What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

Priceless! Isn't that a case of pot calling kettle names?

 

[underheaven]

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".

You are correct.The traditional Christian,which I am in most ways denies the existence of the 'soul' before birth,and that is the biggest error they make....There was a reason for Christ wishing that we should ignore 'reincarnation' these last 2,000 years, because He wanted us to concentrate on saving our souls,and building up the energy [love and belief in Him] to bring up souls from the lower world 'hell' to be judged FINALLY. God has entered the world before ,but we did not listen and made little progress .It was neccessary to get it right because,this is the Last Age [pisces] before the end of the Great Year,and the time for a new beginning. However atheists,and those who mock God will find that there is no beginning for them.You could well be one of those souls doomed to Hell again. God showed me His laws : I was not interested in such things as astrology,being well educated ,and from a family of scientific sceptics.
however they are less sceptical,being too intelligent to be Hard Line atheists.None of the great seekers ,from Newton to Einstein,to Carl Sagan,and so on were.They may not have yet realised the 'personal relationship with Jesus that the faithful ones have,but neither did they deny Him ,and, Einstein was in wonder at the glory of the universes and it's intelligent designer. Yes if you are born without not only no belief ,but are incapable of the 'wonder required to become a believer,a follower,then you maybe too late, to be one. ; You have locked your mind and your heart,and probably want to be 'free' to sin' as you will. We are living in times when some groups shout about 'rights'.,but in the end the only 'rights' we have come from ABOVE.
I have just reread your question.Why you are not dead since you do not have God in your life?.That is a very good question,because long term without God in ones life ,one is dead .It means that in the past you perhaps believed ,or someone in your life has prayed for you. Of course some people live a long material life ,on earth ,but when they die will not have life thereafter,for their soul is dead.

 

[ianb321red]

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.

Ok, let’s try looking at this in a different way.

What is the definition of “a god”? The atheistic position technically, does not mean a denial of the existence of God. It means literally a denial of the theistic definition of God.

So you can need “a god” and this can be fulfilled in atheistic terms and this is shown in a manner of behaviours which are a form of worship.People worship fame and celebrities such as TV, film and music stars. Some people worship sports teams and sports stars. Going to some of these events is a profound act of worship, and is more devout and committed than a lot of church goers.

Some people worship mammon (money). Some people worship nature. The list goes on....

The Bible refers to “the god of this age” or the “god of this world” and is referring to Satan and some people worship him. However it is clear that it is not referring to the god of The Bible, and that in itself is evidence that there are many gods that man will worship – but only one of them is real.

I am saying that everyone has a need for God by virtue of this propensity to worship “something” and this in turn becomes a god to them. This shows an act of devotion and commitment which many times often exceeds the devotion seen by theistic faiths.

I am guessing that saying that you “have no need for a god” is said with you thinking of the Christian god of The Bible. But once you disentangle “god” from “religion”, and realise that there are actually many gods that man worships, you are then in a position to decide which of these gods is actually real and which are false idols.

The proof that we have a need for god is in the evidence that millions of people satisfy this need through their own “God”.

 

[ianb321red]

Priceless! Isn't that a case of pot calling kettle names?

 

[ianb321red]

Actually ALL of Maslow's needs have consequences if not met

Not true - you clearly aren't familiar with the theory.

The higher needs (esteem and self actualization) can not, and in a lot of cases are not, reached by people by virtue of the fact that lower level needs haven't been met. Esteem needs have lower and higher levels, with deprivation of higher esteem needs leading to personality and psychological disorders as mentioned in one of my earlier posts.

With regards to self actualization, Maslow postulated that maybe only 1% of the adult population met these needs fully. Therefore to address your comment, as Maslow himself states, some of the needs on his hierarchy aren't/ cannot be met by some people so what are the consequences of:

-not being spontaneous
-not seeking knowledge, truth, and peace
-not seeking self-fulfillment

There are none - simply because they are higher needs, NOT basic needs.

And just to put your comment into context, Maslow said that "oneness with God" is a higher (self actualization) need...so by your definition that need would actually have consequences for not being met - but you've been arguing all along that there are no consequences for a need for God not being met!

