Evidence for God's nonexistence

[TheKnight]

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.

He didn't.
Who said they didn't have such knowlegde?
Who says we did?
How does that make God unjust? To say that it does is to assume that there is a concept of justice which exists external to God and is able to be used for judging his actions. The very definition of God in a Biblical context makes such a concept impossible thus making it impossible to bind God by any concept of justice that He did not create.

 

[Blackdog22]

I think it depends on the person. Some people say that the proof of God is the Bible and, with that being the case, it would be very easy to prove God doesn't exist.

Likewise, if you believe Jesus and God are one and the same in anyway at all. Then you can prove nonexistence by proving that the promises Jesus made were false. "Ask anything in my name and it shall be given to you," is one promise that comes to mind and, "You will do greater things than I," is yet another that comes to mind that are both blatantly false. Oh and the whole, "You will move mountains (as Jesus points to an actual mountain)," is another one.

Edit: I wanted to point out that point number 2 can disprove God on the basis that God is honest and despises lying so much he ordered people be killed for it in the OT.

 

[Autodidact]

He didn't.
Who said they didn't have such knowlegde?
Who says we did?
How does that make God unjust? To say that it does is to assume that there is a concept of justice which exists external to God and is able to be used for judging his actions. The very definition of God in a Biblical context makes such a concept impossible thus making it impossible to bind God by any concept of justice that He did not create.

In that case, we can't say God is just, can we? Because that would imply a concept of justice which exists external to God and is able to be used for judging his actions. In fact, we also can't say that God is good or merciful, can we?

 

[Tristesse]

For this thread to work, we have to pick a specific god to debunnk, because most god claims are very much different. Or more accurately, ask MoF what his claims about god are, and debunk those.

 

[TheKnight]

In that case, we can't say God is just, can we? Because that would imply a concept of justice which exists external to God and is able to be used for judging his actions. In fact, we also can't say that God is good or merciful, can we?

You, ma'am, are entirely correct.

In fact, the Rambam states as much in his Guide for the Perplexed. We cannot assign any attribute or characteristic (even existence) to God because to do so is to assume that such attribute/characteristic exists externally to God and is able to classify Him as such. Our very definition of God makes it impossible to describe Him in any way.

Why is it that we believe in a God then?

Because we must deal with the fact that the universe (by all measures of our ability to determine such) exists.

You could argue that we don't exist, but such an argument is irrational because we perceive our existence and there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that we are incorrect in such a perception.

Because it exists it must have either always existed, or started existing at some point.

From observation, it would appear that it started to exist at some point (the fact that we continue to develop and grow is evidence of this).

If it started to exist, then we must consider why it started to exist as opposed to remaining in a condition of non-existence. In essence, something had to have happened that changed the condition from non-existence to existence. In the chain of things that could potentially be classified as the cause of the universe's existence eventually we must reach a thing or object or being that simply exists and always has.

For us, this original existence is God. And in fact, God's name in Hebrew (YHVH) is nothing more than a word which could most simply be translated as "existence".

The rest, that God interacts with man, etc etc etc are all assumptions we make from observations, but that we cannot ultimately be sure about.

 

[PolyHedral]

We cannot assign any attribute or characteristic (even existence) to God...

Stop there, since the concept of God you are trying to define is logically incoherent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All science can really prove, other than that many stories simply did not happen, is that any God(s) that may be do not intervene with human affairs.
But I find the argument for either side to be a wasted effort, and a very moot point. Nonexistence usually heavily revolves around Christianity, which means the argument is against the existence of Jehovah, and not the general and broad since of God. And certainly not all forms of God can be disproven. And if you just see God as a higher being that created the universe, then that is a valid speculation. Of course it can't be proven, but the Big Bang at best only describes how the universe came into being, but not what exactly where the initial energy and matter came from. The rule of you can't get something from nothing was the reason the Big Bang theory was never taken seriously until Stephen Hawking redesigned it. There also tends to be a since of hostility towards those of faith, which certainly isn't creating a welcoming environment that will encourage people to learn.
And those who are arguing for the existence of are often very unwilling to accept science does disprove many large portions of their holy books. And when so many of them aren't wanting to learn, for whatever reason, the argument doesn't get any where.

