Simplest, Yet Most Powerful Argument Against the Existence of God

[Rational Agnostic]

There has always been an inherent, unhealthy weirdness in the expectation from people that other people somehow "should" believe in the existence of some conception of divinity.

Christianity and Islaam, particularly, have not only failed to notice and deal with that weirdness; they have insisted on taking advantage of it and inflating it to entirely absurd levels, to the point that their validity as actual religions is very much in question.

I fully agree with you. Many theists tend to act like the existence of their god is obvious, when it is not obvious at all. I once saw a theist try to argue for the existence of God by stating that only 2% of the world identifies as atheist(I believe this figure is almost certainly low). But, in any case, he was saying that there must be something wrong or "abnormal" about people who don't believe a god exists. Bandwagon fallacy at its worst.

 

[Fool]

I remember watching a video on YouTube a few years ago of a Christian apologist discussing various topics with an atheist. At one point in the video, the apologist asked the atheist "Why don't you believe in God?" He replied casually (as if it were the most obvious reason) something to the effect of "Because I don't see him!" This really struck a chord with me. Why should we believe that some entity is here, hiding in some other mystical dimension, when we have no evidence to believe such a thing? If there were a god, wouldn't he be visible, or at least detectable? But, of course he isn't visible or detectable, which is functionally equivalent to non-existence.

an experience, action, that doesn't take a definite/limited form is observable. it is not an illusion as an experience. it is an illusion as a form

case in point, we know the universe exists but we can't measure it's vastness, let alone observe all of it's experiences. it's form is constantly changing as is self evident.

logical fallacy.

 

[Muslim-UK]

The first two can be explained by Genesis 1:26, Genesis 9:2 and James 3:7. The animals are behaving according to the will of a human and not according to the will of God imo.

Those verses appear to be about man being top of the food chain. We have the ability to cast terror into the hearts of beasts, we can kill them, cut down their habitat, use our fishing nets to decimate the seas etc. The animal kingdom is rightly weary of humans in most instances, but for sure, they are aware of The Creator and worship Him in their own way:

Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth and the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures and many of the people? But upon many the punishment has been justified. And he whom Allah humiliates - for him there is no bestower of honor. Indeed, Allah does what He wills. Qur'an 22:18

The babies being pacified by the reading of the text could be attributed to the sound and not the words. With deep respect, chant anything to the baby and the same thing might happen. It is the chanting that caused it, I think

Yes perhaps you're right.

 

[savagewind]

Yes perhaps you're right.

You're awesome!

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth and the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures and many of the people? But upon many the punishment has been justified. And he whom Allah humiliates - for him there is no bestower of honor. Indeed, Allah does what He wills. Qur'an 22:18

.

"Allah" can suck it.

 

[Grandliseur]

I remember watching a video on YouTube a few years ago of a Christian apologist discussing various topics with an atheist. At one point in the video, the apologist asked the atheist "Why don't you believe in God?" He replied casually (as if it were the most obvious reason) something to the effect of "Because I don't see him!" This really struck a chord with me. Why should we believe that some entity is here, hiding in some other mystical dimension, when we have no evidence to believe such a thing? If there were a god, wouldn't he be visible, or at least detectable? But, of course he isn't visible or detectable, which is functionally equivalent to non-existence.

Now, I anticipate many counter-arguments stating things to the effect of "You can't see 'love' yet it exists, etc." The problem with this type of argument is that love is a concept, one could argue, an emotion experienced by humans and animals, while God is supposed to be an actual, sentient being who exists in an objective sense, and should be detectable in some way, yet last time I checked, there haven't been any god-sightings lately.

Of course God, if he existed, would be capable of hiding himself and making the universe appear as if he did not exist.But why believe in such a convoluted, deceiving entity? Believing in such an absurd notion as a god who created the universe, yet hides himself from people in the universe while simultaneously wanting them to believe in him seems about as absurd as believing that you've only been alive for five minutes and all of your memories and knowledge have been entered into you via an invisible hard drive from a magical alien being from the future. Unfalsifiable, but nonsensical. Occam's Razor is a good way of dealing with such absurdities.

Being thick skulled on some subjects usually means that there is no way through to that person's mind because it is already made up. This is the usual state of affairs between atheists and theists.

You are talking about seeing. Yet, we are isolated from most things in our lives. If you are sitting by your computer in your room, whichever room it is, you most likely do not know what is going on just 30 meters from your chair. Things further out in the city, or in the country side, or wasteland of Australia - are totally unknown and unknowable. You could have aliens building underground cities for all that matters just 10 miles from where you are without you knowing about it at all. North Koreans might be at your doorstep without you knowing it, but in all likelihood, if anyone is there - it is the postman or the JWs or the LDS, even your X demanding money for child support.