Sounds to me like you should back down on your argument regarding a need for God?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And just to put your comment into context, Maslow said that "oneness with God" is a higher (self actualization) need...

As you said in a previous post "Not true - you clearly aren't familiar with the theory." That was Frankl.

The higher needs (esteem and self actualization) can not, and in a lot of cases are not, reached by people by virtue of the fact that lower level needs haven't been met. Esteem needs have lower and higher levels, with deprivation of higher esteem needs leading to personality and psychological disorders as mentioned in one of my earlier posts.

You are obviously blissfully unaware that the first 4 levels of needs (up to and including esteem) are known as the deficiency needs. Funny that.

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.

There are none - simply because they are higher needs, NOT basic needs.

Actually according to Maslow it's because they don't become needs until you have fulfilled the others. Note that you've just argued that the need for god is part of this self-actualisation level - which is only attained by 1% of people. All of that tends to indicate that the need for god is not actually universal so doesn't meet your criteria . You may want to stop digging now.

Sounds to me like you should back down on your argument regarding a need for God?

Why would I when you're doing such a good job of destroying your own argument?

 

[ianb321red]

As you said in a previous post "Not true - you clearly aren't familiar with the theory." That was Frankl.
You are obviously blissfully unaware that the first 4 levels of needs (up to and including esteem) are known as the deficiency needs. Funny that.

Actually according to Maslow it's because they don't become needs until you have fulfilled the others. Note that you've just argued that the need for god is part of this self-actualisation level - which is only attained by 1% of people. All of that tends to indicate that the need for god is not actually universal so doesn't meet your criteria . You may want to stop digging now.
Why would I when you're doing such a good job of destroying your own argument?

What you've just written above shows that you don't read my posts properly. As a result, your counter arguments are complete nonsense.

Did you actually read my post#72 where I said "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)."
That means I disagree with a hierarchy of needs.

I then said in the same post "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."
Again, I've said clearly that I don't agree with the hierarchy, AND I stated that higher needs aren't universal.

So, clearly my argument cannot be supported by Maslow's theory - but you should have known this if you'd read the posts properly in the first place.

Therefore I haven't argued for a god need being part of self actualization - I used that example to demonstrate that your own argument was contradictory (as clearly detailed in my previous post)

My argument for need, and specifically the need for God doesn't relate to Maslow's theory in anyway (other than I agree with some of the needs he identified).

In fact, my argument is based on experimental evidence from a number of highly credible sources (for example, University of Oxford centre for Anthropology and Mind, Faraday Institute for research), whereas your argument is on based on theory which is considerably less credible....

 

[ianb321red]

In fact, my argument is based on experimental evidence from a number of highly credible sources (for example, University of Oxford centre for Anthropology and Mind, Faraday Institute for research)

Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.

If you want to know more about research on childhood theism, then the following link contains a talk on the subject:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.php?ItemID=Item_Multimedia_276&Mode=Add

 

[ianb321red]

The following article looks at the evolution of religion and a belief in God, and asks the question whether we are actually hard-wired to believe in God?

Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - New York Times

 

[KCfromNC]

Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.

Children also naturally pick their nose, pee in their pants and eat dirt. Doesn't mean that these actions are universal needs, just that our brains are wired to do strange things at times. Evolution doesn't produce perfect, it gives "works good enough".

 

[ianb321red]

Children also naturally pick their nose, pee in their pants and eat dirt. Doesn't mean that these actions are universal needs, just that our brains are wired to do strange things at times. Evolution doesn't produce perfect, it gives "works good enough".

Interesting that you don't think eating and going to the toilet are universal needs ?

In fact, ironically your example actually supports my argument even further. Because it's not until we're indoctrinated by social norms and behaviours of society do these behaviours cease. So in their purest sense they are needs, and in fact unconditioned behaviours are in many ways more "honest" and "truthful" than socially conditioned ones....

 

[SithDoughnut]

Interesting that you don't think eating and going to the toilet are universal needs ?

