What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[Genersis]

Christians who say there is scientific evidence for God make the same error as the atheists who say science has disproved God.

I agree.

 

[ianb321red]

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?

I mentioned in post#53 the evidence from the fields of psychology and anthropology. I don't personally have the primary evidence as I am not an anthropologist, but as I said before there is more than enough evidence from these disciplines to add credibility to my argument, in the sense that I have an argument based on some facts not opinion.

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.....

Yes you did - but I can't be expected to answer your question when you're telling me how to answer 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.

That's obviously the wrong conclusion to make - who said that if a need isn't fulfilled then you die? That's clearly not true - we all have basic emotional needs that aren't always fulfilled, but you don't die if they are not met.

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

Numerous experiments, case studies and so on from the fields of anthropology and psychology. I can start listing them if I have to..

 

[ianb321red]

I agree.

me too!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

IYes you did - but I can't be expected to answer your question when you're telling me how to answer it

I didn't tell you how to answer, I told how not to answer.

That's obviously the wrong conclusion to make - who said that if a need isn't fulfilled then you die? That's clearly not true - we all have basic emotional needs that aren't always fulfilled, but you don't die if they are not met.

So it comes down to how you define a need. Would you be good enough to make it clear what you consider to be the difference between a need and a want? At the moment it seems to be quite arbitrary.

 

[ianb321red]

So it comes down to how you define a need. Would you be good enough to make it clear what you consider to be the difference between a need and a want?

Sure.

A need is universal in that it is something that is necessary for everyone. For example, family, friendship, love etc. Some needs are fundamental for survival such food, water, warmth etc, other needs are not life dependent but are essential in other ways.

A want is individual and expresses a preference or desire for something. This goes over and above what falls in to the category of needs. You can do without a want and you won't be deficient in any way (although you may feel a bit hard done by).

To illustrate, I would define "God" as a need and "religion" as a want.

I believe everyone needs God.
I don't believe everyone needs religion. People want or choose religion. It's man-made and expresses our preferred way of worshipping whatever God we believe in, and that is why there are different world religions. And then these different world religions create their own "gods" - all very confusing!!

I don't need religion or Christianity to believe in God. His existence isn't dependent on any religion to substantiate, prove or justify it.

A need for God is a far more authentic and basic need than we give it credit for.

That is why quite often atheists often don't differentiate between God and religion. I can understand why this happens, but a real understanding of what these both actually are will show that they are so completely different.

This is why when Anthony Flew renounced atheism (becoming a deist) he did not embrace any religion or Christianity. He could believe in a God and reject the atheistic worldview, but he wasn't prepared to accept or follow any religion either...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sure.

A need is universal in that it is something that is necessary for everyone. For example, family, friendship, love etc. Some needs are fundamental for survival such food, water, warmth etc, other needs are not life dependent but are essential in other ways.

A want is individual and expresses a preference or desire for something. This goes over and above what falls in to the category of needs. You can do without a want and you won't be deficient in any way (although you may feel a bit hard done by).

To illustrate, I would define "God" as a need and "religion" as a want.

I believe everyone needs God.
I don't believe everyone needs religion. People want or choose religion. It's man-made and expresses our preferred way of worshipping whatever God we believe in, and that is why there are different world religions. And then these different world religions create their own "gods" - all very confusing!!

I don't need religion or Christianity to believe in God. His existence isn't dependent on any religion to substantiate, prove or justify it.

A need for God is a far more authentic and basic need than we give it credit for.

That is why quite often atheists often don't differentiate between God and religion. I can understand why this happens, but a real understanding of what these both actually are will show that they are so completely different.

This is why when Anthony Flew renounced atheism (becoming a deist) he did not embrace any religion or Christianity. He could believe in a God and reject the atheistic worldview, but he wasn't prepared to accept or follow any religion either...

I agree that needs are universal. But saying god is a need is arbitrary. The whole point of a need is that if it is not met there is a consequence. What is the consequence of there being no god in my life? None. So it is not a need.

I would you suggest you might try something more formalised. Maslow would be a good start.

 

[ianb321red]

I would you suggest you might try something more formalised. Maslow would be a good start.

Thanks for the suggestion.
I've actually written an entire thesis on Maslow's work - it was actually a critique of his motivational theory, so I know it like the back of my hand...

