The Best Argument Against the Existence of God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a very important question IMO.
If God is defined as Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent then at least we can say the mistakes probably don't come from God

What in this universe do you believe doesn't come from God?

 

[night912]

God makes his existance clear for anyone seeking with an open mind and an open hart.

Sure if God simply talks directly and appears in the middle of the sky he would convince even close minded atheists.

But there is no warranty that a grater number of individuals would actually be interested in having a relationship with God. It is your burden to show otherwise




Well many atheist openly admit that they wouldn't become Christian even if Christianity where true....

Believing that god exist is not the same as worshipping god. As far as I know, simply believing that god exist doesn't automatically qualify them as being a Christian. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[leroy]

Believing that god exist is not the same as worshipping god. As far as I know, simply believing that god exist doesn't automatically qualify them as being a Christian. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

yes that is true

So with the OP in mind, if God communicates with us directly and unambiguously, there might be more “belivers in god” but not necessarily more people who worship God

 

[halbhh]

Actually, pretty much nothing can be agreed upon by even a minority. We had threads here and on other forums that tried to define what a god is. All failed. Believers can't even agree whether there is only one or many, how much, if ever, it interferes with reality, if it is real, you name it.
Those aren't minor details, those are diametrical opposites.

Just what I said(!), if you read the next sentence or 2 there after the one you quoted.

 

[1213]

…That point being: the "best way", is what produces "the best results".

Clearly, thousands upon thousands of different denominations of christianity alone, adding a couple thousands more for the other religions, is anything but "the best" way.

It is in fact a horrible result.

I accept that as your opinion. But, if the point was that people are free, I think it was good goal, even if some people use it for wrong things. The reason for different denominations is not the message, it is that people cherry picks few lines from it and then make a religion around them and ignore the rest. And when many people take out their favorite line and make a religion, then the result is many religions, the message is still good and right, even if many people reject a lot of it.

…That you should live and die with honor, for one thing.

But what does it matter what the contents of the message is?

Why would you keep someone who says “you should live and die with honor”, as your God? Anyone could do that.

…What you say here smells an awfull lot like determining if something is authentic or not based on if you "like" what it says. Which ironically, actually fits your accusation of "not wanting to hear or understand it".

Understanding and hearing is different matter than accepting it as truth. By what the Bible tells, understanding is better than believing.

If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn't believe, I don't judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.
John 12:47-48

…Sounds like you are turning dodging into a sport.

No reason to dodge, if you can’t throw a straight ball.

 

[stvdv]

What in this universe do you believe doesn't come from God?

As long as one lives in Duality it is proper to see the mistakes as human and the perfection as Divine to purify the mind
When one lives in non-Duality, so when one is enlightened (not just imagination, but for real), only God exists and is real

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As long as one lives in Duality it is proper to see the mistakes as human and the perfection as Divine to purify the mind
When one lives in non-Duality, so when one is enlightened (not just imagination, but for real), only God exists and is real

Is that your way of saying "nothing?"

 

[stvdv]

What in this universe do you believe doesn't come from God?

As long as one lives in Duality it is proper to see the mistakes as human and the perfection as Divine to purify the mind
When one lives in non-Duality, so when one is enlightened (not just imagination, but for real), only God exists and is real

Is that your way of saying "nothing?"

Usually answering these questions leads to debate. God is beyond mind, therefore debate on God makes no sense IMO

For me "Self-Realization" is the Goal. Contemplating on "Who Am I" is the means (according to my Master)
Questions as "Do you believe....." only lead me away from my Goal, I rather stick to 1 question "Who Am I"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Usually answering these questions leads to debate. God is beyond mind, therefore debate on God makes no sense IMO

For me "Self-Realization" is the Goal. Contemplating on "Who Am I" is the means (according to my Master)
Questions as "Do you believe....." only lead me away from my Goal, I rather stick to 1 question "Who Am I"

You said that "mistakes don't come from God." All I'm trying to figure out is what you actually mean by this.

Do you really mean that some things - such as mistakes - can't be traced back to God?

I use the term "believe" to make it clear that I'm only looking for internal consistency, not necessarily that what you're arguing is true.

 

[firedragon]

You said that "mistakes don't come from God." All I'm trying to figure out is what you actually mean by this.

Do you really mean that some things - such as mistakes - can't be traced back to God?

I use the term "believe" to make it clear that I'm only looking for internal consistency, not necessarily that what you're arguing is true.

The problem will be to determine what a mistake is.

 

[stvdv]

You said that "mistakes don't come from God." All I'm trying to figure out is what you actually mean by this.

Do you really mean that some things - such as mistakes - can't be traced back to God?

I use the term "believe" to make it clear that I'm only looking for internal consistency, not necessarily that what you're arguing is true.