 

[mirfan]

Woowwww Guys! Seriously , do u guys really need a prove for God's existence, I mean at least I dont need any reason to believe in God, but since u guys need logic so simply just read about natural order or try to have some research over it ..................

 

[TheKnight]

Stop there, since the concept of God you are trying to define is logically incoherent.

How so?

All science can really prove, other than that many stories simply did not happen, is that any God(s) that may be do not intervene with human affairs.

Science cannot prove that any more than science cannot prove there is no God. You cannot prove that something is not there unless you know what it being there would look like. We cannot say that we know for sure how God would interact with humanity if He would at all. Therefore we cannot say that we are sure He does not interact with humanity.

 

[PolyHedral]

How so?

Because identity is a characteristic which exists external to everything.

 

[Dan4reason]

He didn't.

What God did with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is comparable to the situation in which I place you in a room with everything you will ever need but there is also a grenade in the room. I command you not to pull the pin or you will die. Obviously this is a test because I created something in the environment which does harm when used and told you to never use it. If the tree of good and evil is not a test or created temptation then what on earth is its purpose?

Who said they didn't have such knowlegde?

What would be the point then of eating from the tree if Adam and Eve already had the knowledge of good and evil?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil when eaten from allows a person to know about good and evil. When Adam and Eve ate, they now had a knowledge of good and evil which today everyone has. This caused them to realize that nakedness was wrong including a lot of different things. Before that moment, they were innocent and did not realize that things like public nudity were wrong. Without it they had no intuition of what good and evil were.

Who says we did?

You should re-read genesis. Adam and Eve were punished with death, Eve was punished by having to be submissive to her husband and having childbirth pains, and Adam was punished with having to work hard all day. Humans today are still punished with this.

How does that make God unjust? To say that it does is to assume that there is a concept of justice which exists external to God and is able to be used for judging his actions. The very definition of God in a Biblical context makes such a concept impossible thus making it impossible to bind God by any concept of justice that He did not create.

Socrates asked a interesting question thousands of years ago. he asked, "Is that which is holy, holy because it is loved by the Gods, or is it loved by the Gods because it is holy?" What is your answer?

If you answered the former then read on the rest of this post is a response to you.

Give me biblical support for the idea that justice is only just because God arbitrarily decided so. If you think that justice is just only because God thinks so then I guess you don't believe in any objective morality, you think it was just arbitrarily made up by some sky God a long time ago.

Why does it have to be God who can arbitrarily make up morality and then by definition be perfectly moral? Why not me? I will make it immoral to be anyone but me! By definition I am now a perfectly moral and good being, but the rest of the world is wicked and deserving of eternal torment. My basis for morality is so reasonable indeed!

 

[Sleekstar]

I don't think you really get too far by framing the issue that way. I don't think people who become atheists see themselves as finding evidence for the non-existence of God; instead, I think most of them see it as evidence to support non-belief that trumps evidence in support of believing.

For example, theists often point to the wonders of nature as evidence of a god. But when I look at how plate tectonics works, and how it's a basic element of how the natural world works, I'm struck by how completely merciless the process is when earthquakes happen. One might reasonably decide that if it's a choice between 1) God's creation and 2) a natural, randomly generated process, the randomly generated process seems to make more sense when the human toll seems to happen with no evidence of concern from a benevolent creator.