 

[ianb321red]

I agree that needs are universal. But saying god is a need is arbitrary. The whole point of a need is that if it is not met there is a consequence. What is the consequence of there being no god in my life? None. So it is not a need.

I don't think it's arbitrary - arbitrary means it's a random choice or a comment made on impulse. I've said twice before that it's based on evidence from other disciplines which supports my belief. So it's not arbitrary.

With regards to consequences - how can you be so sure?

I could outwardly AND inwardly deny the need for friendship and then go an live as a recluse - does this mean that friendship isn't a need? Of course not....

Let me ask you a question. Hypothetically speaking, what consequence(s) would you have expected there to be if God is a need?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't think it's arbitrary - arbitrary means it's a random choice or a comment made on impulse. I've said twice before that it's based on evidence from other disciplines which supports my belief. So it's not arbitrary.

Stop it. I've said it doesn't apply to me (and I'm sure there are plenty of others who would, if needed, say the same) so it is not a universal need. Therefore it is arbitrary.

With regards to consequences - how can you be so sure?

You tell me what the consequence is - I've already said there is none.

I could outwardly AND inwardly deny the need for friendship and then go an live as a recluse - does this mean that friendship isn't a need?

Finally you the approach the light? If you chose to reject something and there were no consequence then that would be exactly what it means

Let me ask you a question. Hypothetically, speaking, what consequence(s) would you have expected there to be if God is a need?

Are you serious? You're the one who says it is a need, so you tell me what you think the consequences are. If you have no answer then let that speak for itself!

 

[ianb321red]

Stop it. I've said it doesn't apply to me (and I'm sure there are plenty of others who would, if needed, say the same) so it is not a universal need. Therefore it is arbitrary.

Ok – I think we’re still struggling here with the basics of understanding the difference between what is and isn’t a human need. Haven't I defined it enough times for you?
Just to say “it doesn’t apply to me” and then declaring it to be arbitrary doesn’t demonstrate anything other than, ironically your understanding of human needs is arbitrary. Even if you drummed up 500 other people who agreed with you, it wouldn’t prove the slightest thing.
A need is hardwired in to your make up as a human being.

You tell me what the consequence is - I've already said there is none.

No – sorry, you answer my question first. Tell me how you can be so sure? The consequences of godlessness are huge – but you have to believe in God to begin with. Once you’ve got over this hurdle you then need to decide which of the many gods which are worshipped is actually real! That's actually more tricky that simply believing in "a god"

Finally you the approach the light? If you chose to reject something and there were no consequence then that would be exactly what it means

Sorry – I don’t really understand the relationship between your comment and mine.

If you reject the need for something, does that need go away? Obviously not! It just means you have rejected it! Where on earth does the consequence ever come in to establishing whether a need ever actually existed?

Human needs exist by virtue of being human. They don’t apply to animals, they don’t apply to plants – they apply to humans – all humans. You are born this way – you don’t actually have a choice in being born in a way. You don’t have a choice in having these needs intrinsic to your make up.

But - you do have a choice to ignore the need for God – it’s called free will.

We all exist as part of creation. We are created in the image of God. We all have the need to discover God, but we all have free will and therefore the capacity to reject God.

This is why when people get their head round the whole god thing, you realise that atheism isn’t even a valid worldview – because it gives you the illusion of choice! It gives people the idea that if you disbelieve or reject God that he will somehow go away somewhere! I would go as far as to say that atheism is both an illusion AND a delusion.

Are you serious? You're the one who says it is a need, so you tell me what you think the consequences are. If you have no answer then let that speak for itself!

I always have an answer – don’t worry about that!
There are many consequences which I could list, but that means we’re going in to the realm of Christian or other religious beliefs because the consequences of unbelief for a Christian are very different to that of a Muslim or a Jew..

I actually raised the question because you seemed to be quite hung up on this point, in that you observe no consequences in your mind for a non belief in god, but in reality what consequences would there be for someone who is a sceptic anyway?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ok – I think we’re still struggling here with the basics of understanding the difference between what is and isn’t a human need. Haven't I defined it enough times for you?

No. You keep skirting the issue but I'm trying to get you there. You keep ignoring this basic requirement in the definition - the non-fulfillment of a need has consequences. You seen me ppointing that out many times but it just isn't sinking in, is it?

