What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[SithDoughnut]

Regarding your first point, do you mean:
(1) “there is no evidence” for you personally?
Or you do you mean
(2) “there is no evidence” at all for anyone?

I can't speak for everyone, just me, so it's number 1. I'd be comfortable in saying that there is no empirical evidence for everyone, which is pretty much necessary in order to demonstrate God beyond personal opinion.

(1) Then are you saying that you are genuinely looking for evidence? Or have you decided there is no evidence and therefore will not look for, or further consider anything that other people deem to be “evidence”. I think what you really mean is that you have rejected what other people who do actually believe in God consider to be “the evidence”.

Neither. I've looked for the evidence; if it exists it is doing a very good job of hiding, and I have a limited amount of time and far more important things to be doing with it. Perhaps it does exist, but I don't know where I would find it or what I would be looking for (given that I am almost certain that empirical, "real" evidence does not exist) so it would be impossible to find.

And yes, I have rejected what Christians consider to be the evidence, because most of it is personal experience. As I have not had the same experiences as everyone else, how can I know that it is truly evidence?

What you can say is that you don’t accept the evidence, you don’t want to believe the evidence or that you are not searching for the evidence – and I expect the later to be more accurate.

The question then follows from this position is to turn to you and ask either (i) why you don’t accept the evidence,

Personal experience is not evidence for anyone other than the person in question, and even then it is dubious. There isn't really anything else going for Christianity, because any attempts at using the Bible as evidence leads to circular arguments, and there is no physical evidence for God.

and /or (ii) where have you been looking for the evidence?

Other people, the Bible, etc. I quickly realised that the potential sources of evidence were very small, and not particularly good.

Here in the last quote Russell is essentially saying “I need God….but I won’t believe in him”

That doesn't prove the existence of God. I'd quite like an all-loving, all-powerful protector of a God to exist too. Desires do not necessarily reflect reality, nor are they necessary. There are a lot of children out there who need Santa - does that mean that he is necessary?

As for the rest, the same argument applies, and when it comes to some of the quotes I am doubtful as to whether they are actually talking about the God you think they are.

I have to say I really like discussing these matters with Atheists – it really strengthens my faith when I realise what weak ground Atheism is actually based on..

Considering the counter-arguments you've posted, one must wonder whether you actually understand the "weak ground" in the first place. You appear to be under the impression that personal opinion is evidence and wanting something hard enough accurately reflects reality.

 

[Genersis]

The truth is, if there were 100% Unfalsifiable evidence for god, AKA empirical evidence for a god, there wouldn't be any unbelievers.
The only people who wouldn't believe would be either deluded or just saying they don't believe.
This almost seems to be what some of those of religion suggest atheists are doing...

If there is empirical evidence, then present it. Then we'd all be believers.
If empirical evidence was found, i'm sure that evidence would of generated some media hype and publicity somewhere, and i'm sure the followers of this god would of spouted it so much it would be common knowledge.

 

[Nabobalis]

Misquote from me.
I never said it changed E=MC2.
It questioned the previous understanding that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. I believe this experiment has been repeated a number of times.

No big deal as far as I'm concerned - just don't put all your eggs in the "science has all the answers" basket, that's all....

Well I don't think anyone would say that science has all the answers. It will never have all the answers - it would take eons before we ever got to that level of understanding. Anyone who works in science knows it is always up for debate no matter the subject (with in reason).

 

[Nabobalis]

Thanks for your reply - all fair and honest comments...

Interesting that you think that Christ didn't exist (have I read between the lines correctly?)

Did you know that there is a huge amount of non biblical historical evidence to support the existence of Christ? Tacitus for example, a Roman historian who wrote an account of Roman history around AD110 refers to both Christ (Christus) and Pontius Pilate in his "Annals"...
Tacitus was no disciple or follower of Christ - so why mention this person Jesus Christ if he never existed?

Generally speaking approx 20 world religions accept the person "Jesus Christ" in some form or another.

Most serious academics in history and anthropology regardless of religious belief concur that there is little doubt that someone called Jesus Christ lived approx 2000 years ago...

The real question is was he who he claimed he was??!

But this is going off thread now, so would need to be treated separately from the OT which I am intending to try and keep separate from Christianity or "religion"

I don't see where I thought I said Christ didn't exist I think Christ did exist, whether or not he was the son of god is another question. But you are right, it is a topic for another thread.

