The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[Ponder This]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. 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? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

That's a great argument for rejecting intermediaries and personally seeking the truth of the matter.
However, truth does not acquire or lose validity because we succeed or fail in understanding it.
So the "best" argument there is... is not enough.

 

[blü 2]

Well.... there's unicorns in the bible.

Really? Rhinos, perhaps?

But unicorn meant a horned animal.

Yes. If we found a real unicorn we could tell it was a unicorn because we have a reasonably useful definition of one. That's how I know my keyboard isn't a unicorn.

You can say God is "imaginary" but God said, or His people said, a lot of things which were not so imaginary.

None of them provides a definition appropriate to a real being. If it did, I could tell whether my keyboard is God or not.

The things of God are premised upon faith. And this faith is meant to do a work in your life.

Not if you have no idea what a real God is. Not if all you're talking about is some generalized concept. In that case they're not premised on anything real.

The evidence of good learning is the ability to make subtle distinctions.

Before you try getting subtle, get all your definitions clear and on the table and agreed.

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.

As it happens, I hypothesize / guess / use as a starting point that the most likely explanation will be about the properties of mass-energy, which, on our present thinking, was what the Big Bang was entirely composed of at Time Zero. You'll notice that I'm thereby assuming / postulating that energy pre-existed the universe.

This hypothesis is superior to the God hypothesis in that we know mass-energy is real, and ex hypothesi my keyboard is made from it (and so is everything else, you and I included).

I'm entirely willing to be corrected on these matters by further facts, so I don't have the sort of faith you're talking about. (I reserve that kind of faith for the idea that particular pieces of printed paper and particular sets of electronic signals are money.)

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

The "first" universe could have always existed. It need not have a beginning.

 

[PruePhillip]

The "first" universe could have always existed. It need not have a beginning.

But it did have a beginning. That much is settled in Cosmology.
And now it's settled that the universe will have an end because
we know its not going back to its initial state again.

 

[leroy]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. 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? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

I agree, that's a good argument against the existance of God.

But at the end of the day it's just an argument of, "I personally would like/expect God to do X...... God didn't do X therefore God doesn't exist.


+ Consider that the Bible is full of examples where God made his existance obvious, and people ended up haiting God more than before .... So. Perhaps if God makes his existance more obvious people will end up rejecting him

 

[leroy]

The "first" universe could have always existed. It need not have a beginning.

Multiverse theories are not "past eternal" even in a multiverse therevwoukd have been a beginning

 

[night912]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. 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? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

No, this fails as an argument against the existence of god. What god should do or shouldn't do, has no bearing on whether or not god exist.

Even if god is cruel and evil and choose to use the most inefficient form of communication to spread his teachings, he nonetheless still exist. The actions and/or lack of actions done by god does not dictate his existence.

 

[halbhh]

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

I'd never believe something without evidence.

But I'd definitely test a hypothesis.

 

[halbhh]

But that's exactly what any con man does.

It perfectly fits the concept of a confidence trick.

heh heh -- I say to people: test, and find out.

Test.

One can read what Christ said, and then simply try out an instruction. For instance, I began with the very simple and clear "Love your neighbor as yourself" which isn't at all the (typical American) thing I had been doing before -- to select out a few friends and totally ignore my neighbors.

It was so simple to test, but...it did at that moment take some initiative, or even a type of courage to put yourself out there. Instead of screening people to select a friend...to literally befriend the random neighbors next to you. That was something more than just the same-old. I can understand people afraid to even try.

 

[PruePhillip]

Really? Rhinos, perhaps?
Yes. If we found a real unicorn we could tell it was a unicorn because we have a reasonably useful definition of one. That's how I know my keyboard isn't a unicorn.

What is your "definition" of a unicorn?
Something taken from a fairy tale book?
The word translated as "unicorn" in our bible means a horned animal.
Any horned animal will do.

By definition NOTHING PREEXISTED THE BIG BANG.
Not even unicorns, and certainly, not mass or energy.
There was no time, no energy, no physics and not even numbers.
And it just happened by unicorn magic, for no reason at all.
That's where faith comes in - you believe that. And when your
unicorn men tell you "There's no reason for us being here" you
must take that on faith - it's certainly not a scientific statement.

 

[DKH]

Why would an omnipotent god who wants a "relationship" with humans never talk to them directly and only speak through intermediaries?

Actually, God does communicate with His servants (Jer. 31:33-34, Heb. 8:1-12 and 10:16-17). Even, the Christ acknowledges this (John 7:16-18). However, it isn't in a way that many may want. Hence, the reality that men may or may not be preaching the truth is surely a problem, but that's on them and not God, nor should the listed examples be a test for the existence of God…So, the ones God has chosen to know His truths, knows them. Yet, if an individual doesn't believe or questions if God actually does exists, there will be no communication. Which, would be logical…The reality is God doesn't need us, we need God and we will need to accept this, if we want God to communicate with us. Therefore, the unbeliever must take the first step and maybe the second, third and so forth. It just depends on how important communicating with God is (Proverbs 3:5 and Heb. 11:6).

Note: Even though I have used bible verses for support, this posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.

 

[blü 2]

heh heh -- I say to people: test, and find out.

Test.

One can read what Christ said, and then simply try out an instruction. For instance, I began with the very simple and clear "Love your neighbor as yourself" which isn't at all the (typical American) thing I had been doing before -- to select out a few friends and totally ignore my neighbors.

It was so simple to test, but...it did at that moment take some initiative, or even a type of courage to put yourself out there. Instead of screening people to select a friend...to literally befriend the random neighbors next to you. That was something more than just the same-old. I can understand people afraid to even try.