Now, would you care to try one last time?

The consequences of godlessness are huge – but you have to believe in God to begin with.

So the need only exists if you believe it? Way to go proving that god is a want, not a need.

If you reject the need for something, does that need go away? Obviously not! It just means you have rejected it! Where on earth does the consequence ever come in to establishing whether a need ever actually existed?

You really don't understand the difference between needs and wants, do you? See above....

I actually raised the question because you seemed to be quite hung up on this point, in that you observe no consequences in your mind for a non belief in god, but in reality what consequences would there be for someone who is a sceptic anyway?

You tell me. That's the whole point, isn't it? I keep telling you there are non because it is not a need.

 

[ianb321red]

You keep ignoring this basic requirement in the definition - the non-fulfillment of a need has consequences.

Surely my definition of a need and a want in post#68 was clear enough?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7611436-7/#post59182434

You said previously “it doesn’t apply to me.. therefore the need isn’t universal”?
Am I right or wrong?
I’m not skirting round the issue – I’m trying my best to pin down the definition of “universal”.

Regarding consequences, I disagree with your point.
You’ve mentioned Maslow before so I’ll use his theory as an example (for the record I agree with his need identification, but disagree with the hierarchical movement).
Maslow different groups of needs – some have consequences if they are not met (severe ones in the case of basic needs) others do not like esteem and self-actualization needs. These higher needs aren’t actually needs by my definition, since Maslow states that not all people are capable of reaching these levels of the hierarchy. So as they are not universal they don’t fit my definition of a true human need.

Correct me if I’ve misunderstood you, but you are identifying a need more by the consequence of the need not being fulfilled. You would therefore recognise you were deficient in some way or in some area, and then realise there is some sort of need to be addressed? Until this happens you don’t see it as a need that essentially even exists.

However, the problem here is two fold:
1) You are reacting to a need that has deficient in order for it to be actually identified
2) As a result a need that has not been identified as of now, doesn’t actually exist in the eye of the beholder

If a need is a genuine universal human need then it needs fulfilling by every single individual.

But – you cannot lump all human needs in to the same category. You are doing precisely this which is a fundamental error.

For example:
Food/ water is a need. The consequence of deficiency is eventual death, and the impact of the consequence is a number days or weeks. Therefore it is very possible to identify the need and related deficiency in a very short space of time.

Friendship/ love is a need. The consequence of deficiency is isolation, sociopathic and numerous other personality and psychological disorders. The impact of the consequence is observed gradually with steady changes over the course of lifetime. Therefore you may have a personality disorder which takes years to actually diagnose, and therefore identify right back to a basic need of love or friendship being deficient.

My stance on a need for God is similar. If this need is deficient then I’m not saying it jumps out at you immediately. I personally haven’t believed in God my entire life, but I can look back with absolute certainty and say that my life was deficient before I had that belief. At the time before I believed, I didn’t think there were any consequences for this lack of belief – in this world or the next!

My point is that there are some universal needs that if deficient, do not necessarily present their consequences immediately. I’ve made this point above with the needs of love and friendship. So I’m saying that there are consequences of a deficient need for God, but that for some (if not many) the consequences are not always immediate. But I believe the need for God does exist as a universal need for all. I believe this is what fundamentally underpins what causes all of us at some point to question the meaning behind your very own existence. There is a need for meaning and a need for God.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Surely my definition of a need and a want in post#68 was clear enough?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7611436-7/#post59182434

Your definition was incorrect, and so the rest of your argument does not follow. Family and friends are not human needs, but human desires. You can function without them. A need is something without which you will stop functioning (the exact level of function depends on whether we're going for higher brain function or just living, even if it's in a coma, etc.).

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that a recipe needs seasoning, otherwise it won't taste as nice. You can use the word need, but that doesn't make seasoning a requirement for the recipe to work.

