The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[Rational Agnostic]

We know now the universe had a beginning and it will have an end.

Incorrect. We don't know either of those things.

The most convincing argument for the existence of God is that the
universe could not have created itself when it didn't exist - and for
no reason whatsoever.

Who made God then?

The essential first step in a relationship with God is FAITH. This
faith does a work in lives. A God walking down the street every day
leaves nothing to faith - everyone believes and everyone is afraid.
But faith means God comes to us through scripture and through the
preaching of the Gospel. And having faith must go on from believing
in God but also believing God can provide for our spiritual life.

How can I have a "relationship" with someone who hides himself from me?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Not to mention that many of these intermediates are conveying messages from various very different and most of the time mutually exclusive, gods. With no way for their audience to properly distinguish which one is correct, if any.

As has been said so many times: the can't all be right... but they CAN all be wrong. And considering that all of them make he same type of claims based on the same type of non-evicence, chances are rather enormously huge that all indeed ARE wrong.


Also, if I were an omnipotent god and would rely on "text" to pass my message on to humans through the generations... I wouldn't be "inspiring" ignorant goat herders into writing on my behalf while relying on their own personal interpretation....

Instead, I'ld create the book myself. And I wouldn't make just one copy and give it to the least credible people I can think off. Instead, I'ld create a copy for every community on the planet. And I'ld create that book out of indestructible material. And I do mean indestructible. The kind of indestructible that a 25 megaton nuke detonated 5 inches away wouldn't even dent it. Being omnipotent and all, that shouldn't be a problem.

Imagine Columbus arriving in latin America, discovering native tribes there and finding out that they have a copy of the exact same book holding the exact same text and made from the exact same indestructible materials....


But no... instead, we supposedly have to rely on copies of copies of translation of copies of copies of translations of copies, originally written by ignorant goat herders who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun and who apparantly were only aware of what was happening in a 300 mile radius - and even managed to get some of that wrong.

Exactly. Jesus' claim that "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" is pretty difficult to believe, especially considering the fact that "heaven and earth" are made out of far more durable materials than the millimeter thin pages of most bibles.

 

[halbhh]

...
Why would an omnipotent god who wants a "relationship" with humans never talk to them directly and only speak through intermediaries? Why would he wait for missionaries to tell people about his existence instead of revealing himself directly to them? Why would he need humans to write his "word" for him? ....

Here's a better answer than the one given --

Because He specifically wants only those that can have faith in Him. ( Faith isn't to believe because you saw the fact of something, merely observational knowledge. Instead, faith is to believe before proof.)

He wants only those with faith.

And none others.

Therefore, all kinds of direct revealing have to be very limited, because those that get direct revealing no longer need to have faith -- belief before seeing -- they have outright confirmation in a way they can never forget. (Individual prophets have full faith before getting a revelation.)

Why is faith itself so valuable. It's a form of deep trust. Trust allows love relationships to weather storms, false accusations, urges to blame, and many other forces that act against love. With trust, love can endure.

 

[epronovost]

Where is God hiding?

Nowhere, there are no gods of course. The problem of divine hiddenness is a proof against gods of a certain nature, just like the problem of evil or the problem of omnipotence to name but a few. They are arguments that disprove the existence of certain types of divinities.

 

[1213]

How could this possibly be the "best way"????

This "way" is what resulted in thousands upon thousands of different denominations within christianity alone - and they all read the same book!

Yes, people are free to reject truth, I think it is good thing that people are free. I think it should be that way, even though some will reject truth.

…CLEARLY this isn't "the best way" to spread a message among humans, which if real might actually be the most important message for human kind in the history of the universe.

I think it is. The problem is not the way the message is delivered, it is that people just don’t want to hear/understand it. But everyone who wants to understand it, can understand it.

….Would you say that you "don't want to hear" the claims about Thor, Odin, Mars, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Lord Xenu, your inner Thetans, Baal, Ra, Shiva, Visjnoe, Krshna, Buddha, etc etc etc etc

Interesting thing is that they don’t really seem to have anything meaningful to say. Or what say you, what is the main message from Thor for example?