My wife had a genius for getting people together. Back then we were involved in a number of community projects over the years ─ school, sports clubs, particular community and environmental projects, things for the hospital where she worked ─ so we didn't need a book.

Nor (except occasionally where our kids were involved) did we think of it as loving. We simply thought if you do the decent thing, you tend to end up doing more good than harm.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

For me, it's more that I recognize god-concepts as human fabrications to put a relatable face on the unrelatable. Human-like characteristics of gods are precisely the point of having gods in the first place.

 

[blü 2]

What is your "definition" of a unicorn?

I'd say that if I found a real equine animal which naturally grew a single straight horn from the center of its forehead, then I was getting warm. If it was also white and the only humans it would allow to approach it were young, female and virgin, I'd be prepared to say, Yes, that's a unicorn ─ they're not just fictional.

By definition NOTHING PREEXISTED THE BIG BANG.

I don't see any basis for that statement. But something along these lines might fly ─ if as we think the universe began from as close to a physical singularity as physics will allow, then that singularity will, on the present state of our knowledge, prevent us from knowing anything about any prior state.

As for the argument that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, I don't accept that either. The Big Bang was change, and change can only happen in conjunction with time. I also think time (and the spatial dimensions too) are properties or effects of mass-energy, so that time exists because mass-energy does, not vice versa.

not even numbers.

Numbers are concepts. There were no numbers in the universe until creatures with brains capable of concepts came to exist; since Earth is the only place life is known to exist, make that 'we know of no basis for numbers to exist till more that 13 billion years after the Big Bang'.

And it just happened by unicorn magic, for no reason at all.

No, you're the one who's looking for the unicorn ─ I was just pointing out that if we found one, our concept of it is sufficiently clear for us to recognize it as a unicorn.

Which is why I can tell my keyboard is not a unicorn.

Whereas I can't tell whether my keyboard is God or not, because there's no concept of a real God.

That's where faith comes in - you believe that. And when your unicorn men tell you "There's no reason for us being here" you must take that on faith - it's certainly not a scientific statement.

The reason we're here is because the imperatives of evolution are that the critter survive long enough to breed. As I've remarked before, you and I can have this conversation solely because every single one of our ancestors across more than 3.5 billion years did exactly that.

 

[atanu]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. 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? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

That is your naive idea of god.

 

[atanu]

...
None of them provides a definition appropriate to a real being. ...

What is your definition of a real thing/being?

 

[QuestioningMind]

A lot of people disobeyed God and rejected Him despite having clear proof of His existence. Some people simply won't believe. The excuse that 'there is no evidence' is just that: an excuse.

I'd love to hear what you think constitutes 'proof' of god.

 

[night912]

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.

Just like the argument in the OP, it fails miserably. And just like the op, it does not address the existence of god. The argument is disguised to appear as if it did addressed god if one takes a quick glance, but when look at it more carefully, it says nothing about the existence of god. In fact, it's only an assertion. It is also committing a false dichotomy fallacy.

 

[halbhh]

My wife had a genius for getting people together. Back then we were involved in a number of community projects over the years ─ school, sports clubs, particular community and environmental projects, things for the hospital where she worked ─ so we didn't need a book.

Nor (except occasionally where our kids were involved) did we think of it as loving. We simply thought if you do the decent thing, you tend to end up doing more good than harm.

Right. That's a key part of it all, and the remainder is that we (Christians) are not to love say most neighbors, except for a few rejects, but (for clarity) even those that seem for a time as if 'enemies'. The point being that no matter our preferences or comfort, that we really ought to love not just the good 8 or 9 of the 10 neighbors, for instance, but all. Sometimes easy, sometimes not at all easy, for some cases. (not only the ones easy to love (most), but all of the ones)

 

[Bird123]

The most convincing argument against the existence of God (excluding deistic god concepts) that I can think of is the existence of pastors, priests, popes, scribes, and missionaries. No one learns about God directly from God, but instead, it has to come through intermediaries. 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? He wouldn't. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries to speak to people (one of the most inefficient and unconvincing methods possible), he'd do it himself. The fact that humans are necessary to spread the knowledge of gods is very strong evidence that the gods don't exist, and in fact, are human-made constructs.

Clearly, you have been thinking. Very good. On the other hand, I think you have come to the wrong conclusion.

OK, let's take a few steps back and look at this world and system. Since it is a creation of God, let's try to see what is really going on.

One action God has made is that knowledge must be Discovered. Look throughout time. God isn't handing out answers. If God handed out answers, history would look much different. All the problems would be solved. Since wisdom in gained on the journey to Discover those answers, God isn't going to stop the journey. If religion claims God gave them the answers, why is a leopard changing it's spots? It's not going to happen.

Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. How are they doing? Religion claims to have all the answers. They do not search to Discover. They rely on beliefs. Instead of searching for truth, they are satisfied with beliefs.

Religion values so many of the petty things mankind holds so dear such as control. Aren't they really using God and beliefs in an attempt to control the actions of others? Isn't the threat of Hell or the threat of an angry, wrathful, or unloving God no more than intimidation?

Sure, religion teaches some very good things on Love and Kindness, however what else are they teaching?

If you assume religion's answers are God's way and answers, are you not being corrupted by religion's ideas that a few beliefs make truth? Making conclusions based on stories of what others say God is doing can not result in Truth regardless of how the logic fits. Logic based on Real Truth is the only path.

If one really wants to find God, one can study God's actions or just how this world's system really operates. It will all lead to God. Science is walking toward God. It will take much time, however on their current path, science will eventually find God.

The first thing God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. Discovery takes a wide, intelligent view. One must be open to all possibilities. One must not assume. One must be open to the fact that Real Truth will not always be an agreeable thing. On the other hand, Truth will always add up and one can Discover the Genius behind it all.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!