Arguments against God's Existence

[Michael Bodomov]

I was just interested in hearing some logical arguments against God's Existence, feel free to post whatever you think makes sense and be prepared to debate

Thanks!!!

 

[JohnyPoppacapolis]

You can't prove the existence of God. Sure it's a logical assumption to say that God made the universe, but that doesn't equal proof. You cannot prove the spiritual physically.

 

[Bordamere]

I apply the burden of proof to the situation. Because the state in which we are born is one that is free of belief in any deity, any belief away from the default position must supply sufficient reason and evidence in order to be accepted. So no argument is required. Only when proof is provided does one need to step in to confront it if they hold the opposing view.

There is no logical argument against the existence of god, nor does there have to be any. You don't prove a negative.

It would be like if you asked someone to prove that there are not 10 planets in the solar system. What is an astronomer to do, scour the night sky until they have looked at ever dot and spec and determined if it is a planet or not. No. Only when an astronomer comes along asserting that there are 10 planets does the first astronomer have to see if it is correct.

 

[JohnyPoppacapolis]

OK, I'm gonna get all spiritual all up in here. Not that I'll expect you to believe me and I don't care.

The only way to "Prove" God's existence is if he reveals himself to you personally. And even then that does not prove his existence to others because you can only connect to God on spiritual level. Jesus was the way God connected to people physically, and you can't prove Jesus was God in flesh because you'd have to be there when Jesus was walked this earth. And No one is alive that has seen Jesus. However there is a theory that John the Beloved or someone like that is still alive because Jesus said he wouldn't pass away or something, but that's off topic and I still don't know what to think about that one.

And there are a few of my jumbled thoughts that don't necessarily mean anything to anybody.

 

[Rynomachine]

I was just interested in hearing some logical arguments against God's Existence, feel free to post whatever you think makes sense and be prepared to debate

Thanks!!!

The burden of proof rests on the affirmative position (Existence of God), you are required to provide evidence. I have not yet seen good evidence toward the existence of any deity, but if you have some please don't hold back.

 

[Crabtree]

I apply the burden of proof to the situation. Because the state in which we are born is one that is free of belief in any deity, any belief away from the default position must supply sufficient reason and evidence in order to be accepted. So no argument is required. Only when proof is provided does one need to step in to confront it if they hold the opposing view.

There is no logical argument against the existence of god, nor does there have to be any. You don't prove a negative.

It would be like if you asked someone to prove that there are not 10 planets in the solar system. What is an astronomer to do, scour the night sky until they have looked at ever dot and spec and determined if it is a planet or not. No. Only when an astronomer comes along asserting that there are 10 planets does the first astronomer have to see if it is correct.

this argument is completely out of the question... You are trying to prove that we cannot prove that he doesnt exist... if Any deity does exist then it is your job to prove it not mine to prove that such a diety doesnt exist

 

[SarcasticLemon]

Well there is the lack of evidence. I mean there is really no evidence at all which really gets to me because everything that we interact with is backed up by evidence but for some reason god is not. Also i found a fatal flaw of god. If god is omnipotent then that means he can kill himself right? If god is forever (Alpha and Omega) then that means he cannot kill himself therefore he is not omnipotent and all powerful. Its funny really, i can do something that your god cannot.

Just a few things, its mainly a combination of everything that i find is wrong with the god hypothesis.

 

[solarwave]

Also i found a fatal flaw of god. If god is omnipotent then that means he can kill himself right? If god is forever (Alpha and Omega) then that means he cannot kill himself therefore he is not omnipotent and all powerful. Its funny really, i can do something that your god cannot.

Being omnipotent doesn't mean you can go against logic. You can do many things God cannot, such as swim. It doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent, just that there are some things God cannot do. Also God cannot make a rock so heavy He can't lift it..... because it's a nonsense question.

 

[Bordamere]

this argument is completely out of the question... You are trying to prove that we cannot prove that he doesnt exist... if Any deity does exist then it is your job to prove it not mine to prove that such a diety doesnt exist

Let me just quote myself

There is no logical argument against the existence of god, nor does there have to be any.

I probably should have put more emphasis on "nor does there have to be any" because once that is understood, then you will see that you basically restated my post and directed it towards me (an act that is wholeheartedly unnecessary)

 

[Hisbygrace]

MOD HAT ON
Please take note that this thread has undergone a slight cleanup. If you find your post(s) have been removed or edited it is because they were victims of the cleanup.
Please take a minute to review our Sitewide Rules.
Especially the following rule concerning Blasphemy:

Blasphemy
You will not insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father(God), Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christianity is allowed, but derogatory remarks will be promptly removed.

