• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove God

Bird123

Well-Known Member
you have the burden of proof, you think god exists, and i don't. Thats why science is so much further than religion in every possible aspect, we used to think rainbows were created by god but now we know exactly how rainbows are made. we used to think lightning was because the gods were angry, but we used science to find out the truth as to why there was lightning. There used to be supernatural explanations for almost everything, we thought they could never be proven and it would be futile to even try, but we did it. Can we prove god exists? We don't have to, because we've never seen evidence or even an small idea that he does exist. I've never seen him, no one has ever seen him, but people see rainbows every day. Double rainbows even.
In case you do not know it, science is walking toward God. Discovery will take time. You say you don't have to search for God because you see no evidence. Can one be so blind?? You are right. It is a waste of time for you to search for God. There will come a time you might think differently. All the secrets of the universe patiently wait for us all to discover them. One must want to discover them. When your time comes, forget all you have been taught about God through religion. You cling so hard onto it that it corrupts your thinking.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
"Argument from Evil

P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.

(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.) "


This is the best argument against the existence of a god that should be worshipped.

Of course, the multiverse needs no creator(or any other) god, as matter and energy have existed forever.
 

horntooth

Sextian
the argument assumes that "gratuitous evil" is actually evil. i don't believe it is, but that such things have a purpose, and that god allows them out of his benevolence.

so this argument doesn't affect my belief in god.
 

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.

Sources: StrongAtheism.net - Atheology
Arguments against the existence of god - Iron Chariots Wiki


.
These is simply the problem of suffering, it's been deal with by every Apologetic in the book, I can't believe you even bothered with it,

Free will exists, we observe it, (don't like it, go be a Calvinist) and therefore we have suffering as a result of sins, both reflexive and to others, and as a result of living in a sinful fallen creation, such as climate change

Edit: Evil also doesn't exist, it's a negative, the absence of Good,
 
Last edited:

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
These is simply the problem of suffering, it's been deal with by every Apologetic in the book, I can't believe you even bothered with it,

Free will exists, we observe it, (don't like it, go be a Calvinist) and therefore we have suffering as a result of sins, both reflexive and to others, and as a result of living in a sinful fallen creation, such as climate change

I personaly feel that the problem of suffering is not the strongest argument against a "loving" deity. However, it does bring up a valid point, and that is, this "loving" god is ultimately responsible for the suffering in the world? And if he's responsible for it, then allowing people to suffer without intervention is not loving, but rather sedistic.
 

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
I personaly feel that the problem of suffering is not the strongest argument against a "loving" deity. However, it does bring up a valid point, and that is, this "loving" god is ultimately responsible for the suffering in the world? And if he's responsible for it, then allowing people to suffer without intervention is not loving, but rather sedistic.
However if you are using it as an arugment against the Christian God, of which I can speak of, you have to understand God Himself bore the suffering of the world and the responsibility of free will on the cross, He died for us, because we've screw up big time
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
As per requested, here are the logical and scientific arguments that disprove the monotheist God's existence. Let me note that these arguments aren't necessary because the Theist has the burden of proof for their claim, whereas Atheists aren't required to disprove anything.

I am going by this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself." - Monotheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And to those who believe in some sort of impersonal God or spiritual force, then these arguments don't apply. Though, I really don't think an impersonal force can be considered "God" because "God" is a personification. Also, if you feel that this God or force plays a role in your life, you pray to it, or it intervenes, then your God is actually a personal God.

If you believe in a God that is unknowable or beyond human comprehension, then your position is ultimately meaningless because you are asserting a concept that we can know nothing about and thus cannot derive meaning from this unknowable concept.

Now, on to the arguments:

The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).


Argument from Evil

P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.

(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)

Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.

Sources: StrongAtheism.net - Atheology
Arguments against the existence of god - Iron Chariots Wiki


.
I beg to differ

When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself. Peter O'Toole. ;)
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
However if you are using it as an arugment against the Christian God, of which I can speak of, you have to understand God Himself bore the suffering of the world and the responsibility of free will on the cross, He died for us, because we've screw up big time

Well, how do you know that I don't understand this idea of god? Because it's different from yours? Besides which, I disagree with this idea that you have to understand god to realize his issue with suffering. I don't have to understand hitler to know that his idea of mass genocide was immoral.
 

kerravon

Anti-subjugator
I personaly feel that the problem of suffering is not the strongest argument against a "loving" deity. However, it does bring up a valid point, and that is, this "loving" god is ultimately responsible for the suffering in the world? And if he's responsible for it, then allowing people to suffer without intervention is not loving, but rather sedistic.
A couple of points.

First, he apparently has an overriding concern to keep himself hidden from view, so that atheism can flourish. I think you can't be truly free unless you've been an atheist answerable to no-one. So he has to act in ways that can't be detected. Through intermediaries if you like. So when Saddam's statue is being torn down and the Iraqi holocaust is ended, God may well be acting via the US military. It is up to humans whether they wish to support God's work or not. Apparently humans were very divided on whether they wanted intervention or not.

Secondly, the model I use for understanding the universe is that of a computer simulation, something like Sim City. Computer simulations give a lot of flexibility. It is straightforward to implant false memories into your brain. Or false inputs to your brain in real time. So you can't be too sure that evil exists at all. However, so long as you perceive the evil to be real, you should act accordingly, and to me, that means supporting things like the Iraq war to try to fix the man-made evil we see on earth today.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
These is simply the problem of suffering, it's been deal with by every Apologetic in the book, I can't believe you even bothered with it,

Free will exists, we observe it, (don't like it, go be a Calvinist) and therefore we have suffering as a result of sins, both reflexive and to others, and as a result of living in a sinful fallen creation, such as climate change

Edit: Evil also doesn't exist, it's a negative, the absence of Good,
And the various natural disasters, biology faults and diseases are because...?

A gigantic amount of suffering has no blame attached to it, because no human could possibly be responsible for it.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument

P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

I disagree with premises 3-4. Why are we to believe that a transcendent being can't exist anywhere in space?? If i build a house, obviously, i transcend the house. My presence can either be inside of the house or outside of the house, and yet, i still transcend the house. And God's omnipresence doesn't mean that he is physically everywhere at once. What it does mean that in his omniscience he knows what is going on everywhere at all times and his omnipotence allows him to be casually active in earthly affairs. And this is without a physical presence. The argument is invalid because your conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises.

Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

Not sure if i understand the argument. Quantum physics is itself not fully understood and i don't see any argument that can be made from a scientific standpoint to negate the existence of God. If you could elaborate on p2 and p3 that would be just fine :0)

The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

God's omniscience allows him to be omnipresent, thought not omnipresent from a physical standpoint. And a being that knows every true proposition has to be personal. It is necessary. So once again, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.


Argument from Evil

P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.

(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)

This argument assumes that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil. As long as it is even possible that God may have morally sufficient reasons to permit certain thing, that makes this argument not valid.

Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.

This is silly. Being omnipotent doesn't mean that God can do anything. It means he can do anything that is logically possible. God doesn't receive new informaton as your p2 seem to indicate him changing his mind. Your p3 seems to indicate that God adjusts his knowledge according to us, when we adjust our knowledge according to him. For example, if God know that i will go to the store tomorrow, I can't change my mind and stay home, because if i did, God would have never knew that i would go to the store. I changed my mind, but i changed my mind according to what God already knew. So your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
 
Top