What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[ianb321red]

It boils down to another subjective opinion. He's decided that because life is complex, it has to be created. Plenty of other scientists disagree with him; in fact more disagree than agree, as far as I know.

Note his use of "look(s) to me" and similar phrases. It's just personal opinion, nothing more. Personal opinion is not evidence. If personal opinion is evidence, then I can easily accept the claims of Hindu scientists as equal to his in weight, meaning that there is a large amount of evidence for Hinduism in the form of people who believe it. No, evidence is objective, such as something physical or logical. For example, there are certain historical records that back up what is said in parts of the Bible, so we have reason to believe that those parts of the Bible are at least partially correct.

It's also important to note that Flew is a deist. His god is very dissimilar to yours.

Sorry, I think my previous comment was misleading.....

I wasn't suggesting that this clip from You Tube was evidence in itself.

I was making the point that there is actually evidence out there that exists objectively, and even the most devout atheist (such as Flew) was able to reach a position to reject an atheistic world view.

I am well aware that Flew was a deist, and never even came close to accepting any kind religious belief - but my point here is regarding the removal of an atheistic belief, and this in Flew's case was primarily because there was more evidence to support the existence of a god, than the existence of no god.

The underlying point I am trying to make is that there clearly is evidence out there which exists objectively, and this evidence is waiting to be discovered for those that are sincerely looking for it...

To me, I think when something like this happens (i.e. when a major proponent of a worldview renounces their position) that it should send shock waves through the communities which also hold these views...

 

[SithDoughnut]

The underlying point I am trying to make is that there clearly is evidence out there which exists objectively,

And the point I was making is that Flew gave no objective reason as to why he switched to theism. The reasoning he gave was purely subjective; the limit of the complexity that we allow to naturally occur before attributing it to a creator is a line drawn in our own subjective minds.

and this evidence is waiting to be discovered for those that are sincerely looking for it...

Real objective evidence turns up regardless of sincerity. If you have to want the evidence before you can find it (the Bible does say that you have to want to believe before you can find the evidence, after all) then chances are it's not objective.

There are plenty of people out there, me included, who would happily change their beliefs should objective evidence turn up. It's a common accusation that those who don't find the evidence aren't sincere in their search for it, but it's an unfounded one, and in many cases (mine included) simply not true. The fact of the matter is that if there is truly objective evidence that convinced billions of people, the rest of us would have found it by now even if we didn't want to.

 

[ianb321red]

There are plenty of people out there, me included, who would happily change their beliefs should objective evidence turn up. It's a common accusation that those who don't find the evidence aren't sincere in their search for it, but it's an unfounded one, and in many cases (mine included) simply not true. The fact of the matter is that if there is truly objective evidence that convinced billions of people, the rest of us would have found it by now even if we didn't want to.

I genuinely believe that evidence is not the issue here. And I can give an example as to why I don't think this is the case.

1)Smoking is bad for your health and can kill you.
2)There is objective, scientific empirical evidence to prove and support this.
3)This evidence for is universally agreed upon.

I hope we agree on these general assumptions?
If so, then why do people still smoke given that it is likely to kill you or significant shorten your life expectancy?

The point here is that evidence is not the issue. People choose to do things, or ignore things irrespective of evidence - even if the consequences are quite literally life or death.

I believe the same is true with a belief or disbelief in God (which I also hold to be choice between life and death).
There is already enough evidence to convince millions of people that God exists. I believe that people believe in God because of the evidence, not simply because of a personal preference or belief. What follows from a belief in God, is religion and personal preferences - I don't believe you are religious to begin with, and that this results in a belief in God.

To say that there is no objective evidence, is to say that all beliefs in God are on an entirely subjective basis, and that this subjectivity is the only way that person can hold a belief in God. It is also saying that it is impossible to hold an objective belief in God, for if it is NOT saying that and concedes that it IS possible to objectively believe in God, then it follows that there must be objective evidence in order to hold this belief?

It is also false to say that all believers in God come to their belief from the same point-of-view or perspective. Furthermore, I would suggest that the quest evidence is a very Western Europe/ American approach to rational beliefs, but for the knowledge not always the most appropriate way.