Even the most "miraculous" healing is still something that's imminently possible. People who never were supposed to walk again due to paralysis sometimes find their nerves working again. But people who lose legs due to amputation never grow their legs back. Once in a while, it's reasonable to expect that a benevolent god would grow somebody's leg back. The fact that this absolutely never happens strikes me as something that an atheist could present as evidence in support of non-belief. It's not evidence that god doesn't exist, but it's evidence that it's reasobale not to believe.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Renormalization is a process in physics where one substitutes the weight of an electron in the equation to get rid of embarrassing infinities. Infinity is a useful tool in mathematics; but physics, basically the science of what is real, cannot abide. Thus, it is shown that god, the original infinity, cannot exist.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

One question, and the main argument i use for my atheism is

"why does almost every single civilisation in history come up with a god/religion concept and why are these concepts so radically different?"

Actually that's two questions, but i'm sure you folks can work with it

(i say almost every civilisation because there could be one or two out there that didn't)

Usually i get the whole "everyone else but me is wrong" response. Which is incredibly laughable.

Perhaps someone could answer that question for me.

-Q

 

[Blackdog22]

I would also like to add that, if one believes that Jesus is God in anyway, then the idea that he died for the original sin only for us to have no indication of him doing so would also be a visible proof that God doesn't exist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Science cannot prove that any more than science cannot prove there is no God. You cannot prove that something is not there unless you know what it being there would look like. We cannot say that we know for sure how God would interact with humanity if He would at all. Therefore we cannot say that we are sure He does not interact with humanity.

There have been many researches on prayer, and they have shown to not work. Actually one study found that hospital patients that were prayed for actually took longer to recover. That alone is a pretty big strike against God's intervention.
Personally I think Stephen Hawking put it best when he said that science cannot disprove God, but rather it has made him unnecessary.

 

[TheKnight]

Because identity is a characteristic which exists external to everything.

Identity is not a characteristic. It is a noun which describes a " sameness of essential or generic character in different instances" when as it pertains to various objects.

What God did with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is comparable to the situation in which I place you in a room with everything you will ever need but there is also a grenade in the room. I command you not to pull the pin or you will die. Obviously this is a test because I created something in the environment which does harm when used and told you to never use it. If the tree of good and evil is not a test or created temptation then what on earth is its purpose?

I would argue that it was an object which allowed for God to give the first humans a choice (it could have been any object, he chose that tree).

What would be the point then of eating from the tree if Adam and Eve already had the knowledge of good and evil?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil when eaten from allows a person to know about good and evil. When Adam and Eve ate, they now had a knowledge of good and evil which today everyone has. This caused them to realize that nakedness was wrong including a lot of different things. Before that moment, they were innocent and did not realize that things like public nudity were wrong. Without it they had no intuition of what good and evil were.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil does not necessarily mean that when you eat from it you know good from evil where you didn't before. In fact, Jewish tradition teaches that the word "knowledge" (Hebrew Da'at) means "to join". Thus, the tree that was in the garden was the tree of the joining of good and evil. Adam and Eve knew good from evil before they ate. If they didn't, they could not have been blamed for eating from the tree.

What the tree did was it confused good with evil. To the point that things were no longer clearly evil or clearly good. Being naked is not inherently wrong. It is neutral. After Adam and Eve ate, they become aware of other desires (lust) in combination with nakedness. Thus they felt shame.

You should re-read genesis. Adam and Eve were punished with death, Eve was punished by having to be submissive to her husband and having childbirth pains, and Adam was punished with having to work hard all day. Humans today are still punished with this.

You should read Genesis in Hebrew or at the very least in English from a Jewish perspective.

The story of Genesis, while I do believe it actually happened, is more of a story about perception.

We cannot say that Adam and Eve become mortal because of the fact that they ate from the tree. That assumes that were unable to die before they ate. But this is contradicted by the fact that the Tree of Life could have bestowed immortality upon them (God mentions this when he places Cherubim to guard the Tree of Life.

Socrates asked a interesting question thousands of years ago. he asked, "Is that which is holy, holy because it is loved by the Gods, or is it loved by the Gods because it is holy?" What is your answer?

It is holy because it is deemed so by God.

Give me biblical support for the idea that justice is only just because God arbitrarily decided so.

