Arguments Against God

[Tree of Life]

I'm teaching an apologetics course at our church and one of our lessons will be dealing with arguments against the existence of God. For the atheists and agnostics, what are the arguments against God's existence that are the most compelling to you? Just a brief description of the arguments will suffice.

Thanks

 

[Tinker Grey]

Insufficient evidence for the existence of gods.

 

[cloudyday2]

Judaism claims to be a unique and special religion revealed by God through various prophets such as Moses. If that claim is true then I would expect to see a few abrupt changes in the beliefs and practices of the Hebrews at certain dates. Instead, I see a gradual evolution of the beliefs and practices just as I see with other religions.

The same argument applies to the development of Christianity but the timescale is shorter.

That is why I believe that if God exists then he doesn't care about the specifics of our religious beliefs.

 

[muichimotsu]

Inconsistent revelation is certainly a strong one in regards to that idea, divine hiddenness also works well even when the argument is more natural theology.

But incompatible properties is probably one of the more compelling in the idea that the entity in question is not only lacking any evidence, but also cogency

Occam's razor applies well, even if that wasn't entirely what it was intended for historically by its namesake. The simpler answer in terms of what we know and not adding an extraneous entity that has fundamental problems in its own nature being contradictory, would be simply that it isn't required as an explanation for any of the things we would seem to conclude necessitate a God out of an initial ignorance or wishful thinking.

 

[Tree of Life]

Inconsistent revelation is certainly a strong one in regards to that idea, divine hiddenness also works well even when the argument is more natural theology.

But incompatible properties is probably one of the more compelling in the idea that the entity in question is not only lacking any evidence, but also cogency

Occam's razor applies well, even if that wasn't entirely what it was intended for historically by its namesake. The simpler answer in terms of what we know and not adding an extraneous entity that has fundamental problems in its own nature being contradictory, would be simply that it isn't required as an explanation for any of the things we would seem to conclude necessitate a God out of an initial ignorance or wishful thinking.

We will be covering incoherence arguments and also arguments from science which fit into the occam's razor category. I don't think inconsistent revelation is strong enough to consider.

 

[muichimotsu]

We will be covering incoherence arguments and also arguments from science which fit into the occam's razor category. I don't think inconsistent revelation is strong enough to consider.

Except that's the fundamental assertion in many religions: that they have a revelation from a deity, yet there isn't remote agreement on the meaning itself, not to mention competing ideas that are all fundamentally subjective and unfalsifiable in the claim about the source of the revelation.

It's not applicable to the idea of natural theology, obviously, but to those that make exclusive claims about their revelation versus, say, opposing groups, like a Christian saying that Islam is fake and otherwise invalid, but ironically accepting Judaism to their own benefit, seems not only conniving, but also contradictory in the idea that revelations are acknowledged insofar as they fit particular frameworks of how that works versus another that would accept, say, progressive revelation, in which case, inconsistent revelation isn't a problem either.

 

[Tree of Life]

Except that's the fundamental assertion in many religions: that they have a revelation from a deity, yet there isn't remote agreement on the meaning itself, not to mention competing ideas that are all fundamentally subjective and unfalsifiable in the claim about the source of the revelation.

It's not applicable to the idea of natural theology, obviously, but to those that make exclusive claims about their revelation versus, say, opposing groups, like a Christian saying that Islam is fake and otherwise invalid, but ironically accepting Judaism to their own benefit, seems not only conniving, but also contradictory in the idea that revelations are acknowledged insofar as they fit particular frameworks of how that works versus another that would accept, say, progressive revelation, in which case, inconsistent revelation isn't a problem either.

It is an important discussion. We have another section focusing on the Bible as God's word. This might be more appropriate there. For now we're just dealing with the subject of God's existence.

 

[muichimotsu]

It is an important discussion. We have another section focusing on the Bible as God's word. This might be more appropriate there. For now we're just dealing with the subject of God's existence.

Then the question is whether it is reasonable to conclude the existence of any such entity, in part based on allegations from Christianity about revelation in the Bible. They can lead into each other, they aren't utterly separate if we're just talking about how Christianity isn't the only religion involving revelations and claims of exclusivity.