 

[ianb321red]

I don't see where I thought I said Christ didn't exist I think Christ did exist, whether or not he was the son of god is another question. But you are right, it is a topic for another thread.

Ok - my apologies

 

[ianb321red]

The truth is, if there were 100% Unfalsifiable evidence for god, AKA empirical evidence for a god, there wouldn't be any unbelievers.

Ok, let me turn this logic back to you for a moment:
1) How do we know anything about history?
2) How do we know anything about the existence any of the key historical figures that lived?
3) Answer 1+2 and provide me with 100% Unfalsifiable evidence.
4) The point is that we believe a lot of things about history including the existence of key historical figures without what your refer to as empirical evidence.
5) The historians select the pertinent information at that time, and record it in manuscripts and documentation
6) Over the years this is shared and analysed - copies are made of source manuscripts
7) So in fact our entire knowledge of human history is NOT based on 100% unfalsifiable empirical research.
8) But do you believe anything about any history, irrespective of it being religious or philosophical? Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed for example? What about Plato or Aristotle?
9) Ask yourself why you believe what you believe about history...

If there is empirical evidence, then present it. Then we'd all be believers.
If empirical evidence was found, i'm sure that evidence would of generated some media hype and publicity somewhere, and i'm sure the followers of this god would of spouted it so much it would be common knowledge.

It did create hype & publicity - Jesus was crucified for blasphemy for claiming and proving to be God by performing miracles

Christians are followers of Christ and believers in God - this is common knowledge

But even at the time when he lived, people rejected him very much like what still happens in this day and age.

The evidence thing is basically an excuse - which is fair enough to some extent, but it needs to answered nevertheless....

 

[Nabobalis]

Ok - my apologies

It is fine, I'm not the most clear person when it comes to text

 

[ianb321red]

That doesn't prove the existence of God. I'd quite like an all-loving, all-powerful protector of a God to exist too. Desires do not necessarily reflect reality, nor are they necessary. There are a lot of children out there who need Santa - does that mean that he is necessary?

As for the rest, the same argument applies, and when it comes to some of the quotes I am doubtful as to whether they are actually talking about the God you think they are.

I was actually answering the "demonstrated necessity" point that Frost made in his post with these quotes.

The point of the quotes was to demonstrate a need for God. I agree that the quotes don't in anyway prove the existence of God.

But they do prove there is a need for God. They don't prove a desire or a want for God. The argument for need states that if you really it (God) then it is somewhere to be found - regardless of whether you find it or not

 

[ianb321red]

Ok, we appear to have reached a common consensus of opinion in that one of the reasons why people who don't believe in the existence of God hold this position because of the lack of empirical 100% unfalsifiable evidence.

My counter argument 3 posts earlier sets out that the lack of empirical 100% unfalsifiable evidence is contrary to the commonly accepted ways in which we gain an understanding of historical events and key historical figures.

To rely on empirical 100% unfalsifiable evidence would therefore simply be impossible.
But do we (or can we) make claims about historical events with any authority without this type of primary evidence?

So I would therefore suggest that lack of evidence does not actually prevent anyone from holding a rational belief in God. I am suggesting that evidence of the type that is being described is both not needed and irrelevant

 

[underheaven]

I can't speak for everyone, just me, so it's number 1. I'd be comfortable in saying that there is no empirical evidence for everyone, which is pretty much necessary in order to demonstrate God beyond personal opinion.



Neither. I've looked for the evidence; if it exists it is doing a very good job of hiding, and I have a limited amount of time and far more important things to be doing with it. Perhaps it does exist, but I don't know where I would find it or what I would be looking for (given that I am almost certain that empirical, "real" evidence does not exist) so it would be impossible to find.

And yes, I have rejected what Christians consider to be the evidence, because most of it is personal experience. As I have not had the same experiences as everyone else, how can I know that it is truly evidence?

What you can say is that you don’t accept the evidence, you don’t want to believe the evidence or that you are not searching for the evidence – and I expect the later to be more accurate.



Personal experience is not evidence for anyone other than the person in question, and even then it is dubious. There isn't really anything else going for Christianity, because any attempts at using the Bible as evidence leads to circular arguments, and there is no physical evidence for God.