Anything that is is so only because God decides it is. Whether or not it is arbitrary is unknown to me.

If you think that justice is just only because God thinks so then I guess you don't believe in any objective morality, you think it was just arbitrarily made up by some sky God a long time ago.

I don't believe in objective morality. I believe that an action is inherently neutral and is only able to be deemed moral or immoral because God judges it as such.

Why does it have to be God who can arbitrarily make up morality and then by definition be perfectly moral? Why not me?

Because God is existence itself. God is the primary perfect being that causes all else to exist from moment to moment.

One question, and the main argument i use for my atheism is

"why does almost every single civilisation in history come up with a god/religion concept and why are these concepts so radically different?"

Actually that's two questions, but i'm sure you folks can work with it

(i say almost every civilisation because there could be one or two out there that didn't)

Usually i get the whole "everyone else but me is wrong" response. Which is incredibly laughable.

Perhaps someone could answer that question for me.

-Q

That is not an argument for Atheism. If anything it works against Atheism. The fact that almost every civilization comes up with a God concept doesn't mean that there must not be a God.

In fact, the fact that civilizations do it most likely means that somewhere in the murky middle is the truth; that there probably is some higher power that all of humanity seems to get as being there but can't put its collective finger on.

 

[Dan4reason]

I appreciate the fact that you have tried to answer my questions instead of preaching like many other people do.

I would argue that it was an object which allowed for God to give the first humans a choice (it could have been any object, he chose that tree).

That sounds like a test to me. I do not think that God needed a tree to give people a choice because life itself is all about choices. No magical trees are required.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil does not necessarily mean that when you eat from it you know good from evil where you didn't before. In fact, Jewish tradition teaches that the word "knowledge" (Hebrew Da'at) means "to join". Thus, the tree that was in the garden was the tree of the joining of good and evil. Adam and Eve knew good from evil before they ate. If they didn't, they could not have been blamed for eating from the tree.

That was a very intelligent response but could you give me a source? Pretty much you are saying that biblical translators misinterpreted the word to mean "knowledge" instead of "to join." What are all the translations for da'at and why do you prefer yours to the interpretation to that of the writers of the bible? If you make your case well I will admit that that refutation does not refute a judeo-Christian God. However, most people don't see things the way you do about the tree so my argument still refutes their idea of God. Since Judeo-Christian beliefs are so diverse I never hoped that one argument would ever disprove all of them. At least I can cover most.

What the tree did was it confused good with evil. To the point that things were no longer clearly evil or clearly good. Being naked is not inherently wrong. It is neutral. After Adam and Eve ate, they become aware of other desires (lust) in combination with nakedness. Thus they felt shame.

If the translators of the bible did indeed get things wrong then that is a very good analysis of the situation. So, you think that before eating of the fruit Adam and Eve had full knowledge of what good and evil were? Is that completely beneficial?

You should read Genesis in Hebrew or at the very least in English from a Jewish perspective.

I should.
Can you give me a link?

We cannot say that Adam and Eve become mortal because of the fact that they ate from the tree. That assumes that were unable to die before they ate. But this is contradicted by the fact that the Tree of Life could have bestowed immortality upon them (God mentions this when he places Cherubim to guard the Tree of Life.

That is a good argument however I am getting my thought strait out of the bible.

Genesis 2
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

My argument does not contradict all conceptions of the bible and I knew that. However most Christians do think that death is the penalty of sin and that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil actually gives people this knowledge.

It is holy because it is deemed so by God.

Anything that is is so only because God decides it is. Whether or not it is arbitrary is unknown to me.

I don't believe in objective morality. I believe that an action is inherently neutral and is only able to be deemed moral or immoral because God judges it as such.

Because God is existence itself. God is the primary perfect being that causes all else to exist from moment to moment.

Most people believe that God tells us what is right and what is wrong and we should follow whatever he says because he knows what is best for us. His morality to them is trying to help people. You are saying that God has no basis for his morality; no logic, no evidence, no fact. You are saying that he just made it up, and yes that it arbitrary.