If the idea is more natural theology, then it wouldn't really be relevant, but if there is that line of argumentation, like fulfilled prophecy, etc, then inconsistent revelation is a starting point in bringing that into question given how there is not only different interpretations from competing Abrahamic faiths, but even within Christianity in regards to whether certain prophecies are already fulfilled or will be completed in the eschaton, etc.

And that's not hypocrisy, that's a matter of fragmentation based on the idea of some unquestioned orthodoxy of interpretation, which isn't justified seemingly except through traditions that persist in popularity versus those that fall out of popularity.

 

[cloudyday2]

It is an important discussion. We have another section focusing on the Bible as God's word. This might be more appropriate there. For now we're just dealing with the subject of God's existence.

How are you defining God? I assumed you meant the God of Christianity.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm teaching an apologetics course at our church and one of our lessons will be dealing with arguments against the existence of God. For the atheists and agnostics, what are the arguments against God's existence that are the most compelling to you? Just a brief description of the arguments will suffice.

Thanks

I've been deep in this topic for a couple/three years now.... Ultimately, it comes down to the 'witness of the Holy Spirit' claims. Atheists don't feel they've had them Apologetics, in my current assessment, will neither influence someone towards or away from "God"....?

I implore you to watch this 24 minute video, unless you have already, as I have attached it before. I have found that it sums up many topics, in a nice and neat pretty little package. Or maybe even use it as an "ice breaker" in the start of your course studies. I know it focuses on Christians. But it applies to apolgetics in general as well:

 

[ananda]

I'm teaching an apologetics course at our church and one of our lessons will be dealing with arguments against the existence of God. For the atheists and agnostics, what are the arguments against God's existence that are the most compelling to you? Just a brief description of the arguments will suffice.

Thanks

For me:

• It is unbelievable that an infallible god would deliver its message through fallible (questionable) means;
• It is unbelievable that an omnimax god would need a special class of persons (e.g. ethnicity, priests, etc.) to serve as intermediaries (a variation on the first point above);
  
• Heaven (a place) is not my ultimate goal; nibbana (the cessation of suffering) is my ultimate goal; the goal of nibbana explains literally every volitional action I perform in life, not heaven;
  
• The biblical god acts, therefore he must suffer, for volitional action is always observed to be a consequence of suffering.

 

[Yttrium]

If we define God as that which created the known universe, intelligent or not, then I accept the existence of God, although that existence may have been temporary. Something caused the universe to come into being.

If we define God as an intelligent supreme being that created the universe and continues to exist, well, I have no arguments for or against that.

I would only have arguments against specific attributes that one might assign to God. I would primarily be concerned with logical inconsistencies. Things like "God is fully loving" and "God allows humans to suffer eternally", which don't work together.

 

[FireDragon76]

We will be covering incoherence arguments and also arguments from science which fit into the occam's razor category. I don't think inconsistent revelation is strong enough to consider.

You should probably also cover Euthyphro Dilema. I believe it's one of the more powerful arguments against much of traditional Christian theism, though it probably wouldn't be one of the top arguments many traditional skeptics would use to disprove God's existence per se.

Also, I think the Problem of Evil is a very real one, existentially speaking.

 

[FireDragon76]

Insufficient evidence for the existence of gods.

I really think it depends on what you meant by "God". This argument isn't as strong as many skeptics initially claim. Certain theistic conceptualizations of God are more plausible than others, and the evidence for such views is ultimately going to be down to how much sense they make out of the universe (currently I'm reviewing Whiteheads process metaphysics, for instance, which presents a metaphysics without alot of the problems of classical theism and substance dualism).

 

[FireDragon76]

For me:

• It is unbelievable that an infallible god would deliver its message through fallible (questionable) means;
• It is unbelievable that an omnimax god would need a special class of persons (e.g. ethnicity, priests, etc.) to serve as intermediaries (a variation on the first point above);
  
• Heaven (a place) is not my ultimate goal; nibbana (the cessation of suffering) is my ultimate goal; the goal of nibbana explains literally every volitional action I perform in life, not heaven;
  
• The biblical god acts, therefore he must suffer, for volitional action is always observed to be a consequence of suffering.

The last objection sounds the most dubious. I can think of many actions that have nothing to do with suffering. However, a further possibility for instance is that God doesn't choose to act, God simply is pure action itself. That isn't far from classical theism, in fact (it may be identical, from what little I know of Aquinas).

