Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[paarsurrey]

The Atheists to give their proofs and evidences to convince the Theists

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which God?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

A few random thoughts:

• How about give proofs and evidence that Sasquatch doesn't exist .... The only evidence that substantiates that Sasquatch doesn't exist is based on lack of evidence that Sasquatch exists.
• The one who makes the positive claim is the one who bears the burden of proof. Thus, for one to say "such and such doesn't exist" has made a negative claim. The fact that this is a negative claim does not bind that individual to the burden of proof. The one who says, "such and such DOES exist" now has made a positive claim and the burden of proof rests on them.
• From a purely logical standpoint, most atheists would hold: "There is no evidence for God; thus it is irrational to believe that God exists". Such atheists stand on solid ground of logic and reason. The remaining atheists, like myself, who will claim, "God does not exist" are stating a belief just as much as the one who says "God exists".
• One can not disprove the disprovable any more than on can not prove the provable.
• Sometimes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (i.e. the Platypus, believed to be mythical until its discovery in 1798).

My reasons for believing that God does not exist include the following:

• There is no evidence to substantiate that such a being exists. Those who claim otherwise do not understand "evidence".
• I find it irrational that a being who is supposedly omnipresent can not be detected anywhere; nor its effects being repeatedly, predictably observable makes it horrendously unlikely that such a being exists.
• The Epicurus argument against God, I believe to b among the best: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is ot omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God."
• There appears no need for God. As we progress in scientific knowledge, we continue to find that what was once believed to be supernatural or divine in nature has repeatedly been shown to be natural in origin; ranging from earthquakes to disease to the diversity of life.
  
• Much of what has been attributed to God (miraculous healing, resurrections, etc) have routinely and consistently been debunked. In short, most "miracles" presented by a number of theistic faiths have been shown to be fraudulent, or evidence that they even occurred have failed to meet the burdens of proof and evidence that they ever did exist: Global floods and Shangri Lah among them.
• Most often, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence (Sasquatch, Santa Clause and God).

 

[HonestJoe]

The Atheists to give their proofs and evidences to convince the Theists

Why would I want to? Lots of people believe in some kind of god or gods and lots of people don't. In itself that doesn't really matter. There are a whole load of other things people believe that are much more important to question and challenge.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A few random thoughts:

My reasons for believing that God does not exist include the following:

• There is no evidence to substantiate that such a being exists. Those who claim otherwise do not understand "evidence".

But multiverses, M theory, any other atheist creation myth gets a waiver on this?

• I find it irrational that a being who is supposedly omnipresent can not be detected anywhere; nor its effects being repeatedly, predictably observable makes it horrendously unlikely that such a being exists.

again like the above? while it is perfectly consistent with an intelligent designer to prefer discretion- to encourage our exploration, learning and hence appreciation of creation, as well as personal journeys of discovery, faith, love..

for a natural, unintelligent creation mechanism to likewise achieve all this accidentally, would have to be chalked up to yet one more bizarre fluke.

• The Epicurus argument against God, I believe to b among the best: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is ot omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God."

Why didn't God just create left and leave out right to avoid confusion? Similarly Good and evil are literally defined by each other, destroy one and you destroy the other.

• There appears no need for God. As we progress in scientific knowledge, we continue to find that what was once believed to be supernatural or divine in nature has repeatedly been shown to be natural in origin; ranging from earthquakes to disease to the diversity of life.

Nature is the executor of God's laws. (Galileo) The more we learn, the more complex, less self explanatory those laws become.

Similarly the more code you can find specifically describing how this website operates, the less likely it is that it accidentally wrote itself for no particular reason!

 

[JRMcC]

The Atheists to give their proofs and evidences to convince the Theists

Regards

"Exists" implies that the thing/being in question is physical in some sense, and I don't think anything that a thing/being that does what God does could possibly be limited by physical properties. Therefore God doesn't "exist."

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

But multiverses, M theory, any other atheist creation myth gets a waiver on this?