You justify following this arbitrary irrational morality with the idea that person who came up with it happens to be a perfect being. How can you be perfect yet have no basis for the things you believe? For all I know God is a giant child who does everything out of whim and fancy. I do not care how perfect YWH thinks he is, he can follow his own irrational morality without judging the whole of humanity for it. I choose to follow a reason-based morality that is thought out and actually does some good. See, true morality should absolutely not be arbitrary and should actually help people.

 

[TheKnight]

I appreciate the fact that you have tried to answer my questions instead of preaching like many other people do.

What good is what I believe if I cannot engage in a critical discussion of it?

That sounds like a test to me. I do not think that God needed a tree to give people a choice because life itself is all about choices. No magical trees are required.

You are absolutely correct. Life is all about choices. That is why we were created, to make choices. Regardless of the choice that Adam and Eve had made, life would have continued accordingly. Differently for sure, but accordingly nonetheless.

It wasn't a test because, at least I personally don't think so, God didn't care so much about the choice they made, just that they would make one. I do believe he would have preferred that they didn't eat from the tree, but I don't think He is upset that they did either.

That was a very intelligent response but could you give me a source? Pretty much you are saying that biblical translators misinterpreted the word to mean "knowledge" instead of "to join." What are all the translations for da'at and why do you prefer yours to the interpretation to that of the writers of the bible? If you make your case well I will admit that that refutation does not refute a judeo-Christian God. However, most people don't see things the way you do about the tree so my argument still refutes their idea of God. Since Judeo-Christian beliefs are so diverse I never hoped that one argument would ever disprove all of them. At least I can cover most.

There are various sources. The place I would point you to is the Serpents of Desire series on Aish.com (links below), which is part of where I initially learned about the matter.

Essentially the word choice comes from the fact that certain parts of Judaism teach that all the possible translations of the words in the Torah have some bearing on the meaning of a passage. At the most basic level, the word "da'at" in Genesis means knowledge. But the most basic level isn't the only level we consider.

The reason for this is that the Torah, so we believe, is meant to be studied. Not read like a story, not understood once and then moved on from, but studied. Because of that, it has various interpretations, some contradictory, some unpopular, some unexplainable. Because it isn't supposed to be read like a history book. It is a guide for how to relate to God. And we enhance that relationship by studying it.

Initially I read Genesis and my relationship with God is basic. My view of the world is basic. I see it as a world created by God and that's about it. We messed up and reaped the consequences. But as I grow in my spiritual maturity (for lack of a better way of putting it) I read Genesis differently. I start to look deeper and thus my spiritual maturity deepens as well. Even now, I read Genesis and notice things I didn't before, realize things I didn't before, change beliefs I had before, etc.
The Torah is dynamic and meant to be lived by. It is a document that God gave, so we believe, for us to examine and apply to our lives from the moment we are capable of doing so, to our death, and even beyond.


Serpents of Desire Part 1
Serpents of Desire Part 2
Serpents of Desire Part 3
Serpents of Desire Part 4
Serpents of Desire Part 5
Serpents of Desire Part 6
Serpents of Desire Part 7
Serpents of Desire Part 8
Serpents of Desire Part 9
Serpents of Desire Part 10
Serpents of Desire Part 11

If the translators of the bible did indeed get things wrong then that is a very good analysis of the situation. So, you think that before eating of the fruit Adam and Eve had full knowledge of what good and evil were? Is that completely beneficial?

It's not that they got it wrong, it's that they translated it at the most basic level.

I do believe that Adam and Eve had full knowledge (or as the Rambam put it better knowledge) of good and evil before they ate. Is it beneficial that they had such knowledge? Or is it beneficial that I believe that way?

I should.
Can you give me a link?

Definitely.