Our knowledge of Russian cities and their existence rely totally on 3rd party observance and their giving witness - which then relies on your accepting this witness. Witness which is aplenty in the Bible but which you deny, though you are willing to accept so much other witness about things you cannot know yourself.

If then a missile flies and happens to hit nearby, does it not follow that someone made and sent this missile?! Is that rational, or irrational!
If I see a beautiful new Mercedes at the curb, does it not follow that someone made that beautiful vehicle? Is that rational, or irrational!

So, who is hiding here? Are they, however, visible! No.

If I made a virtual world in a computer, a world in which the entities created had individual intelligence, and could investigate their world - do you think it impossible for them to conclude that someone made their world. Could they ever ever meet their maker?! What do you say?

 

[Milton Platt]

Faith.

Name something you cannot believe on faith alone.

 

[Milton Platt]

"Allah" can suck it.

Probably did......

 

[Milton Platt]

Sorry, that was a bit sarcastically rude.

Or not.....

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't see why there should be any friction between atheists and monotheists. Obviously God is invisible, so its of course reasonable to wonder whether God exists. It doesn't change the weather.

There is only friction when theists try and make others share their irrationality, or force it into schools. Of course, it also a bit irritating that religion pays no taxes while utilizing government provided services and is not required to provide fiscal transparency.

 

[Prestor John]

I remember watching a video on YouTube a few years ago of a Christian apologist discussing various topics with an atheist. At one point in the video, the apologist asked the atheist "Why don't you believe in God?" He replied casually (as if it were the most obvious reason) something to the effect of "Because I don't see him!" This really struck a chord with me. Why should we believe that some entity is here, hiding in some other mystical dimension, when we have no evidence to believe such a thing? If there were a god, wouldn't he be visible, or at least detectable? But, of course he isn't visible or detectable, which is functionally equivalent to non-existence.

Now, I anticipate many counter-arguments stating things to the effect of "You can't see 'love' yet it exists, etc." The problem with this type of argument is that love is a concept, one could argue, an emotion experienced by humans and animals, while God is supposed to be an actual, sentient being who exists in an objective sense, and should be detectable in some way, yet last time I checked, there haven't been any god-sightings lately.

Of course God, if he existed, would be capable of hiding himself and making the universe appear as if he did not exist.But why believe in such a convoluted, deceiving entity? Believing in such an absurd notion as a god who created the universe, yet hides himself from people in the universe while simultaneously wanting them to believe in him seems about as absurd as believing that you've only been alive for five minutes and all of your memories and knowledge have been entered into you via an invisible hard drive from a magical alien being from the future. Unfalsifiable, but nonsensical. Occam's Razor is a good way of dealing with such absurdities.

Have you ever read His Word and done what He has said needs to be done in order to come to know Him?

These are criticisms from ignorance.

 

[Little Lunch]

But see, some of us have read his word and tried to do what he said needs to be done.
Have you done any research into why atheists disbelieve?
Is your criticism of our ignorance a criticism from ignorance also?

 

[Etritonakin]

I remember watching a video on YouTube a few years ago of a Christian apologist discussing various topics with an atheist. At one point in the video, the apologist asked the atheist "Why don't you believe in God?" He replied casually (as if it were the most obvious reason) something to the effect of "Because I don't see him!" This really struck a chord with me. Why should we believe that some entity is here, hiding in some other mystical dimension, when we have no evidence to believe such a thing? If there were a god, wouldn't he be visible, or at least detectable? But, of course he isn't visible or detectable, which is functionally equivalent to non-existence.

Now, I anticipate many counter-arguments stating things to the effect of "You can't see 'love' yet it exists, etc." The problem with this type of argument is that love is a concept, one could argue, an emotion experienced by humans and animals, while God is supposed to be an actual, sentient being who exists in an objective sense, and should be detectable in some way, yet last time I checked, there haven't been any god-sightings lately.

Of course God, if he existed, would be capable of hiding himself and making the universe appear as if he did not exist.But why believe in such a convoluted, deceiving entity? Believing in such an absurd notion as a god who created the universe, yet hides himself from people in the universe while simultaneously wanting them to believe in him seems about as absurd as believing that you've only been alive for five minutes and all of your memories and knowledge have been entered into you via an invisible hard drive from a magical alien being from the future. Unfalsifiable, but nonsensical. Occam's Razor is a good way of dealing with such absurdities.

