Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

There are over 31,100 verses in the old and new testaments.

How many have you provided?

How many does he need to provide to support what he is saying? In what way were the verses he presented "out of context"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig caution:
...
J.P. Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2003), p.492.

Do you read anything besides apologetics?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Philosophers of religion as a part of their discipline, sometimes engage in the formulation and defense of arguments for the existence of God.

We are aware of this.

However, it is oftentimes forgotten that they also interact with arguments against theism.

In this thread, we will discuss those which atheists here think are most persuasive.

Any takers?

The problem with forming philosophical arguments against the existence of a god is that the term "god" is rarely ever clearly defined. Without a clear meaning for "god" how does one determine if it exists or not?

So...let's use a very generalized description of "god". I'll describe it as an entity capable of thought that is "perfect" and has created all of reality. Now that we have at least some bare minimum of a definition of a god...we could start to create an argument against its existence....

In using the term "perfect" I'm describing an entity that is "perfect" in every way....not just one. Since one of the functions in my definition of god is "creator"...it logically follows that our "perfect creator" makes perfect creations. That is to say...he makes creations that are the best they could possibly be.

Since this perfect creator is defined as having created everything in existence...if we can find a flaw in his creation, or imagine a creation that could be "better than it is"...we must logically conclude that this god either...

1. Does not exist.
2. Is not perfect.
3. Is not a creator.

Would you agree with my logic so far? If not, where is the flaw? If it's in the definition of god...feel free to create your own definition so I can make a logical argument against it.

 

[Davian]

There would be no earthquakes if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God. The ground was cursed because of their disobedience to God. In God's economy, sin has devastating consequences which are far reaching beyond the immediate.

Do you feel that this should be taught in public schools? Would that be part of the science curriculum, or comparative religion?

 

[anonymous person]

Do you feel that this should be taught in public schools? Would that be part of the science curriculum, or comparative religion?

The problem with forming philosophical arguments against the existence of a god is that the term "god" is rarely ever clearly defined. Without a clear meaning for "god" how does one determine if it exists or not?

So...let's use a very generalized description of "god". I'll describe it as an entity capable of thought that is "perfect" and has created all of reality. Now that we have at least some bare minimum of a definition of a god...we could start to create an argument against its existence....

In using the term "perfect" I'm describing an entity that is "perfect" in every way....not just one. Since one of the functions in my definition of god is "creator"...it logically follows that our "perfect creator" makes perfect creations. That is to say...he makes creations that are the best they could possibly be.

Since this perfect creator is defined as having created everything in existence...if we can find a flaw in his creation, or imagine a creation that could be "better than it is"...we must logically conclude that this god either...

1. Does not exist.
2. Is not perfect.
3. Is not a creator.

Would you agree with my logic so far? If not, where is the flaw? If it's in the definition of god...feel free to create your own definition so I can make a logical argument against it.

No I don't agree with your reasoning.
I see no reason to think God could have no morally sufficient reason for creating a world wherein free moral agents choose evil as opposed to good.

Also, remember that this world is not the end of God's design. It is a part of it. The end has yet to be actualized, i.e. the end wherein free moral agents live eternally with God. An existence devoid of suffering and evil and pain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No I don't agree with your reasoning.
I see no reason to think God could have no morally sufficient reason for creating a world wherein free moral agents choose evil as opposed to good.

Also, remember that this world is not the end of God's design. It is a part of it. The end has yet to be actualized, i.e. the end wherein free moral agents live eternally with God. An existence devoid of suffering and evil and pain.

Talking about "morally sufficient reasons" again, eh? I seem to recall that the last time you were asked about this, you bolted.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No I don't agree with your reasoning.
I see no reason to think God could have no morally sufficient reason for creating a world wherein free moral agents choose evil as opposed to good.

Also, remember that this world is not the end of God's design. It is a part of it. The end has yet to be actualized, i.e. the end wherein free moral agents live eternally with God. An existence devoid of suffering and evil and pain.

To be clear, in your theology, only those who believe in the salvific doctrines will enjoy such an existence. The experience of those who do not will be very different.

 

[anonymous person]

To be clear, in your theology, only those who believe in the salvific doctrines will enjoy such an existence. The experience of those who do not will be very different.

It is not doctrines one must believe in.
It is Jesus Christ. The Messiah.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is not doctrines one must believe in.
It is Jesus Christ. The Messiah.