No; because these are conjectures as to what "could be" and not statements of what "is"; ALSO the evidence of a multiverse and M theory lie in mathematics, which is more evidence than what exists for God; and LAST BUT NOT LEAST, atheism has nothing to do with evolution or cosmology and such theories deriving from the study of our natural world is based on some kind of evidence that far supersedes ignoramuses from thousands of years ago said it was.

again like the above? while it is perfectly consistent with an intelligent designer to prefer discretion- to encourage our exploration, learning and hence appreciation of creation, as well as personal journeys of discovery, faith, love..

for a natural, unintelligent creation mechanism to likewise achieve all this accidentally, would have to be chalked up to yet one more bizarre fluke.

IF a man does not respect evidence, what evidence can you present to dissuade him of his position? If a man does not respect facts, what facts can you present to dissuade him of his opinion?

You respect neither, thus further discussion on this matter is pointless.

Why didn't God just create left and leave out right to avoid confusion? Similarly Good and evil are literally defined by each other, destroy one and you destroy the other.

Because that is not what is being claimed by theists when they say "God exists". Theists who make such claims are overwhelmingly speaking of a personal God who answers prayer and is, and has been, very involved in the development of mankind and culture and individuals. Changing the character or mythos of "God" to fit your claim is called "goalpost shifting".

Nature is the executor of God's laws. The more we learn, the more complex, less self explanatory those laws become. and nature causing diversity has apparently not been very convincingly shown yet!

Again: As you do not respect evidence, there is no evidence I, or anyone else can present to dissuade you of your position. Anyone who knows anything about biology accept evolution; statistics and polls clearly show that the more educated one becomes, the less likely they are to believe in supernatural entities (an religion); thus those who have devoted their lives to the study of the diversity of life, physics and cosmology roll their eyes and laugh at such a silly statement like "nature causing diversity has apparently not been very convincingly shown yet!"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No; because these are conjectures as to what "could be" and not statements of what "is"; ALSO the evidence of a multiverse and M theory lie in mathematics, which is more evidence than what exists for God; and LAST BUT NOT LEAST, atheism has nothing to do with evolution or cosmology and such theories deriving from the study of our natural world is based on some kind of evidence that far supersedes ignoramuses from thousands of years ago said it was.

ignoramuses thousands of years ago thought the universe began in a specific creation event
elite atheist academics 100 years ago claimed it was static/ eternal/ uncreated- 'based on the math' and called the alternative 'religious pseudoscience'
The biggest scientific question of all time- who was right?

IF a man does not respect evidence, what evidence can you present to dissuade him of his position? If a man does not respect facts, what facts can you present to dissuade him of his opinion?
You respect neither, thus further discussion on this matter is pointless.

like most here I assume you are honest, intelligent and capable of critical thought, ad-hominem attacks are the most graceless form of conceding defeat in a debate

Because that is not what is being claimed by theists when they say "God exists". Theists who make such claims are overwhelmingly speaking of a personal God who answers prayer and is, and has been, very involved in the development of mankind and culture and individuals. Changing the character or mythos of "God" to fit your claim is called "goalpost shifting".

I agree with this concept of God, it would seem irrational to me to create a world and then take no interest in it

Again: As you do not respect evidence, there is no evidence I, or anyone else can present to dissuade you of your position. Anyone who knows anything about biology accept evolution; statistics and polls clearly show that the more educated one becomes, the less likely they are to believe in supernatural entities (an religion); thus those who have devoted their lives to the study of the diversity of life, physics and cosmology roll their eyes and laugh at such a silly statement like "nature causing diversity has apparently not been very convincingly shown yet!"

As above, the 'uneducated masses' deduced a creation event, and that Newton's laws were inadequate for accounting for the physical world contrary to those 'dedicating their lives to studying the opposite'

People who have devoted their lives to paranormal investigation roll their eyes at such silly statements like 'evidence for ghosts isn't all that convincing yet'!

i.e. I'll be convinced on the evidence, not institutionalized academic consensus. I'd guess that Galileo, Lemaitre, Einstein, Planck would all side with me on that?