(At least the development of) An initial overall intelligence is the most simple explanation for the formation and present state of the universe.

That which exists must be preceded by that which makes it both generally and specifically possible.

For the sake of argument...
Technically, "God" would be the mind of everything, and everything would be his body -and you are only able to see a small portion of everything, so you can not identify it as a whole.

You would see only God, as God is all that can be seen -even when you look in the mirror. Perhaps it is more correct to say that God has not addressed you personally yet -to show that he can.

(Isaiah 45:15 Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel.....)

If God were to show himself in some sort of body, it would essentially be a representation within himself as a whole -but how would you know it was God? If God spoke to you, how would you know it was his voice?

God dealt quite directly with people in the past (according to scripture, if you will), but that in and of itself caused little change. It didn't do much for Satan -or for Adam and Eve -because, though they dealt with him directly, they did not yet know God, and they had no real experience to reference.

God having men write the entire course of human history beforehand will do far more to prove God -but few study scripture enough to realize that is the case. It is also not yet all finished -but when God does deal with is directly -and address is personally -all of that history having been declared beforehand will show him to be who he says he is.

 

[Willamena]

I remember watching a video on YouTube a few years ago of a Christian apologist discussing various topics with an atheist. At one point in the video, the apologist asked the atheist "Why don't you believe in God?" He replied casually (as if it were the most obvious reason) something to the effect of "Because I don't see him!" This really struck a chord with me. Why should we believe that some entity is here, hiding in some other mystical dimension, when we have no evidence to believe such a thing? If there were a god, wouldn't he be visible, or at least detectable? But, of course he isn't visible or detectable, which is functionally equivalent to non-existence.

Now, I anticipate many counter-arguments stating things to the effect of "You can't see 'love' yet it exists, etc." The problem with this type of argument is that love is a concept, one could argue, an emotion experienced by humans and animals, while God is supposed to be an actual, sentient being who exists in an objective sense, and should be detectable in some way, yet last time I checked, there haven't been any god-sightings lately.

Of course God, if he existed, would be capable of hiding himself and making the universe appear as if he did not exist.But why believe in such a convoluted, deceiving entity? Believing in such an absurd notion as a god who created the universe, yet hides himself from people in the universe while simultaneously wanting them to believe in him seems about as absurd as believing that you've only been alive for five minutes and all of your memories and knowledge have been entered into you via an invisible hard drive from a magical alien being from the future. Unfalsifiable, but nonsensical. Occam's Razor is a good way of dealing with such absurdities.

We don't see time and space, either.

 

[savagewind]

We don't see time and space, either.

Please, speak for yourself.

 

[Little Lunch]

(At least the development of) An initial overall intelligence is the most simple explanation for the formation and present state of the universe.

That which exists must be preceded by that which makes it both generally and specifically possible.

So what is the simplest explanation for the origin of the initial overall intelligence?

 

[Jumi]

That's not really an argument against the existence of any god, it's a reason why you don't believe in any.

 

[Etritonakin]

So what is the simplest explanation for the origin of the initial overall intelligence?

The most simple explanation would be that for which we already have abundant evidence.
The only two options are that the intelligence simply existed -or the intelligence developed.
It is not logical -at least based on available evidence -that a complex, creative intelligence always existed as such. Development is a more logical explanation.
As it is logical that something obviously exists -and something cannot come from absolute nothing -that something logically has simply always existed.
It just was and is -but is also dynamic.
We readily accept that the development of self-awareness, intelligence and creativity are inherent in "nature" -and there is no reason to believe this has always been the case.

Just as it is not logical that a complex, creative intelligence simply always existed, it is not logical that an extremely complex environment which shows much evidence of decision simply existed.
It is apparent now that certain things cannot happen except by conscious decision -and there is no reason to believe this has not always been the case, as that which now exists is the same stuff which has always existed, but now in a different arrangement.

It is most logical that whatever simplicity "always" existed initially was both that which could be acted upon and that which could act -reacting so on and so forth -and the two became more complex in tandem.

Will post more later

 

[MonkeyFire]

In the bible God rest on the 7th day of creation and Adam goes to work. Imo God is passive at all times, and it's entirely upon yourself to become safe, unless someone else in peril takes it upon themselves to save you, but not safe, then ultimately let any feelings for justice and healing go. The free gift of God is eternal life. Your pleasure is locked away by bigotry and anger, i.e. drop the facade.

 

[syo]

god walked the earth as christ. the holy spirit was shown as a dove. isn't that enough?