…Yes. As that would demonstrate that it's not something that was just made up by humans, if it is communicated to me by something else then a human or through text written by humans.

So, you do require a “big brother” to tell you what is right and wrong? I think those are matters of understanding and should not depend on that it is said directly by God.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Here's a better answer than the one given --

Because He specifically wants only those that can have faith in Him. ( Faith isn't to believe because you saw the fact of something, merely observational knowledge. Instead, faith is to believe before proof.)

He wants only those with faith.

And none others.

Therefore, all kinds of direct revealing have to be very limited, because those that get direct revealing no longer need to have faith -- belief before seeing -- they have outright confirmation in a way they can never forget. (Individual prophets have full faith before getting a revelation.)

Why is faith itself so valuable. It's a form of deep trust. Trust allows love relationships to weather storms, false accusations, urges to blame, and many other forces that act against love. With trust, love can endure.

Why would I believe in something without evidence? I can't "love" or "trust" something if I don't even know it exists.

 

[PruePhillip]

Incorrect. We don't know either of those things.
Who made God then?
How can I have a "relationship" with someone who hides himself from me?

Yes, the universe had a beginning, it's the Big Bang. We are told that nothing existed
before this event.
The argument about an endlessly recycling universe (Big Crunch) is now discredited.
The universe will either end in a "heat death" or the fabric of space will be torn apart.

Scientists say asking what lies outside of the universe, or before the universe began
is as pointless as asking what is north of the north pole. Whatever lies outside of the
universe does not operate with our physical laws, or notions of space or time. It is
considered a nonsensical question.
So asking "who made God" is itself a nonsensical question - we have utterly no
comprehension.
The bible tells us we must prove God for ourselves. Furthermore, if we just believe
without any personal proof in our life then we don't understand.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Yes, the universe had a beginning, it's the Big Bang. We are told that nothing existed
before this event.
The argument about an endlessly recycling universe (Big Crunch) is now discredited.
The universe will either end in a "heat death" or the fabric of space will be torn apart.

Scientists say asking what lies outside of the universe, or before the universe began
is as pointless as asking what is north of the north pole. Whatever lies outside of the
universe does not operate with our physical laws, or notions of space or time. It is
considered a nonsensical question.
So asking "who made God" is itself a nonsensical question - we have utterly no
comprehension.
The bible tells us we must prove God for ourselves. Furthermore, if we just believe
without any personal proof in our life then we don't understand.

The Big Bang theory says nothing one way or another about a multiverse. There could have been other universes from which ours "sprung"--we don't know. We also don't know if the big bang theory is correct or not, although there is fairly good evidence that it is. But either way the big bang theory does not prove or disprove god and is irrelevant to my original post.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Big Bang theory says nothing one way or another about a multiverse. There could have been other universes from which ours "sprung"--we don't know. We also don't know if the big bang theory is correct or not, although there is fairly good evidence that it is. But either way the big bang theory does not prove or disprove god and is irrelevant to my original post.

Sure, so-called 'multiverses' can spring out of our space-time fabric. But here's
the kicker - none of this explains how the FIRST universe came to be. Something
outside of space and time and physics caused the universe to spring into life.
You can't argue with that.

 

[blü 2]

Most people are not spiritually fit enough to accept G-d's presence. The Creator of everything in existence is beyond one's ability to comprehend or take. This is recorded in the Book of Exodus when the Israelites hear G-d speak and after the first 2 sayings they beg Moses to relate what G-d says instead because His very voice is too overpowering. One cannot just attain dreams, visions or prophecy like one acquires a new language. One has to be mentally and spiritually prepared. We notice that such figures as Noach, Abraham and Moses were all ahead in years before they heard G-d. In our words they were old men. We see right in the beginning in Genesis after the sin the man and woman are driven away and then they have to work. Then we also have to work at communication with G-d.