 

[leibowde84]

The Atheists to give their proofs and evidences to convince the Theists

Regards

This is not a reasonable request until you define what God is specifically. This should be obvious, as it is completely ridiculous to ask a person to prove that something does not exist when all that is given is a vague explanation or none at all (like in this thread).

Can you define God for the atheists on this thread so they at least have something to work with?

Also, only "strong-atheists" believe that God does not exist. Most atheists, (weak-atheists, agnostics) merely lack a belief in the existence of God.

 

[Laika]

Our senses are reliable. What you see is what you get. There is nothing beyond, behind or above the world which we percieve of our sense-perception. there is no duality of mind or body, of spirit and matter. There is nothing beyond our perception and therefore nothing which is inherently unknowable. Agnosticism is as much as an error as Theism. There is only matter which exists objectively of the mind.

Consciousness is a product of matter as organised in the brain and the mind is identical with the brain. There can be no conscious which exists independently of natural pheneomena; hence there can be no supernatural pheneomena as dis-embonided forms of consciousness, whether as spirit, soul, idea, principle, concept or god.

There is no god. god is an illusion. man imagined god because he sought to explain the world by attributing consciousness to it and as the cause of our existence, the universe, society etc. There is no soul and no afterlife. Now Materialism, Naturalism and Science can show us the way. Our powers are limited only by our knowledge and our technology. With it, we will improve ourselves and improve the world to suit us.

And I looked down upon my new dominion, and I thought it good.

 

[Quintessence]

This is not a reasonable request until you define what God is specifically. This should be obvious, as it is completely ridiculous to ask a person to prove that something does not exist when all that is given is a vague explanation or none at all (like in this thread).

Can you define God for the atheists on this thread so they at least have something to work with?

Also, only "strong-atheists" believe that God does not exist. Most atheists, (weak-atheists, agnostics) merely lack a belief in the existence of God.

It's also not a reasonable request until what "exists" means is defined. What ontological perspective is being assumed?

And then we can ask if theists believe in their gods in that manner of existence in the first place, which many of them do not, seeing as how there are many types of theism and we're not all mind-clones of each other. Yay strawpersons!

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don't believe in your god for the same reason you don't believe in the Space Whales of Jupiter.

That's all the evidence that is necessary for dismissal of an idea.
If there is nothing but conjecture to substantiate the idea, then there is nothing.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

ignoramuses thousands of years ago thought the universe began in a specific creation event
elite atheist academics 100 years ago claimed it was static/ eternal/ uncreated- 'based on the math' and called the alternative 'religious pseudoscience'
The biggest scientific question of all time- who was right?

False dichotomy: Either ignoamouses thousands of years ago were right; or academics 100 years ago were right; pretending that there are no other options.

like most here I assume you are honest, intelligent and capable of critical thought, ad-hominem attacks are the most graceless form of conceding defeat in a debate

An ad hominem attack is an attack upon one's character. I made no argument regarding your character; but a simple observation. You reject evidence supporting evolution through countless sciences ranging from embryology to genetics to paleontology to just about everything else and keep regurgitating the same arguments, which basically amount to "but science has been wrong before!"; thus, you do not respect facts or evidence.

I do not admit defeat; I admit that I am powerless to convince you how wrong you really are. A friend of mine many years ago said: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".

I'd have better luck educating my pet parakeet of evolution than I would have educating you.

But I digress. This is supposed to be a thread about disproving God. I have freely admitted that one can not disprove the disprovable. I have admitted that my statement that "There is no God" is a belief. What more do you want?

I agree with this concept of God, it would seem irrational to me to create a world and then take no interest in it

Then don't speculate that God exited stage right to eliminate confusion. As you don't believe that yourself, then the speculation is clearly and wholly argumentative.