Other people, the Bible, etc. I quickly realised that the potential sources of evidence were very small, and not particularly good.



That doesn't prove the existence of God. I'd quite like an all-loving, all-powerful protector of a God to exist too. Desires do not necessarily reflect reality, nor are they necessary. There are a lot of children out there who need Santa - does that mean that he is necessary?

As for the rest, the same argument applies, and when it comes to some of the quotes I am doubtful as to whether they are actually talking about the God you think they are.



Considering the counter-arguments you've posted, one must wonder whether you actually understand the "weak ground" in the first place. You appear to be under the impression that personal opinion is evidence and wanting something hard enough accurately reflects reality.

May I ask if you have ever believed in any way .I did as a youngster ,then fell away with questions like yours.I came back 25 years later 'kicking and denying 'the idea of 'belief ',even with allthe empirical evidence from the studies that I made of the correspondence between the 'sky' and personal human affairs and character .NOT ASTROLOGY which is a false leisure pursuit,with nothing to do with the zodiac signs ,and more to do with 'trickery'. In the sky you can find out more about God,about yourself ,and the wonderfully God designed universe,that He has made.
I am truly disgusted with myself ,that I followed all the false prophets,atheists for so long .They are Blind and in many ways DEAD people,who do not have ACCESS to God ,they having been already 'blocked' to the Briliance of their creator,because of their lack of faith with their desire for power, which does not allow them to accept that they do not have total control over their existence.
The laws of God are 'seen' clearly' in the sky,and our response to them in the moment of birth. ..
The ascendant signs of scorpio and taurus,are most resistent to giving up 'material control/ power,and with a 'weak Ninth house/jupiter,do not [want to] believe in a Higher power, than their own desire. Money power ,sex ;combined with clever aquarius ,they think they can break
the 'rules of CREATION ,but this is an Illusion,and a big one .

 

[SithDoughnut]

The point of the quotes was to demonstrate a need for God. I agree that the quotes don't in anyway prove the existence of God.

They demonstrate a desire for God, not necessarily a need.

But they do prove there is a need for God. They don't prove a desire or a want for God. The argument for need states that if you really it (God) then it is somewhere to be found - regardless of whether you find it or not

You mean the argument from necessity? That doesn't apply here because saying "I need God" is no different from saying "I need some chocolate ice cream". Wanting something does not mean that it exists.

Now, if you can show that God is logically necessary, then you would have an argument.

On a side note, I'm honestly surprised that this thread hasn't been locked yet...

 

[SithDoughnut]

May Iaskif you have ever believed in any way .

Yes. As a Christian, your view may differ, but I consider myself to have been a "true" Christian, just like other Christians.

In the sky you can find out more about God,about yourself ,and the wonderfully God designed universe,that He has made.

There's nothing about me or God in the sky, unless you start with the presupposition that there is.

They are Blind and in many ways DEAD people,who do not have ACCESS to God ,they having been already 'blocked' to the Briliance of their creator,because of their lack of faith with their desire for power, which does not allow them to accept that they do not have total control over their existence.

This is false, at least in mind and many other's cases. Perhaps you have to create strawmen to justify your view of atheism, but they're not true. I have no desire for power (in fact, I actively avoid it) and I know that I do not control my existence.

The ascendant signs of scorpio and taurus,are most resistent to giving up 'material control/ power,and with a 'weak Ninth house/jupiter,do not [want to] believe in a Higher power, than their own desire. Money power ,sex ;combined with clever aquarius ,they think they can break
the 'rules of CREATION ,but this is an Illusion,and a big one .

You said "not astrology" earlier. I'm afraid this is astrology, which you've apparently tried to combine with Christianity by telling yourself that it isn't.

 

[ianb321red]

You mean the argument from necessity? That doesn't apply here because saying "I need God" is no different from saying "I need some chocolate ice cream". Wanting something does not mean that it exists.

You're getting confused between want and need.
Nobody needs chocolate icecream - you might want it or prefer it, but that's different to needing it.

We all need water - therefore it really exists

But I'm NOT saying that everything we need we get. Plenty of people need water but die of thirst, and there are people who need food and die of starvation..