Therefore, I would conclude that beliefs amount to a matter of choice not a matter of evidence. My example regarding to choice to smoke or not smoke in the face of overwhelming evidence that this will actually kill you, best illustrates this point.

 

[ianb321red]

BBC News - Christopher Hitchens dies at 62 after suffering cancer

He'll know by now if he was right about his atheism or not.....

EDIT - just listened to an interview with someone on Radio 4 who was visiting Hitchens right up until a few hours before he dies, and they said he was still vehemently holding on to his atheism.

Very sad.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The point here is that evidence is not the issue. People choose to do things, or ignore things irrespective of evidence - even if the consequences are quite literally life or death.

Of course. That doesn't affect the truth value of claims though.

It is also saying that it is impossible to hold an objective belief in God, for if it is NOT saying that and concedes that it IS possible to objectively believe in God, then it follows that there must be objective evidence in order to hold this belief?

I don't think that there is a single objective believer in God. I doubt that it's possible to objectively believe anything. However, beliefs are neither arguments nor claims, and the latter two are what we were discussing.

Therefore, I would conclude that beliefs amount to a matter of choice not a matter of evidence. My example regarding to choice to smoke or not smoke in the face of overwhelming evidence that this will actually kill you, best illustrates this point.

Smoking is a choice. Beliefs are not. A belief is the principle upon which you base your choices; by definition, it cannot be a choice. You're comparing apples and oranges, and it doesn't work. People can believe that smoking is dangerous and not care enough to stop smoking, or perhaps they don't see the threat as a big enough issue to stop, or perhaps they do want to stop but can't. Beliefs don't work like that - you have them or you don't. You don't choose them.

However, as I said before, beliefs are not arguments, and arguments are the topic of this thread.

 

[ianb321red]

I doubt that it's possible to objectively believe anything.

What about how much money you have in the bank?

 

[ianb321red]

I don't think that there is a single objective believer in God. I doubt that it's possible to objectively believe anything. However, beliefs are neither arguments nor claims, and the latter two are what we were discussing.

But you have to believe in your argument? You have to believe in the evidence of lack of evidence regarding anything. You have to believe that you are correct - the very words you type in to a post are based on a belief..

Using this logic, your arguments are equally as founded upon belief as mine are...

Smoking is a choice. Beliefs are not. A belief is the principle upon which you base your choices; by definition, it cannot be a choice. You're comparing apples and oranges, and it doesn't work. People can believe that smoking is dangerous and not care enough to stop smoking, or perhaps they don't see the threat as a big enough issue to stop, or perhaps they do want to stop but can't. Beliefs don't work like that - you have them or you don't. You don't choose them.

Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood your point, but beliefs are a choice - that's the whole topic of discussion??
I choose to believe in God. You choose not to believe in God.
Isn't this a belief based on choice? I can't speak for you, but I certainly make my own decisions about what I believe in.....

However, as I said before, beliefs are not arguments, and arguments are the topic of this thread.

This may sound naive, but you can't separate the two things - your arguments are your beliefs, and my arguments are my beliefs.

My arguments are based on the evidence that I believe.
Your arguments are based on the evidence that you believe in.

And this is my point about choice - it's about choosing and rejecting evidence to support your own argument. You can't separate argument from belief...

 

[SithDoughnut]

What about how much money you have in the bank?

That would be a subjective belief too. Beliefs are by definition subjective.

 

[SithDoughnut]

But you have to believe in your argument? You have to believe in the evidence of lack of evidence regarding anything. You have to believe that you are correct - the very words you type in to a post are based on a belief..

Using this logic, your arguments are equally as founded upon belief as mine are...

Every argument is founded upon belief, especially when it comes to concepts like God.

The lack of evidence, however, is real. Or to be more exact: I have a subjective belief that there is a lack of objective evidence, but this is substantiated by the lack of objective evidence that anyone claims to have found and the fact that plenty of other people theists and atheists, have also failed to find objective evidence.

It's a subjective belief but I think it's better founded in objective reality that yours is.

Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood your point, but beliefs are a choice - that's the whole topic of discussion??

It wasn't, but it can be if you want.

Isn't this a belief based on choice? I can't speak for you, but I certainly make my own decisions about what I believe in.....

Think back (if you can remember) to the point where you "chose" to believe in God. More importantly, think back to the thought processes you had at the time. Which of these two options sounds closer to the truth?

1) This God fellow sounds pretty cool, I think I'll believe in him from now on.

2) This God fellow makes complete sense, he really must be the truth!

From what I've gathered from most testimonies people have given here and elsewhere, the answer is pretty much always number 2. However, only number 1 is an actual choice. Number 2 is merely a realisation of beliefs that you have already, and the incorporation of God into those beliefs - all done without your conscious permission, I should add. You may have percieved it as a choice, but my bet is on you believing in God because you thought it was true, not before you thought it was true.

This may sound naive, but you can't separate the two things - your arguments are your beliefs, and my arguments are my beliefs.

It is possible to argue for that which you don't believe, is it not? I believe that it's called Devil's Advocate.

Beliefs are principles that you hold based on your perception of the world. Arguments are your attempt to get other people to agree with your beliefs (usually). There's a pretty big difference.

 

[ianb321red]

That would be a subjective belief too. Beliefs are by definition subjective.

Try telling that to your bank manager though!!

 

[ianb321red]

The lack of evidence, however, is real....

....but only as far as you are concerned...
Can you speak for others who hold a theist position (like me) who do believe there is evidence?

Everyone reaches their own position via a different route, which is dependent on their own personal life experience(s) along the way.

Or to be more exact: I have a subjective belief that there is a lack of objective evidence, but this is substantiated by the lack of objective evidence that anyone claims to have found and the fact that plenty of other people theists and atheists, have also failed to find objective evidence.

This is all basically conjecture. How do you qualify such a position? Firstly, "lack" of evidence doesn't actually mean "lack" - it means "no" evidence.

If it were a lack, then that would entail (a) there is some evidence, but not enough evidence, or (b) that there used to be evidence and now it doesn't exist anymore.

I don't think you hold either of these positions, so I think therefore it is correct for you to say that there is "no" evidence for God.

Now because "no evidence" is an absolute statement, then it needs to correspond to reality for this statement to hold as absolutely true.
All absolute statements logically must correspond to reality.
Otherwise, the only logical alternative is for it to be a relative statement and therefore neither true nor false.

It therefore follows for the statement "no evidence for God" to correspond to reality, you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

-all scientific evidence deemed to correspond to, or in support of a supernatural power is false
-all personal experiences of God (including dreams, visions and so) are false
-all religions and their gods are false
-Christianity, the claims of Jesus Christ and the evidence supporting them are false
-any atheist renouncing their position to be a theist position was false

If you can show that these 5 things all correspond to reality, then the statement "no evidence for God" would a true and absolute statement. The best that you could truthfully do is show that these things are strongly debated!

In the meantime, and until this happens the reality is (whether you agree with it or not) that tens-of-millions of people continue to believe in what they consider to be very real evidence (for God), and so the statement "no evidence for God" does not correspond to reality and is simply no more than an individual subjective perspective on the world in which we live.

Which is fine - and is valid to a point, but holds no real weight in an argument that is trying to disprove reality on an absolute and truthful basis for all.

In simple terms, the "no evidence" line of argument is a complete myth.
At best it is a relative and biased term. I can accept "there is no evidence for me personally"

At worst (and I'm not necessarily suggesting this is what you think) it calls in to question the essential and basic cognitive human abilities of millions of "god believers". And in real terms, using the UK as an example this would that the 17% of the UK population who are atheist, would take this view on the other 83% of the population who are not** - which sounds highly unlikely to me...

(**remember you yourself have used the quantity/ amount of evidence argument in the past)

So the real problem for an atheist is that they end up making absolute claims (such claims regarding the existence of God) when they should only be making relative claims, and in doing this from a minority position (which atheism is) attempt to write off the beliefs held by the majority (non-atheist) position with little or no justification or genuine understanding of this position.