Talking about God and/or belief is always tricky, esp. because all peope have their own definitions (see also Note)

IMO: In Hinduism they distinguish 3 types: a)Dwaita + b)Vishishtadvaita + c)Adwaita
a) In Dwaita: I pray to God
b) In Vishishtadvaita: I and God are one
c) In Adwaita: only God exists

If hypothetical God is defined as: "omniscient"+"omnipotent"+"omnipresent"+"perfect" then mistakes don't come from God
It's only human-mind which conjures up to see things as mistakes, hence not from God, but from human mind
When Self-Realized and absorbed in Consciousness there is only God, hence mistakes do not even exist; they exist in maya

A teacher will teach a young student first according to Duality = "mistakes are human, not Divine"
Afterwards, slowly the student starts to see the Divinity in himself
Finally the student realizes only God exists

Note:
When speaking about God//Advaita words are always can cause problems, as words are Dual, and Advaita is beyond words
E.g: "Finally the student realizes only God exists" is not even correct. Words are used to describe that what is beyond words
Debate is useful in a)+b), but will create problems and confusing in c)

I am aware words confuse easily, but acknowledging "words are inadequate in Advaita" gave me a better understanding.
I hope this clarifies how I see it. Personally I always try to read between the lines, that way I usually understand others best

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I accept that as your opinion.

How is that an opinion? What do you mean by "best", if not "producing the best results"? Why do you categorically refuse to answer that question? I asked it 3 times by now....

But, if the point was that people are free, I think it was good goal, even if some people use it for wrong things.

How would removing the need for "faith" inhibit people's ability to be free / make free decisions?
It wouldn't. And the tales of your very own religion actually demonstrate that as well: the devil.
Supposedly this was an angel who rebelled. Yet that angel would have been as certain as can be that god exists. It didn't prevent him to make the free decision to rebel.

Knowing god exists, instead of blindly believing it, thus doesn't inhibit your freedom in any way.

The reason for different denominations is not the message, it is that people cherry picks few lines from it and then make a religion around them and ignore the rest.

This makes little sense, as that would apply to ANY denomination. Meaning ALL christians cherry pick and NONE have it correct?

I'ld rather say that the reason various denominations exists, is precisely because blind faith and "interpretation" of rather vague and ambiguous claims are necessary. Assuming that the christian god exists, then the humans are not the ones at fault... If you present a message in ambiguous and vague ways, then that is exactly what would happen.

So God being clearer and unambiguous, would prevent such things.
Once again, it comes down to this NOT producing the best results. In fact, it seems more that the entire thing is setup precisely to sow confusion. Countless denominations then becomes an inescapable result.

You can't really hold it against humans that god is apparantly incapable of clear and unambiguous communication.

And when many people take out their favorite line and make a religion, then the result is many religions, the message is still good and right, even if many people reject a lot of it.

Well, unlike you I have no particular reason to doubt people's sincerity.
You make it sound as if people do this on purpose. I don't buy that. I think people are sincere.

Many different interpretations is simply the inescapable result of ambiguity and vagueness.

Why would you keep someone who says “you should live and die with honor”, as your God? Anyone could do that.

Why would you keep someone who sacrifices himself to himself to save you from himself as a solution for the problems he is ultimately responsible for himself?

It goes both ways.

In any case, you have failed to answer my question: why do the contents of the message matter? It doesn't matter, when the question is if the author of said message exists and if the message is authentic.
Who are you to dictate to the gods what their message, plans and priorities should be?

The truth (or falsehood) of the gods is not dependend on wheter or not you "like" them or their message.

Understanding and hearing is different matter than accepting it as truth. By what the Bible tells, understanding is better than believing.

If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn't believe, I don't judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.
John 12:47-48

You didn't respond to the actual point.

Truth is not dependend on wheter or not you "like" it.

No reason to dodge, if you can’t throw a straight ball.

Yet, you're dodging anyhow. And just did it again.

 

[stvdv]

And you think there is no other reason than He has to? Is it not possible that this is the best way?

Jesus is not "the best way for all" ... Jesus might be the best way for a Christian

but that some people just don’t want to hear

Some "do not NEED to hear", that Jesus is the best way for them. For example if they have their own (non) faith

would it be better, if it would be said directly to you?

Not always, sometimes maybe

However, there is more direct way, the Holy Spirit:

Agreed. If God is all Powerful I prefer Him telling me personally by "Holy Spirit" as He does also via Hindu Religion

But, Spirit of Truth, not many like to hear the truth.

Also, not many Christians like to hear the Truth "Jesus is not the highway for all"

 

[Quintessence]

I sure hope this isn't the "best" argument because the poor ones must be really rubbish. Even if we are limiting ourselves to the classical monotheist one-god the argument rests on a false assumption:

• People do speak to the one-god and learn about it from itself. The entire argument hinges upon the false assumption that "no one learns about God directly from God." Mystical experiences are at the heart of every religion, even those that have been heavily institutionalized with "intermediaries" and the like. Direct experiences of the gods are routine in some religions, and also present in religions that honor the one-god in spite of its institutionalization.