Are you still stuck with this misconception? Let's put it really simply: there are things we do, and things we have to do to survive. Things we do include believing in God, picking our nose, and so on. Things we have to do to survive include eating and drinking. The latter category encompasses universal needs, the former category doesn't.

 

[ianb321red]

Are you still stuck with this misconception? Let's put it really simply: there are things we do, and things we have to do to survive. Things we do include believing in God, picking our nose, and so on. Things we have to do to survive include eating and drinking. The latter category encompasses universal needs, the former category doesn't.

...and what's your point then?

You've told me that you need to eat and drink to survive - I agree.
You've also told that believing in God falls in to a category that isn't a survival need - I agree.
You've told me that believing in God is in a category that doesn't constitute a universal need - I disagree.

But what's your point? That you disagree with me?

You say that's a misconception - but given that any point I make is actually based on something, and that I say what that something actually is shows that it's not a misconception. You can see from any of my points that I normally refer to something other than my own opinion.

You make your declaration about this and that doesn't constitute a universal need - but says who?

I don't mind if you don't agree with my point - that's up to you.
You may disagree with my understanding of something - that's fine, I'm interested to hear other peoples viewpoints, hence this thread..

But if you do disagree with me, then at least explain yourself and back it up with something.

At the moment your comment means nothing other than expressing your opinion...so why don't you set the definitions for the discussion?

 

[SithDoughnut]

You make your declaration about this and that doesn't constitute a universal need - but says who?

Something is only a universal need if everyone requires it (the clue being in the word "universal"). I and many other people do not, therefore it is not a universal need. Eating and drinking (or to be more specific, consuming food and water) is something that every single human being has to do, while the existence of atheism demonstrates that belief in God is not something that everyone has to do. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of definition and the logical and semantic consequences thereof.

To put it even more simply, if theism is a universal need then I am not an atheist. So, either you're claiming that every atheist and agnostic who has ever existed is lying about their beliefs, or theism is not a universal need. Those are the only two logically sound options you have. Which one are you going to proceed with? Are you accusing me of being a liar or not?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.

If you want to know more about research on childhood theism, then the following link contains a talk on the subject:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.php?ItemID=Item_Multimedia_276&Mode=Add

An article on your researcher. Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph. Here are some examples of his evidence for a belief in god:

In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice".



Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.



How does that demonstrate a belief in god?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The following article looks at the evolution of religion and a belief in God, and asks the question whether we are actually hard-wired to believe in God?

Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - New York Times

From page 1 "What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved..."

A tendency? So it's not universal? Doesn't that, yet again, prove you're wrong?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You've told me that believing in God is in a category that doesn't constitute a universal need - I disagree.

And yet the evidence you quote indicates that it isn't universal. So what is your disagreement based on?

You say that's a misconception - but given that any point I make is actually based on something, and that I say what that something actually is shows that it's not a misconception.

But the something does not back what you say!

You can see from any of my points that I normally refer to something other than my own opinion.

So we'll call it your lack of understanding instead. It's still wrong.

At the moment your comment means nothing other than expressing your opinion...so why don't you set the definitions for the discussion?

You already set the definition as "universal' meaning applicable to every person. It's your evidence that is failing, not the definition

 

[KCfromNC]

Interesting that you don't think eating and going to the toilet are universal needs ?

So you're telling me that peeing in your pants in a universal need? The fact that you need to pretend that this is really something every adult needs to do to survive shows me how far you have to go to try and cling to your beliefs about the matter.

 

[ianb321red]

So you're telling me that peeing in your pants in a universal need? The fact that you need to pretend that this is really something every adult needs to do to survive shows me how far you have to go to try and cling to your beliefs about the matter.

Use a bit of common sense will you?

Last time I checked lavatorial needs were pretty essential to prevent acute urinary retention, constipation etc etc

We are taught as children the social norms and behaviours of society, and one of these relates to going to the toilet. So as a result we stop peeing our pants and use the toilet like a "grown up".

 

[ianb321red]

Are you accusing me of being a liar or not?

No - not at all...