It's a subjective belief but I think it's better founded in objective reality that yours is.

...well that's up for debate, isn't it!

 

[SithDoughnut]

Can you speak for others who hold a theist position (like me) who do believe there is evidence?

I've been using quantifiers like "for me" for the majority of the thread. I assumed that it was part of the context by now but I'll continue to clarify as it obviously isn't.

As I said right back at the beginning, there isn't an argument against the existence of God, but there are counter-arguments against arguments for the existence of God. This is because "God" is an undefined concept, and is regularly re-defined again and again to suit certain theistic arguments, so the only concepts that have any real meaning are the arguments rather than God itself.

Now, in the context of these arguments, I can safely say that I've seen no objective evidence or logical necessity. I can also safely say that these do not currently exist for the concept of God, but this is because God has not been consistently defined to a point where evidence or logical argument can actually apply.

I actually do believe that there is no objective evidence at all. As I said, this is a subjective belief, but it is based upon a number of objective statements.

1) I have seen most major arguments for theism to point where they are now repeating themselves

2) None of these arguments provided objective evidence or logical necessity (this isn't a subjective point; both objectivity and logic are defined to an extent where someone does fit those categories or doesn't - there is no room for opinion)

3) Regular claims that objective evidence/logical necessity exists either results in something that is neither being put forward, or one of the aforementioned arguments

Then we hit the subjective bit, where I extrapolate and say that objective evidence (when I say evidence, I mean objective evidence; subjective evidence has no real meaning beyond personal belief and therefore is irrelevant when dealing with arguments for theism) probably doesn't currently exist (or rather, no one currently has it if it does), because there is an absence of people putting it forward or using it in arguments.

Now, if you claim that evidence that could be used to argue for the existence of God exists, this would be the time to put it forward. Quick note: Belief in God is not evidence for God. Reality is not a democracy.

 

[ianb321red]

Now, if you claim that evidence that could be used to argue for the existence of God exists, this would be the time to put it forward.

1. The primary evidence for my argument is from The Bible.

2. I've summarised my previous arguments below to show that the evidence for the claims that Jesus Christ made that he was God can be supported by:

• a. a vast and extensively tested manuscript and codex archive which is widely accepted as being authentic amongst the majority of historians and scholars
• b. a number of independent, extra-Biblical and non-Biblical sources which all externally corroborate what is recorded in the New Testament primarily regarding Jesus Christ
• c. accounts given by early church leaders in letters which describe the teachings in the early Christian churches which confirm the acceptance of the deity of Jesus Christ
• d. any arguments claiming that church councils such as Hippo or Nicaea “decided” the canon and the deity/ divinity of Jesus Christ are demonstrated to be false

3. The Bible is objective evidence. It is objective evidence because it can be tested on historical facts which are recorded independently of anything written in The Bible. It contains historical references and accounts all of which can be tested objectively. Genealogies can be traced back and attested. Geographically, The Bible refers to real places using their ancient historical names – again the accuracy of this can be tested.

4. Unlike the Qu’ran (which contains no genealogies), The Bible is not the work of one author. It was written by 40 different authors, and demonstrates an internal consistency between the Old and New Testament, along with Jesus Christ fulfilling Old Testament predictions (such as the prophecy of Tyre), provide further evidence to show that The Bible is not the work of one man and therefore does not contain the inevitable authorship biases.

5. So, the evidence is not subjective – subjective evidence is evidence which cannot be evaluated. The teachings of Buddhism are subjective (these are one man's teachings on how to live your life and cannot be in anyway viewed as anything other than subjective), and a very clear distinction between this and the objective facts we have for The Bible. To suggest that the evidence is subjective, with regards to the evidence supporting The Bible is clearly false as I have more than demonstrated that The Bible can be objectively tested in a number of ways.