It seems that the atheist position does not or will not understand just how powerful G-d is and think it should be like communicating with any other being.

Trouble is, 'God' doesn't denote anything real, as demonstrated by the absence of any real test that will determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. That is, there isn't even the concept of a real god (whereas at least there's the concept of eg a real unicorn, so I can tell my keyboard isn't a unicorn.)

So God can only be imaginary.

(That's more igtheist than atheist, but nevertheless ...)

 

[Rival]

Trouble is, 'God' doesn't denote anything real, as demonstrated by the absence of any real test that will determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. That is, there isn't even the concept of a real god (whereas at least there's the concept of eg a real unicorn, so I can tell my keyboard isn't a unicorn.)

So God can only be imaginary.

(That's more igtheist than atheist, but nevertheless ...)

As I said, I wasn't making an argument for His existence. I think many people are reading my post wrong.

When I say 'accept G-d"s presence' I mean it as in His direct , immediate presence so that one could talk to him as Moses did.

 

[blü 2]

As I said, I wasn't making an argument for His existence. I think many people are reading my post wrong.

When I say 'accept G-d"s presence' I mean it as in His direct , immediate presence so that one could talk to him as Moses did.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[blü 2]

Here's a better answer than the one given --

Because He specifically wants only those that can have faith in Him. ( Faith isn't to believe because you saw the fact of something, merely observational knowledge. Instead, faith is to believe before proof.)

He wants only those with faith.

And none others.

But that's exactly what any con man does.

It perfectly fits the concept of a confidence trick.

 

[PruePhillip]

Trouble is, 'God' doesn't denote anything real, as demonstrated by the absence of any real test that will determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. That is, there isn't even the concept of a real god (whereas at least there's the concept of eg a real unicorn, so I can tell my keyboard isn't a unicorn.)

So God can only be imaginary.

(That's more igtheist than atheist, but nevertheless ...)

Well.... there's unicorns in the bible. And some smart aleck skeptics point this out.
But unicorn meant a horned animal.
You can say God is "imaginary" but God said, or His people said, a lot of things
which were not so imaginary. Everything from the existence of the Jewish temple
to the ethics of loving your enemies to the very real existence of the blessings and
cursing upon the Jewish people to this day.
The things of God are premised upon faith. And this faith is meant to do a work in
your life.

 

[PruePhillip]

But that's exactly what any con man does.

It perfectly fits the concept of a confidence trick.

The evidence of good learning is the ability to make subtle distinctions.
You are happy to believe a man saying the universe created itself when it
didn't exist, and one day we will work out how. That's extraordinary faith.

 

[Rival]

Matter of faith?

G-d promised the Israelites rain in its season, good cattle stock, fecundity of its fields and its women, that they would have peace and contentment in their land if they followed His Torah.

G-d said that if the Israelites don't do as they're told in the Torah, they will face drought, poor cattle stock. barren women, strife, plagues and exile.

These are observable phenomena.

 

[PruePhillip]

Matter of faith?

G-d promised the Israelites rain in its season, good cattle stock, fecundity of its fields and its women, that they would have peace and contentment in their land if they followed His Torah.

G-d said that if the Israelites don't do as they're told in the Torah, they will face drought, poor cattle stock. barren women, strife, plagues and exile.

These are observable phenomena.

You might like to add the exile of the Jews in First and Second Centuries, and the promise
the Jews would return to their lands "a second time" from nation that were their "graves."

 

[Rival]

You might like to add the exile of the Jews in First and Second Centuries, and the promise
the Jews would return to their lands "a second time" from nation that were their "graves."

Yes, I said exile.

But such is not a matter of faith.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, I said exile.

But such is not a matter of faith.

True. It's now a matter of history. The Jews are returning to their homeland.

 

[Rival]

True. It's now a matter of history. The Jews are returning to their homeland.

It's past and present. All these promises are still in effect, as far as myself and the Jewish people are concerned.