What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

In that case your argument is still false. I don't need a god - it might be nice if one existed but I'm not losing any slepp over it. So as it's not a universal need it doesn't have to exist.

The quotes I gave in my original post on this demonstrate a need for God from Atheists.

No they don't. Only Sartre used the word "need", the others only expressed a desire.

 

[underheaven]

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



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



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.



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.

Well if it was, I would be in good company ,since Isaac Newton, and many other great 'believers' studied the sky and it's effect on humanity. Most who call themselves astrologers,pop variety are no more than con-artists,
but having studied in great depth,I do not do prediction ,although I could, for those more unconcious types[ deniers]. If one is willing to face reality,change for the positive,etc prediction is difficult.
It is forbidden by God to predict ,but to observe ,no.! So since astrologers try to predict,I am an observer of astronomical phenomenan on humanity and their affairs.

 

[underheaven]

In that case your argument is still false. I don't need a god - it might be nice if one existed but I'm not losing any slepp over it. So as it's not a universal need it doesn't have to exist.


No they don't. Only Sartre used the word "need", the others only expressed a desire.

It is not that God does not exist ,it is that you do not have the 'capacity' to know ,hear Him, like a deaf person cannot hear, or a blind one cannot see.You have something missing,poor you.
Having said that, either of those persons mentioned , might have that 'capacity',which is missing in you.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Well if it was, I would be in good company ,since Isaac Newton, and many other great 'believers' studied the sky and it's effect on humanity.

Even great people can believe in nonsensical things .

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It is not that God does not exist ,it is that you do not have the 'capacity' to know ,hear Him, like a deaf person cannot hear, or a blind one cannot see.You have something missing,poor you.
Having said that, either of those persons mentioned , might have that 'capacity',which is missing in you.

That doesn't address the point I made in my post, does it?

But while we're here - why poor me? Why not poor you for wasting your time on something that I do not have any reason to believe exists? You see that's the whole point here, isn't it? Your agument for your God's existence is that you know it and I don't have the capacity to know it. I'm deficient, lacking something fundamental. When you put it like that how could I not be convinced?

 

[ianb321red]

In that case your argument is still false. I don't need a god - it might be nice if one existed but I'm not losing any slepp over it. So as it's not a universal need it doesn't have to exist.

You'll no doubt be surprised to hear that I disagree that it's false
Your argument addresses the issue again from your own individual point-of-view only....

Universal laws - (truths, needs or whatever) exist objectively irrespective of whether an individual believes in them or agrees with them. So your (or anyone else's) disbelief is valid - but only for you.

Now that may sound arrogant, but is it in fact any less arrogant than an individual saying the reverse i.e. that a particular need is not universal?

And actually I don't think either point of view is arrogant - if you sincerely believe that something is true (or not true) then that is what you believe..But the difference is that my argument makes the claim for all, and your argument only makes the claim for you.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You'll no doubt be surprised to hear that I disagree that it's false
Your argument addresses the issue again from your own individual point-of-view only....

Yes, but a universal need applies to everyone. If just one person doesn't have that need, it is no longer a universal need.

 

[theFijian]

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

Basically the same as asking for evidence of a three-sided square, ie a misunderstanding of basic definitions.

 

[ThankGod]

Well, even scientists admit that there must be a creator.

So, there is a God. God is God, and I beg that you find Jesus.

I think that atheists feel that they can do what they want, and not feel bad for it. When you ignore your conscience, you should feel bad about it. Because your conscience is God telling you what is right and wrong. And when you choose sin over righteousness, you are choosing to be away from God; because God is not sin.

That is why people go to hell. Because they choose to do as they please, instead of acknowledging God as God, and understanding His love.

Our thinking has limited us to just that-- what we think. We've gone from knowing God exists to thinking. And eventually we will return back to God, and become all-knowing again. This is real, and I beg that you continue to find God.

 

[ianb321red]

Yes, but a universal need applies to everyone. If just one person doesn't have that need, it is no longer a universal need.

Correct - so you agree with me then!

To make this point from the other side, there would have to be evidence of someone who exists (or existed) who doesn't (or didn't) need God. So to substantiate your counter point (which is entirely valid) it would have to be demonstrated that it is possible to exist without a need for God. I cannot think how anyone could do that..

Now there are millions of people who reject God, or don't desire God or choose to ignore God or whatever. But none of this actually proves for one second that any of them were born without an actual basic need for a God.

My argument would be quite simply that we are all born with a need for God. This is a basic and universal need for all.

There have been dozens of examples from the fields of anthropology and psychology over the past 15 years or so to provide some evidence of this. In certain cultures around the world, experiments found that in children believed in God even when religion was completely withheld from them. I’m not saying that this is a complete indisputable scientific fact given that the evidence comes from the ‘soft’ human sciences, but I am saying this adds credibility to my premise.