6. Therefore, given that there is objective evidence that exists outside of my personal belief, in order for my position to be refuted the following would have to be established:

• 1. The Biblical account of Jesus would have to be objectively demonstrated to be false. NOTE:The argument from other religious accounts is ineffective because (a) I have previously shown that The Bible account of Jesus is the most accurate account because of authorship / closeness to the event both historically and geographically / authenticity and reliability of the historical record, (b) that there is no competing account from any other religion that can be independently attested to be true when compared against non-religious historical sources. The Jewish account historically supports the claims Jesus made – it simply rejects them. Therefore, the Jewish and Christian accounts provide a huge weight of evidence to convincingly reject the Islamic account of Jesus
• 2. Furthermore, to discredit the Biblical account of Jesus Christ, there would be need to be objective evidence of multiple eye witness accounts from people who lived at the same time that Jesus did, and that these eye witness accounts would need to be corroborated by further independent evidence. All of this evidence would need to be well supported by manuscript copies that can be attested to have written around 15-35 years after the events they described.
• 3. Failure to present an alternative history – one that discredits The Biblical account of Jesus, and one that can be supported with (as a minimum) the equivalent quantity and quality of evidence, can only entail one logical conclusion = this evidence does not exist
• 4. Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be that the account and claims made by Jesus Christ as recorded in The Bible are a true and correct version of history. This is the only logical and rational conclusion to make.

7. Given this position, my next general comment is that compared to any other historical figure of any note or reputation, the demands made by non-Theists for evidence by far exceed the demands to prove and corroborate the claims made by Jesus Christ as recorded in The Bible.

8. The requirement to “prove” authorship of the gospels is clearly an excessive and impractical demand, and one that outside of scholarly circles is not deemed necessary to have truthful understanding of any historical figure

9. However, I would ask you to provide the equivalent amount of primary and independent objective evidence equivalent in both quality and quantity to that which is required to support arguments from the Bible, to demonstrate that Julius Caesar fought in the Roman Civil war.

10. My position is that my argument is not an argument of belief or subjectivity. It is an argument based on an objective account of history which can be demonstrated by multiple sources to be authentic and correct. My personal belief is based on an acceptance of a true account of history, and also through lack of an credible alternative version of history

11. Through the various sources I have cited in earlier posts, the burden of proof is now on the non-Theist to discredit the evidence I have used for my argument.

12. To simply subjectively ‘reject’ what I deem to be evidence does not stand up in an argument of this nature. Evidence needs to be presented to counter the Theistic/ biblical evidence which can be assessed objectively, and which can without a shadow of doubt discredit the claims of Jesus Christ as recorded in The Bible. From a non-Theistic position.

13. This is not asking you to prove a negative – which is accusation a lot of Theists/ God believers receive. It is asking you to prove that the current version of history (which exists objectively speaking) is false, and then to present the correct alternative version and support this version up with objective evidence.

14. If you or any non-Theist can not present credible evidence, then my default position as a result will be that the account of history which the Theist/ Christian Biblical account holds is true, and that The Bible is a true account of the claims that Jesus Christ made that he was God

15. Therefore, God exists – and any alternative worldview is false


Please support any counter arguments citing source of evidence.
Opinions are just opinions, so for arguments and/or evidence to be effectively contested, contrary evidence needs to be referenced.

Thanks

 

[critent]

Why should I believe otherwise, aside from early childhood socialization/brainwashing, enhanced perhaps if you have the genetic predisposition to believe fantastically ridculous things. For those of us predisposed to careful and critical intellectual examination, logic, reason, and evidence (i.e., for those of us who are smart and who were not derailed at a young age by feeble parents desperate to find security in their inane views by forcefully injecting their kids with the same delusions, thereby weaving a sticky web of social support for lunacy), the world as it is--as it appears and is perceived by the sane and honest among us--will do just fine.

 

[critent]

1. The primary evidence for my argument is from The Bible.
:

Fine. Then my primary evidence against the existence of God is a Corn Flakes box. Just as credible.

 

[3rdHeaven]

I've heard just about every argument for and against, there really is nothing new under the sun lol.

I am a believer.

I was born a believer!

There was a brief period during my younger years I was a agnostic or soft atheist but mostly because of a tragedy that occurred in my life, I got over it.

