burden of proof for the existence of a supernatural being, which the poster will never give up, because they know it will lead to them losing the argument.

Anyway, instead of having the argument about burden of proof, I thought it might be interesting to go ahead and have a thread about the evidence for the non-existence of God.

Got any?

I got one! Why would God test Adam and Eve in the garden of eden when they did not have any knowledge of good and evil, and then allow the rest of humanity the receive the punishment they did? Does that sound like a just God to you? It does not to me.

 

[waitasec]

chaos.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My left pinkie toe.

 

[Autodidact]

I think there are two ways to go at this--the hard way, which is to come up with a definition for Gods in general, and the easy way, which is evidence against the existence of specific Gods. I think I'll start with the easy way:

It is easy to disprove the existence of a God who answers personal prayers or intervenes in the lives of individuals, which of course is the God most people actually believe in. That God either does not exist, or does not have this key attribute. We know this because actually answering prayers, or actually intervening in individual lives, is tangible in the real world, and can be measured. We have done so, extensively, and learned that it isn't there. God does not answer prayers in any way greater than random chance, and does not do anything in particular in the lives of individuals. God does not make his believers behave more morally, or effect any other observable change in their lives. All of God's actions are either invisible, or scheduled to happen after we are no longer around to observe them, that is, are dead.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that Neitzche's "will to power" is the best argument for the non-existence of God.

Basically, IMHO, Neitzsche looked inside himself and discovered that the very nature of his experience as a human being excludes the possibility of the existence of God and makes the belief of God out to be inhuman and deginerative.

 

[Autodidact]

I think that Neitzche's "will to power" is the best argument for the non-existence of God.

Basically, IMHO, Neitzsche looked inside himself and discovered that the very nature of his experience as a human being excludes the possibility of the existence of God and makes the belief of God out to be inhuman and deginerative.

Haven't read him. Could you go into more detail? Thanks.

 

[Man of Faith]

I got one! Why would God test Adam and Eve in the garden of eden when they did not have any knowledge of good and evil, and then allow the rest of humanity the receive the punishment they did? Does that sound like a just God to you? It does not to me.

This is not evidence for God's non-existence, IMO, but perceived evidence of God's injustice. Asking why would God do something is evidence of acknowledgement that there is a God.

 

[Man of Faith]

chaos.

Such as?

 

[Man of Faith]

My left pinkie toe.

I think what you are saying is imperfect design is evidence of God's non-existence. Well actually any design, whether imprefect or perfect is evidence of a designer.

 

[Autodidact]

This is not evidence for God's non-existence, IMO, but perceived evidence of God's injustice. Asking why would God do something is evidence of acknowledgement that there is a God.

Maybe, unless your definition of God includes being just. Again, we have a LOT of evidence that a just God does not exist. Either God does not exist, or is not just.

Similarly, if you define God as triple-omni, then there is tons of evidence that God does not exist. Either God does not exist, or is not all-powerful, all-knowing and all-benevolent. Either explanation is possible.

The simplest explanation that fits all facts is simply that God does not exist.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Haven't read him. Could you go into more detail? Thanks.

Really? He's a gem. You'll only need two books: The Portable Neitzsche and the Will to Power. I can see that you've already benefitted from him:

- He traces all Christian morality and ethics (particularly faith, hope, and love) back through philosophy to selfish and self-destructive sentiments
- He also shows how all Western philosophy is basically useless and decadent, and prefers the pre-Socratics, especially Heraclitus
- N. wants to go back to a time before artificial moral structure to a celebration of unrestrained humanity, and he uses the figure of Dionysius to frame this mystical and spiritual plane

Basically, Christianity stifles everything that it means to be human, and the will to power is the absolute freedom of the self to be free.

 

[Man of Faith]

I think there are two ways to go at this--the hard way, which is to come up with a definition for Gods in general, and the easy way, which is evidence against the existence of specific Gods. I think I'll start with the easy way:

It is easy to disprove the existence of a God who answers personal prayers or intervenes in the lives of individuals, which of course is the God most people actually believe in. That God either does not exist, or does not have this key attribute. We know this because actually answering prayers, or actually intervening in individual lives, is tangible in the real world, and can be measured. We have done so, extensively, and learned that it isn't there. God does not answer prayers in any way greater than random chance, and does not do anything in particular in the lives of individuals. God does not make his believers behave more morally, or effect any other observable change in their lives. All of God's actions are either invisible, or scheduled to happen after we are no longer around to observe them, that is, are dead.

There are many personal experiences that people will disagree with you that God doesn't answer prayer.

 

[Man of Faith]

I think that Neitzche's "will to power" is the best argument for the non-existence of God.

Basically, IMHO, Neitzsche looked inside himself and discovered that the very nature of his experience as a human being excludes the possibility of the existence of God and makes the belief of God out to be inhuman and deginerative.

I see, experience can be evidence for God's nonexistence but not for his existence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I see, experience can be evidence for God's nonexistence but not for his existence.

Nietzche's experience is different. It's a detailed exploration of the self, and he provides a roadmap by which we can experience the same thing for ourselves. In other words, it's scientific and can be replicated.

N.'s philosophy is not meant to be learned, it's meant to be experienced.

Also, it doesn't seek to prove anything beyond the self, or rather, the nature of human beings. If one tries to argue for God from experience, the conclusion is de facto different from the evidence, because of the claim that exists outside of the self.

 

[TheKnight]

Basically, Christianity stifles everything that it means to be human, and the will to power is the absolute freedom of the self to be free.

How does Nitzche define what it means to be human? And how does he support his definition?

 

[Dan4reason]

This is not evidence for God's non-existence, IMO, but perceived evidence of God's injustice. Asking why would God do something is evidence of acknowledgement that there is a God.

I am not admitting there is a God, I am finding a contradiction with the bible's notion of God. This reasoning is simple and surely you can see it, right?

If we are defining God to be just, omnipotent, and omni benevolent, then the God of the bible who supposedly tested Adam and Eve in this way and took their sins on the rest of us is unlikely indeed. It is more likely that the genesis story is just a creation myth made up be humans thousands of years ago which is similar to several other creation myths in the Middle East and certainly should not be regarded as absolute truth or logically consistent.

Your refutation is not at all satisfactory.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've yet to encounter a clear, coherent, consistent definition of god(s), let alone any evidence for any of these vague concepts. The fact that god(s) appear to be a result of the vagaries of the human psyche, is pretty significant evidence that such thing(s) do not actually exist.

 

[Autodidact]

Really? He's a gem. You'll only need two books: The Portable Neitzsche and the Will to Power. I can see that you've already benefitted from him:

- He traces all Christian morality and ethics (particularly faith, hope, and love) back through philosophy to selfish and self-destructive sentiments
- He also shows how all Western philosophy is basically useless and decadent, and prefers the pre-Socratics, especially Heraclitus
- N. wants to go back to a time before artificial moral structure to a celebration of unrestrained humanity, and he uses the figure of Dionysius to frame this mystical and spiritual plane

Basically, Christianity stifles everything that it means to be human, and the will to power is the absolute freedom of the self to be free.

Doesn't sound like my kind of guy.

 

[Autodidact]

I've yet to encounter a clear, coherent, consistent definition of god(s), let alone any evidence for any of these vague concepts. The fact that god(s) appear to be a result of the vagaries of the human psyche, is pretty significant evidence that such thing(s) do not actually exist.

I think this is an important point. The more we learn about how our brains work, and why, the more we understand natural explanations for why people tend to think in terms of Gods, why we are prone to that particular sort of error. I also find this to be evidence that God does not exist.