 

[Tinker Grey]

I really think it depends on what you meant by "God". This argument isn't as strong as many skeptics initially claim. Certain theistic conceptualizations of God are more plausible than others, and the evidence for such views is ultimately going to be down to how much sense they make out of the universe (currently I'm reviewing Whiteheads process metaphysics, for instance, which presents a metaphysics without alot of the problems of classical theism and substance dualism).

The argument is as strong as it needs to be. You say, "God" and I say "what?". There has been no conception of god presented to me which is compelling. That's all the reason any one needs to not believe in a god.

Sure. Maybe some are more compelling than others. But none have sufficient evidence to believe.

I don't need an argument "against" god; lack of an argument for a god is sufficient reason to not believe.

 

[FireDragon76]

The argument is as strong as it needs to be. You say, "God" and I say "what?". There has been no conception of god presented to me which is compelling. That's all the reason any one needs to not believe in a god.

Sure. Maybe some are more compelling than others. But none have sufficient evidence to believe.

I believe your overestimate how much human beings can flourish in the world without some kind of way to understand the relationship of the phenomenal world to self-consciousness. I acknowledge there are many ways of doing that, including ones that are not monotheistic, but in traditional western culture, the God-concept has an historic monopoly. Naturalism seems to not work so well at all, since it cannot even tell us what causes us to have qualia of consciousness in the first place (from a purely materialistic perspective, we should not be conscious at all, and yet we experience a real sense of "I amness").

Therefore, I don't find absolute skepticism to be an ethical response. It's easy to sit back in an armchair and decry religion, but no good alternatives have really been proposed that motivate people to cooperate socially in large groups through the appreciation of universalized values.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I believe your overestimate how much human beings can flourish in the world without some kind of way to understand the relationship of the phenomenal world to self-consciousness. I acknowledge there are many ways of doing that, including ones that are not monotheistic, but in traditional western culture, the God-concept has an historic monopoly. Naturalism seems to not work so well at all, since it cannot even tell us what causes us to have qualia of consciousness in the first place (from a purely materialistic perspective, we should not be conscious at all, and yet we experience a real sense of "I amness").

I'm not estimating anything. I've stating a reason why *I* don't believe.

And, just because we may not have answers about consciousness that satisfy everyone doesn't mean that we actually don't or won't. As for me, everything for which there has been explanation has had a physical explanation. In the meantime, it is an argument from ignorance.

"has not yet" does not equal "cannot".


ETA: I guess I should add that I wasn't presenting "no evidence" as a means for convincing someone else; I was presenting what for me is the bottom line.

 

[FireDragon76]

We will be covering incoherence arguments and also arguments from science which fit into the occam's razor category. I don't think inconsistent revelation is strong enough to consider.

Pluralism of religious experience is the strongest argument I would have against traditional Christian orthodoxy, TBH. There are worldviews that can explain Christian experience, but I find Christian attempts to explain those worldviews in turn to be lacking, as they seem too much like special pleading.

I'm not sure that fits with what you are looking for (you did mention atheism and agnosticism, after all). One could simply adopt a stance similar to John Hick's, call the Real "God" (as Hindus sometimes do), and move around the deck chairs a bit. But it definitely will take you far away from conservative Protestantism or Catholicism.

And I believe that's the most likely position you are going to find in American culture at large among young people, though certainly not articulate in those terms. Traditional atheism and agnosticism in the US aren't growing significantly, and internationally it isn't growing, either. So if the goal is to inform your students about real challenges to Christianity, that might be worth exploring.

 

[ananda]

The last objection sounds the most dubious. I can think of many actions that have nothing to do with suffering.

Can you provide an example involving volitional action?

Keep in mind that when I say "volitional action is always observed to be a consequence of suffering", I am referring to the spectrum of suffering which goes from suffering<-->happiness/pleasure, that is to say "volitional action is always observed to be a consequence of suffering, done in an attempt to move away from the pole of suffering towards the pole of happiness/pleasure"

However, a further possibility for instance is that God doesn't choose to act, God simply is pure action itself. That isn't far from classical theism, in fact (it may be identical, from what little I know of Aquinas).

Of course it is a possibility, but since it is not rooted in observeable, experiential reality, that suggestion goes into the realm of imagination ... and in consequence, really opens the door to the possibility of any fanciful imagination about the nature of "God".