Thank you!​

MOD HAT OFF

​

 

[Hakan101]

Well there is the lack of evidence. I mean there is really no evidence at all which really gets to me because everything that we interact with is backed up by evidence but for some reason god is not. Also i found a fatal flaw of god. If god is omnipotent then that means he can kill himself right? If god is forever (Alpha and Omega) then that means he cannot kill himself therefore he is not omnipotent and all powerful. Its funny really, i can do something that your god cannot.

Just a few things, its mainly a combination of everything that i find is wrong with the god hypothesis.

There is plenty of evidence of God. It is not accepted by you, but by others. Nobody lives their entire lives with no evidence at all, let alone the life of a Christian.

Your "flaw" makes no sense. You assumed that God is not omnipotent in the first place. If you assumed he was omnipotent in the first place, and if you knew he is forever, then the obvious conclusion is that God lives forever with the power to end his own existence. He just doesn't exercise that power, because why in the world would he.

 

[SarcasticLemon]

There is plenty of evidence of God. It is not accepted by you, but by others. Nobody lives their entire lives with no evidence at all, let alone the life of a Christian.

Your "flaw" makes no sense. You assumed that God is not omnipotent in the first place. If you assumed he was omnipotent in the first place, and if you knew he is forever, then the obvious conclusion is that God lives forever with the power to end his own existence. He just doesn't exercise that power, because why in the world would he.

Ok there is no evidence. You can think that whatever coincidence one may experience is caused by god but there is no evidence for that.

The flaw is that if god is forever (alpha and omega) then he cannot kill himself and doing so would be contradicting himself. A perfect god cannot contradict himself. If god did kill himself what would become of everything? What is existence? Who created god and how does any of this make any sense do you see where im coming from?

 

[Hakan101]

Ok there is no evidence. You can think that whatever coincidence one may experience is caused by god but there is no evidence for that.

The flaw is that if god is forever (alpha and omega) then he cannot kill himself and doing so would be contradicting himself. A perfect god cannot contradict himself. If god did kill himself what would become of everything? What is existence? Who created god and how does any of this make any sense do you see where im coming from?

Not only is there evidence for a creator, there is evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Which is evidence for the God of Abraham. There is no flaw, God is Alpha and Omega because he has the power to be. He is the almighty God. He was, is and will be forever because he says so. This means that he has the power to do all things, yet he chooses not to do every possible thing imaginable. God is the Ultimate Creator, no one is above him.

 

[SarcasticLemon]

Not only is there evidence for a creator, there is evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Which is evidence for the God of Abraham.

There is none and you know it.

 

[Hakan101]

There is none and you know it.

On the contrary, I know there is certainly evidence. You should look into it, do some research. Anyone can parrot the phrase "There is no evidence" without ever having searched for it. But then again, they say ignorance is bliss...

 

[Hakan101]

If you know there's evidence, then tell us it? Afterall, surely you looked into it and did some research before you decided to make radical life choices, otherwise you're doing them for a god that has an extremely low chance of even existing.

Yup, I sure did. You seem two-faced though. Instead of telling you, I'll urge you to search for the evidence yourself. This way we will know if you're actually desiring evidence, or if you just want to sit in your chair and shout at passersby. Evidence of God is no good if you don't really want it.

 

[Bordamere]

Yup, I sure did. You seem two-faced though. Instead of telling you, I'll urge you to search for the evidence yourself. This way we will know if you're actually desiring evidence, or if you just want to sit in your chair and shout at passersby. Evidence of God is no good if you don't really want it.

(Emphasis added)

Have you perchance ever heard of confirmation bias? This is what I feel when you say talk of wanting evidence of god. Why should you have to want it for it to actually appear? That just seems like a cop out. Maybe it's just a noticeable trend, because many people who want the evidence could "find" it easily if they create a rationalization of events.

Also, it is another cop out, because if he finds the evidence unconvincing, then you can just say "you didn't really want it" or "you didn't really desire it". Proper evidence should be beyond emotions. Whether or not you want it should have no effect on if the evidence is true or false. Reality should be completely convincing.

I would rather you, instead of urging people to go and research it for themselves, show us this evidence for a creator and the resurrection. If it is complex or technical in any way (because I know theology can get jargon heavy) I'm sure you'd be willing to give a summery or overview of what it is. I am legitimately interested in this evidence.

 

[Deimo5]

I always like to begin by directing attention toward history. Specifically history regarding past religious and deistic beliefs. Let's take a look at the ancient Greeks, shall we?

During the time of the ancient Greeks, scientific knowledge was rather scarce in comparison to today's world. What is common place knowledge today would have been enormous scientific breakthroughs during their time. Now the Greeks, with their limited knowledge on the world around them, began asking questions as to what causes natural phenomenon that occurred, just as man should regarding things that are not understood. They couldn't explain certain phenomenon that occurred, so what do they do? They attribute the causes to different deities. Thunder, you ask? Why, it can only be the work of Thor, the Thunder God! Lighting, you say? Only Zeus, the God of Lightning could wield such tremendous power! And of course, what happens to the human soul after death? It's only a known fact that the souls of the deceased descend to the Underworld where they are then judged by Hades, the Lord of Underworld. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it, Paul?) They didn't understand how these things happened, so they immediately assumed it must be the work of a God.