As above, the 'uneducated masses' deduced a creation event, and that Newton's laws were inadequate for accounting for the physical world contrary to those 'dedicating their lives to studying the opposite'

Our beliefs on the workings of the natural world change in light of new evidence. This is how science works. This is also the very concept of science that you try to use as a weapon against it. In my conclusion, you are purely anti-science; you attack its methodology at its core; then tout it when it furthers your agenda.

People who have devoted their lives to paranormal investigation roll their eyes at such silly statements like 'evidence for ghosts isn't all that convincing yet'!

Paranormal investigators are a joke. They, like monster hunters, creationists and 911 conspiracy theorists start on bad footing from the get go: They look for evidence to substantiate their claims. Real scientists look for evidence to disprove their claims. Each are rich with logic errors; Selection bias, Informational bias, Presuppositions. Because big foot hunters, paranormal investigators and conspiracy theorists do not understand or properly use the scientific method or investigative process, their input is worthless as worst; highly questionable at best.

Dull regurgitation of your same arguments won't make those arguments any more valid.

i.e. I'll be convinced on the evidence, not institutionalized academic consensus. I'd guess that Galileo, Lemaitre, Einstein, Planck would all side with me on that?

You are not convinced with evidence as the evidence has been presented to you and yet you have summarily rejected it based solely on the fact that it does not fit your current model of reality. Genetics, Paleontology, Embryology, Comparative Morphology, Molecular Biology, and a myriad of other scientific disciplines support evolution. The evidence is plentifully overwhelming. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Admitting that one does not know what reality truly is; that is a scary thing to do. I've been there. Good luck on your quest.

 

[Jumi]

Depends on the God and what attributes are assumed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The Atheists to give their proofs and evidences to convince the Theists

Theists will never be convinced because they have a strong emotional need to believe.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Ignoring the "what God?" and "please define God" posts in reply - since the OP specifically "atheists" reply, then the answer to "what God?" is really just a big, fat "any" - and defining God is, in my opinion, moot - we all have a different conception anyway - and I think when we gather in more social settings like this, the generic form of communal understanding should be enough. There are plenty of other posts where the term "God" is just as vaguely thrown around, and I don't see everyone jumping on the "define God" tack.

Anyway, here are my points (actually pertaining to the original post):

1. "Sightings" of God-helpers and recordings of "verified" supernatural events/miracles have diminished greatly over time - and now, in the age of immediate information transfer, we see next to nothing. God has been relegated to no more than responsibility for the everyday occurrences of life that, let's face it, would have happened anyway. Is it a coincidence that this happens just as humans are more accurately and quickly able to exchange information? I say no.
2. Many religious texts are flawed, contradictory or have parts within them that no one would even dream of adhering to in this day and age. Basically, their relevance in some aspects (albeit many more peripheral ones) has also diminished with time (who would have thought!?!). If there were an all-powerful, all knowing God, couldn't the text have been inspired to be crafted such that this sort of attrition of relevance wouldn't occur?
3. The observable, recorded, verifiable world we exist within follows a specific set of physical rules. One of the cardinal members being that the amount of energy in the universe is fixed. However, ideas like a "soul" existing beyond the grave, there being an afterlife, or even there existing some heavenly or otherwise supernatural agency that is ALWAYS in production without any external inputs is, to my mind, ridiculous. There is not only no evidence to support this - it isn't even possible according to the rules that govern the universe we live within.
4. People are what they are. Humans are flawed in so many ways. We're so willing to cling to things, so easily misconstrue our thoughts and happenstance within our lives as anything and everything but what it most likely is: reality, plain and simple reality. Why is THAT the most shocking thing it could be? Why is THAT the thing that so many people strive to deny? Too simple? Not grand enough? So instead you go on to invent things to help you liven up the world for yourself?
5. Religion and invention of a common-thread mechanism like "God" as the appeasement of our human desires for a sense of belonging and community makes WAY TOO MUCH SENSE. To my mind it is a huge explanation for why religion/God exists in the first place. Why there can be non-believers "going through the motions" and "putting in the time" within the body of a belief - they want to be accepted - saying and doing certain things (even when they may not agree with them or find them wholeheartedly silly) gets them there.
6. Human vanity. I just can't not see this one - humans wanting with all their hearts to believe that we are special in the universe - that even an all-powerful being drops everything else he is doing to create us, love on us and hear us out. All the animals, and indeed the entire world, He has placed at our disposal, to do with as we wish. So many theists would rage against this idea, and say it is all about giving God the credit, and showing God the worship, etc. But I just don't see it. Try arguing animal rights with many theists. Compassion for the animals is usually nowhere to be found - shows you squarely who they position at the "center". The invention of an afterlife - same thing. Human conceit and pride. "What would the universe be without ME in it?! There HAS TO BE more, if for no other reason that I go on existing."