The argument says that if you really need it, then it is somewhere to be found whether you find it or not

The quotes I gave in my original post on this demonstrate a need for God from Atheists
The point is that God exists irrespective of peoples belief or disbelief.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You're getting confused between want and need.
Nobody needs chocolate icecream - you might want it or prefer it, but that's different to needing it.

We all need water - therefore it really exists

But I'm NOT saying that everything we need we get. Plenty of people need water but die of thirst, and there are people who need food and die of starvation..

The argument says that if you really need it, then it is somewhere to be found whether you find it or not

The quotes I gave in my original post on this demonstrate a need for God from Atheists
The point is that God exists irrespective of peoples belief or disbelief.

Nice try but fallacious. There are many needs which cannot be met. Of course you would probably claim that just because we do not have an answer right now doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. For example, my father-in-law needs a cure for an aggressive terminal cancer or he'll die in a matter of days. Are you sure such a cure exists but we haven't found it yet?

Again, people used to die of snake bites. They needed an anti-venom but such a thing did not exist. We have now created one but that does not alter the fact that for a very long time the need could not be met. Future improvements in medical techniques or the creation of new drugs don't count - if they do not exist now then future existence is irrelevant.

Organ transplants - you need the organ but you also need a surgical technique and a range of instruments. The organs may have existed for millenia but the techniques and instruments didn't.

 

[ianb321red]

Now, if you can show that God is logically necessary, then you would have an argument.

Well I would say it's illogical NOT to be believe in God.

It's very simple:
A belief in God is entirely logical, and the cosmological argument is probably the best example to use.

Quite simply with this argument there are 2 choices:

1) Someone made something out of nothing
2) No one made something out of nothing

Which of those is the most logical?

The cosmological argument argues for the existence of God as a first cause. By contrast an atheist believes that the universe is uncaused and in some cases eternal steady state

The universe had to have a beginning because logically something can’t start from nothing. (Now I know that some atheists argue that the universe is eternal steady state, but to believe that you'd really need to turn a blind eye to scientific evidence. The universe did have a beginning - 13.73 billion years ago according to NASA's WMAP)

There is also the scientific evidence from second law of thermodynamics, the universe is expanding, radiation echo, general relativity, energy mass at the edge of the universe

So what caused the universe to begin?

Well science doesn't agree on the answer - there is M Theory, Brane Theory and many other ideas....but no agreed upon single explanation

So the cosmological argument follows logically:

1) Everything that begins has a cause
2) The universe had a beginning
3) Therefore the universe had a cause

Now whether the cause was God, Allah, Brahman or whatever is another question.

But this logic shows the universe is caused by something or someone which existed before the universe did. If the universe has a beginning, then there once was no universe, and then there was – after it was created.

This logic isn't an argument for the Christian God per se (although obviously that's what I believe in) it's an argument for a first cause which can only be explained by a God.

Now I know that this argument doesn't show that "God" is a scientifically proven cause - it's an argument from logic not science.

To counter this, the opposing view would have to:
1) Argue for an eternal, uncaused universe (for which there is overwhelming scientific evidence to disprove)
2) Argue that no one created something from nothing
3) Or argue that something other than God can explain the first cause

My argument says:
1) The universe had a first cause
2) The first cause created something from nothing
3) So logically the first cause can best be explained by God

So my argument for the existence of God is based on science, logic and rationality

 

[ianb321red]

Nice try but fallacious. There are many needs which cannot be met. Of course you would probably claim that just because we do not have an answer right now doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. For example, my father-in-law needs a cure for an aggressive terminal cancer or he'll die in a matter of days. Are you sure such a cure exists but we haven't found it yet?

Again, people used to die of snake bites. They needed an anti-venom but such a thing did not exist. We have now created one but that does not alter the fact that for a very long time the need could not be met. Future improvements in medical techniques or the creation of new drugs don't count - if they do not exist now then future existence is irrelevant.

Organ transplants - you need the organ but you also need a surgical technique and a range of instruments. The organs may have existed for millenia but the techniques and instruments didn't.

Firstly - I am sorry to hear about the situation with your father-in-law.

Good counter argument - but also fallacious.
The argument for need applies to all people - what "we" really need implies every single person who has ever lived.
Your above example is a good argument but only refers to specific individuals with specific needs.

