Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I gave attributes of G-d that I believe in in my post # 159. Please read it.
I also mentioned that He has communicated with human beings, in fact these attributes have been mentioned by Him in his communication to us.
Why not believe in Him?

Regards

I used to. Why not believe in him? Because I've been tricked like that before. The promises given were not fulfilled; which should be impossible for the god presented in the Abrahamic scriptures. My road from a religious fanatic to the unwavering atheist I am today was a journey that took over 20 years. I did not want to stop believing. With my life experiences, disbelief was inevitable. It was a very difficult and painful journey where I eventually ended up asking very basic questions; like; What does it mean:

• To be human?
• To live?
• To die?

And:

• If reality isn't what I thought it was, then What is reality?
• How do I know good from evil?

And more.

No. I can not believe. I can not believe because belief is what led me to disbelief.

But thank you for what I perceive to be compassion on your part.

 

[paarsurrey]

I used to. Why not believe in him? Because I've been tricked like that before. The promises given were not fulfilled; which should be impossible for the god presented in the Abrahamic scriptures. My road from a religious fanatic to the unwavering atheist I am today was a journey that took over 20 years. I did not want to stop believing. With my life experiences, disbelief was inevitable. It was a very difficult and painful journey where I eventually ended up asking very basic questions; like; What does it mean:

• To be human?
• To live?
• To die?

And:

• If reality isn't what I thought it was, then What is reality?
• How do I know good from evil?

And more.

No. I can not believe. I can not believe because belief is what led me to disbelief.

But thank you for what I perceive to be compassion on your part.

I am sorry to state that so far nobody has given any positive proofs and evidences as desired under the topic "Your best argument that G-d does not exist".
All I get is just in an indirect way admission of our Atheistic friends here that it cannot be done. They have only tried to find faults in the believers which does not directly touch the topic.

Now your points in the post.

• As you have not been satisfied with the Theistic mind-set, and with your bitter experience has left believing in G-d the same way we find people who left Atheism and have fervently joined Theism with bitter experience in other side of the fence. This is an ongoing traffic from Theism to Atheism and from Atheism to Theism. While I understand your position, yet it does not make a good argument for others, you would realize.
• Search for truth is an ongoing process. We cannot convince anybody for sure, we can only help one with good arguments, the convincing part is to be done by the individual himself. There are no short-cuts.
• The rest of the questions, though very important as they are, yet are out of the purview of the topic at hand.

Thanks for the input. Wish you or others will bring out some positive proofs and evidences viz a viz "your best argument that G-d does not exist".

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What are the criteria for godhood, and how does the universe fulfill them?

Who runs the Universe?
Briefly G-d runs and sustains it with the attributes some of which are mentioned in post # 159. These attributes define Him and fulfil the criteria with most excellence.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Who runs the Universe?
Briefly G-d runs and sustains it with the attributes some of which are mentioned in post # 159. These attributes define Him and fulfil the criteria with most excellence.

Regards

In that case, it would seem that either deism, pantheism or atheism make more sense than monotheism.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thats an agnostic view?

A good point. The Atheist positively and emphatically claim that "G-d does not exist" but are shy to provide any proofs and evidences.
The Agnostic are still not decided.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

In that case, it would seem that either deism, pantheism or atheism make more sense than monotheism.

I think that is another topic.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

This topic is about arguments for the non-existence of god. If god is he who runs the universe, that is by itself an indication that he does not exist.

 

[Desert Snake]

This topic is about arguments for the non-existence of god. If god is he who runs the universe, that is by itself an indication that he does not exist.

Well, deity could be used as a scapegoat for ones own actions. I don't think that G-d is running everything like that, in some minute detail, that is why we have freewill, etc.

 

[Desert Snake]

In that case, it would seem that either deism, pantheism or atheism make more sense than monotheism.

Right. Ironic, isn't it..
I think we might be observing pantheism with a veneer of monotheism? Perhaps...

 

[Blastcat]

A good point. The Atheist positively and emphatically claim that "G-d does not exist" but are shy to provide any proofs and evidences.
The Agnostic are still not decided.

Regards

No, you are wrong as to what it means to be an atheist.
Now, it may well be true that SOME atheists positively and emphatically claim that god does not exist, but that doesn't meant that ALL atheists think that way, or express themselves that way.
And you also don't seem to have a good understanding of what it means to be an agnostic.

You ARE close, but you over-generalize.

Thinking atheists and agnostics have come up with way more precise, and much more useful definitions for each term.
Since the "New Atheist" movement, people have been spending a lot of time thinking about just what it means to be an agnostic and an atheist, you see. And we have come up with some very good working definitions that.. don't really reflect your views on the subject.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am sorry to state that so far nobody has given any positive proofs and evidences as desired under the topic "Your best argument that G-d does not exist".
All I get is just in an indirect way admission of our Atheistic friends here that it cannot be done. They have only tried to find faults in the believers which does not directly touch the topic.

Now your points in the post.