To sum up, in my mind there is just too much that points away from the existence of God, and not nearly enough pointing to that existence. And I fully accept and acknowledge that that is just me.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

False dichotomy: Either ignoamouses thousands of years ago were right; or academics 100 years ago were right; pretending that there are no other options.

ignoramuses have a pretty good track record over academics in many of these big questions. Doesn't mean they are always right, just that academic consensus alone is unreliable.

Then don't speculate that God exited stage right to eliminate confusion. As you don't believe that yourself, then the speculation is clearly and wholly argumentative.

not sure where the confusion started there, the point was that good and evil define each other as do left and right, remove one you remove the other.

Our beliefs on the workings of the natural world change in light of new evidence. This is how science works. This is also the very concept of science that you try to use as a weapon against it. In my conclusion, you are purely anti-science; you attack its methodology at its core; then tout it when it furthers your agenda.

we all love the methodology, consensus of academic opinion is something quite different,

I am anti-science as the term 'science' is often used, a label stuck on an opinion & meant to be translated as 'unquestionable', the exact opposite of science.

rich with logic errors; Selection bias, Informational bias, Presuppositions -

like Piltdown man

You are not convinced with evidence as the evidence has been presented to you

'it's as thought they were just planted there with no evolutionary history [] though we strongly suspect' Dawkins- suspicion is not convincing evidence, no matter how many scientists share it.

Admitting that one does not know what reality truly is; that is a scary thing to do. I've been there. Good luck on your quest.

I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, do you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ignoring the "what God?" and "please define God" posts in reply - since the OP specifically "atheists" reply, then the answer to "what God?" is really just a big, fat "any" - and defining God is, in my opinion, moot - we all have a different conception anyway - and I think when we gather in more social settings like this, the generic form of communal understanding should be enough. There are plenty of other posts where the term "God" is just as vaguely thrown around, and I don't see everyone jumping on the "define God" tack.

I asked "which God?" for 2 reasons:

- different arguments apply to different gods.
- some things that people call "gods" are things I agree exist; I just don't consider them gods. I'm not going to argue that a sun-worshipper's "god" doesn't exist, because I agree that the Sun exists.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I asked "which God?" for 2 reasons:

- different arguments apply to different gods.
- some things that people call "gods" are things I agree exist; I just don't consider them gods. I'm not going to argue that a sun-worshipper's "god" doesn't exist, because I agree that the Sun exists.

I see your point entirely, and it makes sense. I have met others who claim their "God" to be no more than the sum of all rules that are actively applied upon the universe - and yeah, I am not about to argue with them that their God doesn't exist. Sorry for any misinterpretation.

 

[jonathan180iq]

In all fairness, all gods exists, as a concept simply because they are claimed to exist.
For comparison, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because we claim it exists. Any arguments that theists can make for their god (namely that he exists beyond the realm of quantifiable data) I can make for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I challenge anyone on this board to prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
Similarly, theists challenge atheists to prove that their god of choice doesn't exist.

It's impossible.