In addition to that, there are also these considerations that make this argument uncompelling:

• Intermediaries are symptomatic of organizing and institutionalizing a religion. Whenever you have some sort of human organization, humans will tend to role specialize based on various criteria. The presence of certain role specialities, like "intermediaries," is the result of structural organization and the way humans designate authority within such organizations. The presence of role specialities reflects the nature of human social structures and that's pretty much it. Institutionalizing religion in this way is also very modern and not how people did religion for most of their existence as a species.
• Different people have different skills and experiences, which they then share. Humans are storytellers - they experience things and then they tell each other stories about what they experience. This cuts across all aspects of human life and living. That people "spread knowledge" of anything doesn't mean they didn't have experiences, or that it is all a "construct," or that other people can't have similar experiences and then also share them. And religious experiences are very, very common.
• It's not up to you what a "real god" is as an outsider to a culture. This one really frustrates me because it's inherently disrespectful of other cultures. Sorry, but cultural outsiders don't get to decide what the gods are to those cultures. Cultures across the world have innumerable ideas about what is worthy of worship and their gods are their gods. Respect that their gods are their gods and that your understanding of gods has no bearing on the issue.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

the devil.
Supposedly this was an angel who rebelled. Yet that angel would have been as certain as can be that god exists. It didn't prevent him to make the free decision to rebel.

This is sound reasoning!
If the account is true.....what does that tell us about God? If He were really a tyrant, cruel, ready to quash any rebellion, would the angel so willingly revolt?
But, if the Almighty really is a God loving and patient, His subjects might take advantage of His goodness.

Why did Jehovah allow the Devil to live? Why is he still living? Is there a reason? (It's tied into why suffering continues.)

(Are you open to consider the truthfulness of the account?)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

Due to the issues raised in Genesis 3, with Adam & Eve choosing to rebel against Jehovah. The issue of Sovereignty, whether man can rule himself successfully or if he needs guidance from his Creator, required God to stay out of human affairs, allowing history to prove either man's ability, or inability, to govern himself. During this time, He also established a means (Jesus) through which men, imperfect & alienated from Jehovah due to Adam's revolt, could eventually be brought back into God's perfect, universal family

 

[1213]

How is that an opinion? What do you mean by "best", if not "producing the best results"? Why do you categorically refuse to answer that question? I asked it 3 times by now....

I think I have already answered. I am sorry, if you don’t understand my answer.

How would removing the need for "faith" inhibit people's ability to be free / make free decisions?

Have I said so? I don’t think so. My point was, we have the message from God and we have the freedom to reject the message. I think it is good that we have the freedom.

Knowing god exists, instead of blindly believing it, thus doesn't inhibit your freedom in any way.

I don’t think we must believe. I think we should understand. Reason why I think so is the John 12:47-48. In the Bible, the judgment is based on this idea:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

If you present a message in ambiguous and vague ways, then that is exactly what would happen.

But the message is not ambiguous or vague. The message is good and clear for everyone who wants to understand it. And if person doesn’t want to understand, it really doesn’t matter how it would be said.

Why would you keep someone who sacrifices himself to himself to save you from himself as a solution for the problems he is ultimately responsible for himself?

I have no such belief and that is not what the Bible says. Where do you get that idea? I think that is a strawman argument against the Bible and you are really criticizing something else than the Bible.

In any case, you have failed to answer my question: why do the contents of the message matter? It doesn't matter, when the question is if the author of said message exists and if the message is authentic.

I have no problem in believing that Thor may have existed. But, by what he allegedly says, I wouldn’t keep him as my god, because he is basically in the same level as you are, not as great (wise and good and loving) as Bible God.

Who are you to dictate to the gods what their message, plans and priorities should be?

If you also do so, why shouldn’t I be also good enough to decide what to keep as my God?

Truth is not dependend on wheter or not you "like" it.

I agree with that. Truth is what it is.

 

[Raw020]

That would aslo make him rather lazy and naive. It would also make him rather uncarring since he doesn't seem to understand human psychology and political history or doesn't care to understand it.

Not all. Delegation of authority is not a characteristic of laziness. It is the one of trust.

Secondly, He teaches us that He never purposed that this world will be marked by self rule. We will need to accept others as a means to accomplish His purpose. We are caretakers here on earth. If Adam had not sinned, he would likely be a world administrator. From him perhaps more will receive lesser authority in ruling the world. We were to take care of this world. God never purposed to rule directly without a medium. This he showed in the family setting too. He assigns the man as the head of his family.

If He gives the direction on how things should be done, that shows He cares.

 

[Raw020]

Now you're attributing human characteristics to God. God knows all things. He isn't limited by our psychological inclinations.

Yes. We mirror Him in a limited way. (Gen 1:27)

 

[epronovost]

Not all. Delegation of authority is not a characteristic of laziness. It is the one of trust.

I don't see either as mutually exclusive. Considering that your deity would have some quasi or completely limitless capabilities and almost boundless energy for work, him delegating his authority to a scant few humans during a 1000 years period over the 200 000 years of homo sapiens existence. I would consider that to be extremely naive to think it would work as a form of guidance and that naivety is born out of laziness for not trying to understand humans as they are.

If He gives the direction on how things should be done, that shows He cares.

That shows He cares about how things should be done, it doesn't show He cares about results, efficacy or even the subject of His orders and instructions. A king who delegates to too few and/or incompetant ministers too vague instructions will be considered, at best, as a petulant king. Shouldn't a God be expected to do better by far than any king?