In Western cultures such as our own, such is the indoctrination of science AND religion that we don’t really completely think for ourselves. We are led to believe that we are more educated and enlightened that other cultures and certainly very much more so than our ancestors. Most of us are highly influenced by people who are close to us, books and articles that we read on the internet, forums and so on. I would certainly conclude that no one has come to whatever belief they have on their own.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Correct - so you agree with me then!

To make this point from the other side, there would have to be evidence of someone who exists (or existed) who doesn't (or didn't) need God. So to substantiate your counter point (which is entirely valid) it would have to be demonstrated that it is possible to exist without a need for God. I cannot think how anyone could do that.

Now there are millions of people who reject God, or don't desire God or choose to ignore God or whatever. But none of this actually proves for one second that any of them were born without an actual basic need for a God.

My argument would be quite simply that we are all born with a need for God. This is a basic and universal need for all.

And my argument is that we are not born with a need for God and it is not a basic and universal need. If we really had a need for a god then by your definition we would stop functioning and die without one. So how, then, do I continue to live when there is no god in my life? Please give a logical answer to that, not a trite one "God is in your life but you fail to see it".

 

[ianb321red]

"God is in your life but you fail to see it".

I think you got that from another poster - not me

 

[Nabobalis]

Well, even scientists admit that there must be a creator.

All of them? Who has said that and what evidence do they present?

 

[ianb321red]

And my argument is that we are not born with a need for God and it is not a basic and universal need. If we really had a need for a god then by your definition we would stop functioning and die without one. So how, then, do I continue to live when there is no god in my life?

Ok - I'm afraid I don't really understand the logic behind your question.

I am saying there is a need. You're saying that "If we really had a need ...we would stop functioning and die without one" - but I'm actually saying you have got the need.

You can continue to live your life without God - but that's your choice/ decision. It doesn't logically follow that the need for God goes away because it is ignored or rejected.

So far I don't think anyone has fully understood the difference between a need and a want. You can't make a need go away simply by ignoring it. If there is a need for God it will continue to exist as a need regardless of the individuals choice to recognise it or dismiss it.

I stand by my point that to support the opposite position - "that we are not born with a need for God and it is not a basic and universal need" it would have to be proven that someone didn't or doesn't need God - not that they have rejected, ignored or disbelieved in God.

 

[ianb321red]

All of them? Who has said that and what evidence do they present?

Francis Collins - leader of the Human Genome Project
Francis Collins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck There's 1000's of them to be honest...it's a bit of a non starter TBH

 

[Nabobalis]

Francis Collins - leader of the Human Genome Project
Francis Collins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck There's 1000's of them to be honest...it's a bit of a non starter TBH

Most scientists are religious, but the statement I quoted seems to imply that he was saying that scientists have evidence.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Correct - so you agree with me then!

No I don't, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't twist my words to pretend otherwise. You made the claim, you back it up. You've yet to provide any evidence that we need God. The quotes were not evidence.

 

[Genersis]

Basically the same as asking for evidence of a three-sided square, ie a misunderstanding of basic definitions.

My post was a little off topic to be honest.
A mini rant as it were about the religious people who seem to think their religion has already been proven correct and everyone who doesn't believe are in denial.
When really, religion is believed mostly on faith, not evidence.
Some people just can't believe things on faith.
And some people believe their religion is based on evidence, and not faith.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ok - I'm afraid I don't really understand the logic behind your question.

I am saying there is a need. You're saying that "If we really had a need ...we would stop functioning and die without one" - but I'm actually saying you have got the need.

And as I said I disagree. Just saying it again will not make it so. You have failed to provide any evidence for this need. A need for food and water you can demonstrate. A need for God? How do you demonstrate that?

You can continue to live your life without God - but that's your choice/ decision. It doesn't logically follow that the need for God goes away because it is ignored or rejected.

Didn't I ask you not to say "God is in your life but you fail to see it"? That's what this is saying.....

So far I don't think anyone has fully understood the difference between a need and a want. You can't make a need go away simply by ignoring it. If there is a need for God it will continue to exist as a need regardless of the individuals choice to recognise it or dismiss it.

And by your definition if a need is not fulfilled (water, food) you will die. Hence my question - how am I not dead if there is no God in my life? And again, please don't say there is God in my life without something to back it up.

I stand by my point that to support the opposite position - "that we are not born with a need for God and it is not a basic and universal need" it would have to be proven that someone didn't or doesn't need God - not that they have rejected, ignored or disbelieved in God.

As per above, I think the onus is really on you to demonstrate the need exists.

 

[theFijian]

My post was a little off topic to be honest.
A mini rant as it were about the religious people who seem to think their religion has already been proven correct and everyone who doesn't believe are in denial.
When really, religion is believed mostly on faith, not evidence.
Some people just can't believe things on faith.
And some people believe their religion is based on evidence, and not faith.

Christians who say there is scientific evidence for God make the same error as the atheists who say science has disproved God. As it is Christianity has it's basis in at a point in time in history, the resurrection of Christ as Paul says in 1 Cor 15 is the 'crux' of Christianity.