Genesis - Chapter 1 (Parshah Berei****) - Genesis - Torah - Bible

That is Genesis with Rashi's commentary. He goes verse by verse (in the whole Tanakh, not just Genesis) and discusses certain Jewish positions on the verses. Keep in mind that he is just one scholar among many and what he says, while considered authoritative, is not final and there are authoritative positions that disagree with some (alot actually) of his views.

That is a good argument however I am getting my thought strait out of the bible.

Genesis 2
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

My argument does not contradict all conceptions of the bible and I knew that. However most Christians do think that death is the penalty of sin and that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil actually gives people this knowledge.

This is also covered in the Serpents of Desire series. Essentially, Adam and Eve were neither mortal or immortal before they ate. They were given the choice of mortality and immortality. Neither was a punishment and neither choice was final.

Most people believe that God tells us what is right and what is wrong and we should follow whatever he says because he knows what is best for us. His morality to them is trying to help people. You are saying that God has no basis for his morality; no logic, no evidence, no fact. You are saying that he just made it up, and yes that it arbitrary.

I suppose you could see it that way. However, I don't really look at it as moral or immoral. I will discuss morality in those terms for simplicity, but I don't ultimately believe in good and evil.

So as far as I'm concerned actions are, ultimately, neutral, and I think that they are such to God as well.

You justify following this arbitrary irrational morality with the idea that person who came up with it happens to be a perfect being. How can you be perfect yet have no basis for the things you believe? For all I know God is a giant child who does everything out of whim and fancy. I do not care how perfect YWH thinks he is, he can follow his own irrational morality without judging the whole of humanity for it. I choose to follow a reason-based morality that is thought out and actually does some good. See, true morality should absolutely not be arbitrary and should actually help people.

I think God would prefer that you behave morally because of your reason. You have nothing other than your reason by which to determine what is right and wrong. So why would God blame you for acting in accordance with the reason He gave you?

 

[Autodidact]

You, ma'am, are entirely correct.

In fact, the Rambam states as much in his Guide for the Perplexed. We cannot assign any attribute or characteristic (even existence) to God because to do so is to assume that such attribute/characteristic exists externally to God and is able to classify Him as such. Our very definition of God makes it impossible to describe Him in any way.

Well, congratulations on proving that God does not exist. To say "We cannot attribute existence to X" is the same as saying "X does not exist."

Why is it that we believe in a God then?

It's a mystery to me.

Because we must deal with the fact that the universe (by all measures of our ability to determine such) exists.

You could argue that we don't exist, but such an argument is irrational because we perceive our existence and there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that we are incorrect in such a perception.

Because it exists it must have either always existed, or started existing at some point.

Yes, this is all correct.

From observation, it would appear that it started to exist at some point (the fact that we continue to develop and grow is evidence of this).

This is where you go wrong. The fact that the universe changes is not evidence that it did not exist at one time. You cannot generalize from events within the universe to the universe itself. It is equally possible that the universe is eternal, and many physicists now postulate that it is.

So you have now:
(1) disproved God.
(2) Disproved any necessity for believing in God.

If it started to exist, then we must consider why it started to exist as opposed to remaining in a condition of non-existence. In essence, something had to have happened that changed the condition from non-existence to existence. In the chain of things that could potentially be classified as the cause of the universe's existence eventually we must reach a thing or object or being that simply exists and always has.

And that thing could well be the universe. We don't know.

For us, this original existence is God. And in fact, God's name in Hebrew (YHVH) is nothing more than a word which could most simply be translated as "existence".

Even if this were correct, that thing could be the cosmic equivalent of a pebble.

The rest, that God interacts with man, etc etc etc are all assumptions we make from observations, but that we cannot ultimately be sure about.

However, the evidence is very strong that none of this is correct. It certainly does not in any way match up with "the thing that has always existed and caused the universe."

As soon as you start contradicting yourself, you know you're in trouble. As soon as you say we can't attribute existence to God, and then go on to do so, you know you need to go back and fix your work somewhere, because you are contradicting yourself.