I'm referring to universal needs of the human race, not individual ones.
The need for water is a universal need - every single person does need water.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You're getting confused between want and need.

No, you are. The people you quoted wanted God (at least, just going by their quotes). Just saying "I need X" does not mean that you physically require X. Can you show that those people you quoted physically required a god in the same way that we require water?

 

[SithDoughnut]

1) Someone made something out of nothing
2) No one made something out of nothing

Which of those is the most logical?

It something out of nothing. Both seem equally valid as far as I can tell. There's also option 3, which is everything has always existed.

The cosmological argument argues for the existence of God as a first cause.

No, the cosmological argument argues for a first cause, and then arbitrarily calls that cause God as if no one will spot the massive leap to the conclusion.

By contrast an atheist believes that the universe is uncaused and in some cases eternal steady state.

Nope. An atheist does not believe in God, end of. There are no further statements that apply to all atheists (other than statements that apply to all humans). Anything else you say about atheism is wrong.

Besides, who's saying the universe is uncaused? Causes don't have to be intelligent designers.

The universe had to have a beginning because logically something can’t start from nothing. (Now I know that some atheists argue that the universe is eternal steady state, but to believe that you'd really need to turn a blind eye to scientific evidence. The universe did have a beginning - 13.73 billion years ago according to NASA's WMAP)

There was a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. That does not mean that everything began to exist then.

Now whether the cause was God, Allah, Brahman or whatever is another question.

Exactly. It's not actually an argument for God, even though some people like to pretend it is.

This logic isn't an argument for the Christian God per se (although obviously that's what I believe in) it's an argument for a first cause which can only be explained by a God.

Only if you define God as "the first cause" and nothing else. Otherwise there are always alternatives.

To counter this, the opposing view would have to:
1) Argue for an eternal, uncaused universe (for which there is overwhelming scientific evidence to disprove)
2) Argue that no one created something from nothing
3) Or argue that something other than God can explain the first cause

Not necessarily. There are lots of different ways of looking at it. It isn't as simple as your argument vs this argument.

My argument says:
1) The universe had a first cause
2) The first cause created something from nothing
3) So logically the first cause can best be explained by God

Your argument is logically flawed. Conclusion #3 do not logically follow from premises #1 and #2. If God exists, at no point was there actually nothing, for a start.

So my argument for the existence of God is based on science, logic and rationality

Not really, for the reasons I've given above.

I'm now really, really surprised that this thread isn't locked...

 

[ianb321red]

There's also option 3, which is everything has always existed.

Sure...but is there actually any evidence of this?

Besides, who's saying the universe is uncaused? Causes don't have to be intelligent designers.

Fair point - but again what evidence is there of alternative causes?
Uncaused as in not created - i.e. caused by chance

There was a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. That does not mean that everything began to exist then.

So what existed prior to the big bang? I believe God existed, but what do you believe existed?

Only if you define God as "the first cause" and nothing else. Otherwise there are always alternatives.

Alternative cause such as....?

Your argument is logically flawed. Conclusion #3 do not logically follow from premises #1 and #2. If God exists, at no point was there actually nothing, for a start.

Well nothing material or physical existed. God existed but not in a material or physical sense....

 

[SithDoughnut]

Sure...but is there actually any evidence of this?

There isn't really a huge amount of evidence for any conclusion, as far as I know.

Fair point - but again what evidence is there of alternative causes?
Uncaused as in not created - i.e. caused by chance

I've seen a few papers where people have stated that something can come from nothing. I won't pretend I understand them, though. It's also worth considering the fact that the laws of cause and effect came about after the Big Bang, at least to my knowledge.

What evidence is there that the universe was caused? We know that there was a singularity and that was the source of the Big Bang. Do you have evidence that this singularity was created?

So what existed prior to the big bang? I believe God existed, but what do you believe existed?

The singularity.

Alternative cause such as....?

Let's we assume that the universe does require a first cause. We'll call that cause A. We know nothing beyond this fact.

A is currently defined as the first cause. However, if we also say that A is omnipotent, we now have two potential causes. We have A, the omnipotent first cause, and we have B, the non-omnipotent first cause. The more definitions you add, the more options you create.

Well nothing material or physical existed. God existed but not in a material or physical sense....

In what sense then? I ask because this is the point where people generally start making stuff up. What is God made out of?