Of course, as science produced explanations for the previously stated phenomenon (and more), the need for a deistic explanation vanished. "Where did we come from?" and "What happens to us after we die?" are probably the two most commonly asked questions today. Do we know how the human race came into existence? There are theories, but it's not been proven to be 100% true. Do we know what happens after death? No, we do not, and I'm don't think it's possible for the living to know completely.

So here we have these two questions that are unanswered by man, two question that man desires an answer to. And what does man do in an attempt to answer these questions? The exact same thing that's been witnessed in past cultures and beliefs. They form deistic beliefs in an attempt to answer these questions that we have no definite answers to. What makes today's religions, specifically Christianity, any different than past beliefs?

TL;DR: Throughout history man has attributed what he doesn't understand or comprehend to be the work of a deity. What makes religion today any different?

 

[Johnnybabe]

Instead of telling you, I'll urge you to search for the evidence yourself

You know, if this was a debating competition; you're team would have just lost specifically for this. If you're trying to prove a point, it's up to you to actually state the evidence and, in this case, provide the links to back you up.

OK. If you were a witness giving evidence at a trial, and the prosecution said to you, "Can you prove that you were with Mr. Little on the night of the murder?"; you wouldn't respond with, "Instead of telling you, I'll urge you to search for the evidence yourself. You seemed two-faced enough not to care, prove to me that you care about my innocence."

Of course the prosecution lawyer wouldn't care about your innocence. They care about getting paid, and they'll prosecute or defend whoever's at court to get paid. It's because that's their purpose in that situation.

Now, what does this have to do with the situation? Plenty. The poster you responded to was, in the terms of my analogy, was playing the part of the prosecutor: the prosecutor of the existance of God. You, my friend, were the witness on the stand, and you were defending that God actually exists, which means you should provide evidence regardless of whether or not the prosecution cares.

 

[Johnnybabe]

^^^I've got more to add to this conversation which is totally unrelated to that post.


I can't prove to you that God doesn't exist. It's already been stated that you don't prove a negative anyway. What I can provide evidence for, however, is that a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't work in regards to Genesis.

We all know that Genesis describes how the world was created in six days. We also know that by the end of this six days; humans had been placed on Earth. We also all know that some people take this passage literally, and also believed that this was about 6,000 years ago. So we can break this literal interpretation into three parts: the time that it took to create the Earth, how long it took for life to develop on Earth, and the age of the Earth.

Go to Wikipedia if you want deeper (and probably more accurate) explanations then what I'm providing.

1. The Earth was created in six days.

Scientists generally regard the Big Bang theory to be correct. Which means that the Earth developed by natural forces--whether or not natural forces are influenced by God in the creation of new planets has not been proven or disproven to my knowledge, so any scientists reading this feel free to elaborate on this part.

The Big Bang itself was supposed to have happened 14 billion years ago. Everything in the entire universe is supposed to have been put together in those 14 billion years.

The Earth itself began to form 4.5672 billion years ago. The Earth had formed 4.54 billion years ago. That means it took 27,200,000 years for the Earth to form fully: a far cry from the six days that people who interpret the Genesis passage literally say. And this isn't even an Earth with life: that took another billion years, and even then it was only single-celled organisms.

2. Development of Life on Earth.

So, it took a billion years for life to develop on Earth. This was when Earth was still relatively young and before the atmosphere had become what it is now. There's no way humans would have been able to survive on Earth as it was because of the high content of the poisonous gases present in the atmosphere at that time.

Life evolved and adapted as the Earth changed. Modern humans didn't diverge from Neanderthals until 500,000 years ago. So, to wrap up this point: humans didn't suddenly appear six days after the Earth was created.

3. The Age of the Earth is only 6,000 years.

The line of argument I've been following for the past two posts would clearly contradict this.

Of course, the literal interpreter would tell me I'm wrong. To which I would counter, "There's a reason why radio-carbon dating is used in archaeology, and it's because it's accurate*--carbon-14 decays at a known rate over a period of time..."

I wouldn't mention it's only accurate up to about 58,000 years and needs organic materials.

OK, so that's what the scientists have to say about the first chapter of Genesis. I guess it would follow for some people* that if a literal interpretation of the first chapter of the entire Bible doesn't hold up against current scientific theory, which is investigated thoroughly and systematically, God might not exist.

*i.e., the people who don't realise you don't have to interpret the Bible literally.