• As you have not been satisfied with the Theistic mind-set, and with your bitter experience has left believing in G-d the same way we find people who left Atheism and have fervently joined Theism with bitter experience in other side of the fence. This is an ongoing traffic from Theism to Atheism and from Atheism to Theism. While I understand your position, yet it does not make a good argument for others, you would realize.
• Search for truth is an ongoing process. We cannot convince anybody for sure, we can only help one with good arguments, the convincing part is to be done by the individual himself. There are no short-cuts.
• The rest of the questions, though very important as they are, yet are out of the purview of the topic at hand.

Thanks for the input. Wish you or others will bring out some positive proofs and evidences viz a viz "your best argument that G-d does not exist".

Regards

The post upon which you are replying does not relate to the "best argument that God does not exist". It is a response to your statement "Why not believe in Him?"

A poignant argument against the existence of God is that all of the efforts to prove his existence have failed; and these efforts have been put forth for thousands of years.

I will remind you of my arguments against the existence of god:

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).

To see the evidence for God, usually, one must first believe he exists.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, you are wrong as to what it means to be an atheist.
Now, it may well be true that SOME atheists positively and emphatically claim that god does not exist, but that doesn't meant that ALL atheists think that way, or express themselves that way.
And you also don't seem to have a good understanding of what it means to be an agnostic.

You ARE close, but you over-generalize.

Thinking atheists and agnostics have come up with way more precise, and much more useful definitions for each term.
Since the "New Atheist" movement, people have been spending a lot of time thinking about just what it means to be an agnostic and an atheist, you see. And we have come up with some very good working definitions that.. don't really reflect your views on the subject.

It is OK with me whatever way you define your ideology. It is new born.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The criteria that I consider is eternal, infinite, contains all things that ever could be known, give lives, is the source of our existence, will exist after we're gone, and it has all the power that ever exists. Most of the attributes of the judeo-christian God, except the sentient and external. But also, it is what produced consciousness and mind (or 'created" in a non-anthropomorphic sense).

All revealed religions have the same core teachings if they have the Word of G-d in a secure and pristine form in the original language it was given to their founder. Attributes of G-d define G-d therefore it must be a part of them duly elaborated in the Word of G-d.
If it is not secure due to debris of time, the core teachings could be lost or defaced.
The concept of Abrahamic religions is erroneous.
The truthful religion was founded by the first human being who got evolved and received Converse of G-d.
Abraham is an important person though.

Regards

 

[Ouroboros]

All revealed religions have the same core teachings if they have the Word of G-d in a secure and pristine form in the original language it was given to their founder. Attributes of G-d define G-d therefore it must be a part of them duly elaborated in the Word of G-d.
If it is not secure due to debris of time, the core teachings could be lost or defaced.
The concept of Abrahamic religions is erroneous.
The truthful religion was founded by the first human being who got evolved and received Converse of G-d.
Abraham is an important person though.

Regards

The concept of Abrahamic religions is erroneous... isn't your religion considered one of them?

 

[paarsurrey]

The concept of Abrahamic religions is erroneous... isn't your religion considered one of them?

They do it, but sometimes it creates confusion. It denotes racism while the Truthful Religions is for the whole world. I belong to Abraham as much as I belong to Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster etc in their spiritual advancement.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The problem is that right now the definition of "God" is owned by the atheists.

I don't agree with you.
Definition of G-d is the prerogative of a Theist, whatever way he defines according to his perspective. The Atheists cannot bind one on their definition. This would be against the freedom of religion and freedom of thought.

Regards

Point to Note:
Nobody has given any positive proofs and evidences that “G-d does not exist"

 

[paarsurrey]

How can you say "In all fairness, all gods exists, as a concept simply because they are claimed to exist." (#23)

I want to make it clear, since I started the thread, that the OP believes in Oneness of G-d. The word "G-d" is singular, so discussing "all gods exists" or "many gods" is another topic. Please

Regards

Point to note:
Nobody has given any positive proofs and evidences that “G-d does not exist"

 

[paarsurrey]

The title Tao is also a title for it, and there are other ones, like Brahman I think is fairly close, and more.

Tao, Brahman or any other good name for God in any ancient or living language does not matter, if it has been revealed to anybody by express Word of G-d as long as the core attributes are the same. It is attributes that define and identify G-d.

Regards

Point to note:
Nobody has given any positive proofs and evidences that “G-d does not exist"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I want to make it clear, since I started the thread, that the OP believes in Oneness of G-d. The word "G-d" is singular, so discussing "all gods exists" or "many gods" is another topic. Please

Regards

Point to note:
Nobody has given any positive proofs and evidences that “G-d does not exist"

Take off the s. Gods or god, same question just make it singular

 

[paarsurrey]

It's not that atheists "own" the definition of God; it's that you can't unilaterally impose your particular definition on others.

I agree with you here.

Regards

Point to note:
Nobody has given any positive proofs and evidences that “G-d does not exist"