 

[mmksparbud]

Faith is believing in something that you can't prove---it requires faith to believe in God, and it requires even more faith (in my humble opinion) to beleive there is no God. I can't even begin to believe that millions of galaxies, millions of different animals, insects, birds, trees, grasses, and so on all "just happened" becaused of some weird explosion. An ant and an elephant evolved out of the same primordial mass?--Now that takes faith, cause you certainly can't prove it. Science, by it's very definition, requires a repeatable event---so, until someone can produce a big bang out of nothing, and give me a living creature out of that--I'll take God. And just exactly when did the elephant dung beetle decide it was going to spend it's life eating elephant poop? It takes how many thousands, or millions of sperm to impregnate one female egg (human)--? At what point did this primordial mass of nothing decide to become sperm and egg? It's not effecient to have seperate sexes--the self dividing worm , one sex fits all, is far more effecient--why progress beyond that? And dirt was created at the same time of this explosion?--along with water and just the right amount of oxygen at just the right distance from the sun? Strange, this is the only planet from which one can stand on it's surface and look out into the universe--the atmosphere on the others do not allow for that (planets, not moons). If it takes millions of years to evolve into something, what are they eating, how are they reproducing? I have milolions of questions about "evolution"--but I have only one answer for creation--God--I'll take Him, makes more sense to me.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You said previously “it doesn’t apply to me.. therefore the need isn’t universal”?
Am I right or wrong?

You are right, I did say that.

I’m not skirting round the issue – I’m trying my best to pin down the definition of “universal”.

I thought we'd agreed it applies to every single human being? So if there is one single exception it is not universal.

Regarding consequences, I disagree with your point.

And then you spend 90% of the rest of your post agreeing with it?

Maslow different groups of needs – some have consequences if they are not met (severe ones in the case of basic needs) others do not like esteem and self-actualization needs.

Actually ALL of Maslow's needs have consequences if not met - which is what I've been saying all along and you spent the rest of your post agreeing with.

But – you cannot lump all human needs in to the same category. You are doing precisely this which is a fundamental error.

What? No idea what you mean by "category". The only grouping I've done is to say that non-fulfillment of needs has consequences. And that applies to all needs.

So I’m saying that there are consequences of a deficient need for God, but that for some (if not many) the consequences are not always immediate.

And I've been asking you to tell us what those consequences are. The timeframe is not important but you can add it in if that makes it easier.

 

[ianb321red]

Your definition was incorrect, and so the rest of your argument does not follow. Family and friends are not human needs, but human desires. You can function without them. A need is something without which you will stop functioning (the exact level of function depends on whether we're going for higher brain function or just living, even if it's in a coma, etc.).

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that a recipe needs seasoning, otherwise it won't taste as nice. You can use the word need, but that doesn't make seasoning a requirement for the recipe to work.

It's really painful to read a comment like this - I don't mean to be disrespectful to you personally, but I really wish you wouldn't post on something when you don't really know your talking about.

And I'm sorry to be blunt, but what you have said is completely full of errors.

You say my definition is incorrect, and then demonstrate that you genuinely have no understanding yourself of what a human need is.
The need for family/ friendship is a universal need, NOT a desire. Isn't this obvious since we are all born in to a family? And even if both parents were killed a split second after the babies birth, the baby still has a basic need for a family to grow up in. This isn't a desire or want.
The consequence of a deficient need is NOT always that you will stop functioning. There are when yes, this is the case, but there are other examples when the consequences are different.....I've illustrated this point several times before already so I won't labour the point any further..

In future, before commenting on these posts please can you define the terms that you use for the sake of transparency - for example, define YOUR definition of a need and provide examples.

 

[Genersis]

...
In future, before commenting on these posts please can you define the terms that you use for the sake of transparency - for example, define YOUR definition of a need and provide examples.

Isn't that what he did?

 

[Genersis]

Verb
need (third-person singular simple present needs, present participle needing, simple past and past participle needed)

1 (obsolete) To be necessary (to someone).

2 (transitive) To have an absolute requirement for.
Living things need water to survive.
 
3 (transitive) To want strongly; to feel that one must have something.
After ten days of hiking, I needed a shower and a shave.

4 (modal verb) To be obliged or required (to do something).
You need not go if you don't want to.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/need

When people say they need a god. They tend to mean meaning 3.
I have no need for a god, personally. In all meanings of the word.

 

[Satt]

I also don't think god created the internet.

Everyone knows that was Al Gore!!!

 

[Nabobalis]

Everyone knows that was Al Gore!!!

The less I hear about Al Gore the better!