I am so in to religion, science, philosophy, mysticism, all of it. I studied just about every aspect of mythology and religion including metaphysics and theosophy. So I am no stranger to arguments

The best argument atheists have imho other then the lack of evidence argument, is the probability argument.

How probable is it that a all Loving God would give us all life for a brief span of time and either reward or or punish for eternity knowing in advance the full out come of every thing? What would be the point?

The best argument theists have other then the personal experiences we have, is that you can't get some thing from nothing! The evidence is actually all around us that points to Intelligent Design.

The best argument agnostics have is religion in general fails because they all can't be right, therefore true knowledge of God is impossible to know for sure.

 

[critent]

Fine. Then my primary evidence against the existence of God is a Corn Flakes box. Just as credible.

And I should add that a Corn Flakes box is more interesting to me than the Bible, and decidedly less wicked in its claims and social consequences.

What's more fascinating is that those in this thread presenting arguments in favor of God seem to be arguing as if they've never even come across the other side--as though they've never encountered the arguments against their arguments. They challenge us to present them, but what's the point? Will it really matter to repeat them yet again? What's going on? Is it selective perception, ignorance, or childish defiance? Or something else? There's just no progress in this debate it seems. The same tired old arguments are repeated over, and over, and over, and over again...with the same, smug "gotcha" kind of sad, foolish, unlettered arrogance. What a fantastic waste of time. Good luck hashing it out...AGAIN.

When can we move on??? Please! When will this stop??

 

[critent]

I've heard just about every argument for and against, there really is nothing new under the sun lol.

The best argument theists have other then the personal experiences we have, is that you can't get some thing from nothing! The evidence is actually all around us that points to Intelligent Design.

There isn't a rational person in the room who would accept your claim about ID, and who is claiming that something came from nothing? Modern cosmology and physics have not yet come to fully understand how the universe AS WE PERCEIVE IT sprang into existence (if it even makes sense to say that), but that is not to say that it came from nothing.

I'll give it to you. Perhaps these are the best arguments that theists have. The problem is, they've both been sunk to the bottom of the crappy idea pond.

 

[underheaven]

All of science? Including the bits that demonstrably work on a day to day basis?

Which bit of science that they "disproved" would you like to discuss further? As I said, I don't have a spare 11 hours to watch Youtube videos that are dragged on far more than they should be.

Science is simply uncovering ,when God choses,how the materiel world works ,is useful to us.,... Jesus predicted that He would give us,show us things ,we could never begin to imagine,and He has. In other words ,God is first and foremost the Original Progammer Scientist.Religion is simply a mechanism to bring people to better and higher way of being in themselves, and in their community,making them ready to recieve these gifts of God .If you are an Atheist all your life[not agnostic] you are almost certainly lost, to any future creative Life, of any kind. You have chosen to put your narcissistic,narrow, interests before those of the community [which Jesus put high on his list,of what we must do] ,and God, and his design . You would like to steal what is not yours,the functioning of the whole of Creation,and change the rules in line with your' desires'.,..
Those who overcome,and have the insight, and the humility to know, that they are helpless to 'go it alone',turning to God ,even without understanding' how it works',only knowing that they must, will be enlightened in time. But ,you never get to God through reason as the first step,but through the heart.

I certainly think, that too many 'believers' have not followed education outside of the bible,
but they are now ,and all 'atheistic 'arguments will fall before the Truth,when it is all revealed.
many are now,guided from above by their Creator.

 

[SithDoughnut]

1. The primary evidence for my argument is from The Bible.

And this is where the problem lies, because the Bible is not evidence for the existence of God. I'm not saying that as an atheist who doesn't believe in the Bible; even if I were a theist, the Bible would still not be evidence for the existence of God. If the Bible was evidence for the existence of God, then the Iliad would be evidence for the existence of Zeus. At best, this argument ends up as the circular "God exists because the Bible is true because God exists because the Bible is true...".

The rest of your argument relies upon this first statement being true, which is not the case. Not that this discussion can go any further though; we've ventured far into the realms of personal opinion, which cannot be argued for or against in any meaningful sense.