Yeah, exactly. Tomato, tomato.

 

[KCfromNC]

There would be no earthquakes if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God.

Would it be moral of me to punish you for something a distant ancestor did or didn't do?

 

[KCfromNC]

No I don't agree with your reasoning.
I see no reason to think God could have no morally sufficient reason for creating a world wherein free moral agents choose evil as opposed to good.

Funny how "no reason to think otherwise" is suddenly a good enough basis for a tentative conclusion. When atheists used that to explain their lack of belief in your god, you didn't seem quite as impressed.

 

[brinny]

Some stars are lucky, and some aren't........

Daniel 8:10
It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them.

Revelation 12:3
Then another sign appeared in heaven and behold!
a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.
4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

.................................

would make an excellent Bible study, amigo

 

[anonymous person]

Funny how "no reason to think otherwise" is suddenly a good enough basis for a tentative conclusion. When atheists used that to explain their lack of belief in your god, you didn't seem quite as impressed.

I don't see it as a matter of being impressed or not being impressed.

I see it as a matter of presenting an argument against the existence of God that has as its conclusion, the proposition "God does not exist" which itself, would of necessity, be preceded by true premises, in a logically valid form, leading inescapably to the aforementioned conclusion.

The rhetoric, the burden shifting, the red herrings, the goal post shifting, the claims of ignorance, and strawmen, if they are used, are all superfluous.

That is what I mean by an argument.

My response to such an argument would not to flippantly retort that it was unimpressive. But I would say, "thank you!" And then interact with it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't see it as a matter of being impressed or not being impressed.

I see it as a matter of presenting an argument against the existence of God that has as its conclusion, the proposition "God does not exist" which itself, would of necessity, be preceded by true premises, in a logically valid form, leading inescapably to the aforementioned conclusion.

The rhetoric, the burden shifting, the red herrings, the goal post shifting, the claims of ignorance, and strawmen, if they are used, are all superfluous.

The entire OP is burden shifting.

That is what I mean by an argument.

My response to such an argument would not to flippantly retort that it was unimpressive. But I would say, "thank you!" And then interact with it.

Yeah, like you "interacted with" DogmaHunter's question from before.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Do you read anything besides apologetics?

Listening to idiot hucksters seems to be his thing...

 

[quatona]

I see it as a matter of presenting an argument against the existence of God that has as its conclusion, the proposition "God does not exist" which itself, would of necessity, be preceded by true premises, in a logically valid form, leading inescapably to the aforementioned conclusion.

There you go again, asking for support of an assertion that a. hardly anybody makes here, about an idea of you that you don´t even want to define properly.

The rhetoric, the burden shifting, the red herrings, the goal post shifting, the claims of ignorance, and strawmen, if they are used, are all superfluous.

As Arch already said, your entire request is nothing but burden shifting, to begin with.

My response to such an argument would not to flippantly retort that it was unimpressive. But I would say, "thank you!" And then interact with it.

Well, we have seen the way you "interact with arguments" plenty of times.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't see it as a matter of being impressed or not being impressed.

I see it as a matter of presenting an argument against the existence of God that has as its conclusion, the proposition "God does not exist" which itself, would of necessity, be preceded by true premises, in a logically valid form, leading inescapably to the aforementioned conclusion.

The rhetoric, the burden shifting, the red herrings, the goal post shifting, the claims of ignorance, and strawmen, if they are used, are all superfluous.

That is what I mean by an argument.

My response to such an argument would not to flippantly retort that it was unimpressive. But I would say, "thank you!" And then interact with it.

I don't claim god/s exist, so why would I need to prove it doesn't?

 

[Loudmouth]

It didn't.

The Earth started having earthquakes billions of years ago. How did sin cause those earthquakes?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't see it as a matter of being impressed or not being impressed.

I see it as a matter of presenting an argument against the existence of God that has as its conclusion, the proposition "God does not exist" which itself, would of necessity, be preceded by true premises, in a logically valid form, leading inescapably to the aforementioned conclusion.

You have claimed that God is perfectly moral. Finding a single instance of God acting immoral disproves that the God you have defined exists.

I have shown multiple instances of God being described as acting immorally. This disproves the God you defined earlier.

 

[anonymous person]

I don't claim god/s exist, so why would I need to prove it doesn't?

I don't think you need to do anything.