Arguments against God's Existence

[SarcasticLemon]

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.

Im not going to work to further your defense. You know when i used to be christian, i didnt desire evidence for evolution. But guess what? It was there and it made sense. Evidence for god isnt there unless you want it to be as with any delusion one may have.

If you desire evidence for evolution, here is a site you can try:
Understanding Evolution

If you need more, just ask! I can give you all of it.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Argument: God created everything. Evil is part of everything. God had to create evil, then. If God were to give free will, he would have to have created the antithesis of His will(evil). Evil is the antithesis of good(God). If God created evil, then God must not only be good. Therefore, God is a paradox.

This was a piece of logic thrown at me by an atheist. For awhile, I was stalled. I couldn't find the answer. But I finally have. God is good. He is also just. Justice infers a wrongdoing of some sort. Therefore, the "evil" taken by Satan was not original "evil" as we know it. We know Satan cannot create, he can only change things already created. Therefore, Satan took the original "evil"(the inference of justice), and changed it. He stretched it into what we now know as sin. Therefore, God is not a paradox.

 

[Girder of Loins]

^^^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.

Have a video on this whole argument!

Starlight and the Young Earth by Dr. Charles Jackson - YouTube

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I notice that people don't have to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist to justify thinking of bigfoot believers as just a little bit more crazy than the rest of us.

Argument: God created everything. Evil is part of everything. God had to create evil, then. If God were to give free will, he would have to have created the antithesis of His will(evil). Evil is the antithesis of good(God). If God created evil, then God must not only be good. Therefore, God is a paradox.

This was a piece of logic thrown at me by an atheist. For awhile, I was stalled. I couldn't find the answer. But I finally have. God is good. He is also just. Justice infers a wrongdoing of some sort. Therefore, the "evil" taken by Satan was not original "evil" as we know it. We know Satan cannot create, he can only change things already created. Therefore, Satan took the original "evil"(the inference of justice), and changed it. He stretched it into what we now know as sin. Therefore, God is not a paradox.

Therefore the idea of god being just is an argument against the existence of god?

 

[Girder of Loins]

I notice that people don't have to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist to justify thinking of bigfoot believers as just a little bit more crazy than the rest of us.


Therefore the idea of god being just is an argument against the existence of god?

I was merely putting an argument against God and my response to it. Just doing what the topic asked me to do. Its not really an argument for God, its an argument against God. I tried to make it as clear as possible that the first part is the argument, and the second part is my response. Ooops...

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I was merely putting an argument against God and my response to it. Just doing what the topic asked me to do. Its not really an argument for God, its an argument against God. I tried to make it as clear as possible that the first part is the argument, and the second part is my response. Ooops...

Except your reply is also an implicit argument against the existence of god as you have assumed him to be.

As you pointed out, justice implies some initial wrongdoing, or at the very least the possibility of the existence of a state in which something is sub-optimally 'just' - that is to say, that there could, possibly, exist the presence of injustice in the universe.

So if god is perfectly good, how can he be perfectly just?

 

[Girder of Loins]

Except your reply is also an implicit argument against the existence of god as you have assumed him to be.

As you pointed out, justice implies some initial wrongdoing, or at the very least the possibility of the existence of a state in which something is sub-optimally 'just' - that is to say, that there could, possibly, exist the presence of injustice in the universe.

So if god is perfectly good, how can he be perfectly just?

Good is something that benefits something. Surely you will agree that justice benfits things. Injustice does not benefit things as a whole. Do not confuse "benefit" with "make you feel good". Feeling good and "good" has nothing to do with eachother. "Feeling good" means you feel normal or above normal. "Good" means beneficial to something.

Example of "feeling good": "Do you feel good about the test?" The presence of feeling good does not mean that the person was benefitted by the test. A bad grade(something normal for this person) shows the lack of learning of things covered by the test. Therefore no benefit was given to the individual(although some exceptions do exist, but lets not delve into such petty quarrels).

Example of "good": It was good of you to share your toy with Timmy. Timmy was benefitted by the sharing of this individual. The individual may not "feel good" about the situation, but a definite benfit was introduced to someone, Timmy getting a toy to play with.

Therefore, God can be perefectly just and perfectly good. God is a "balance", if you will, between various traits. What makes Him perfect is this perfect balance. He is mercy. He is justice. He is grace. He is jealous. He is righteously angry. He is peace. God is a balance bewteen these(and some more I probably missed). What seems like contradictions are simply someone not thinking the necessary thought towards enlightenment on the subject.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Good is something that benefits something. Surely you will agree that justice benfits things. Injustice does not benefit things as a whole. Do not confuse "benefit" with "make you feel good". Feeling good and "good" has nothing to do with eachother. "Feeling good" means you feel normal or above normal. "Good" means beneficial to something.

Example of "feeling good": "Do you feel good about the test?" The presence of feeling good does not mean that the person was benefitted by the test. A bad grade(something normal for this person) shows the lack of learning of things covered by the test. Therefore no benefit was given to the individual(although some exceptions do exist, but lets not delve into such petty quarrels).

Example of "good": It was good of you to share your toy with Timmy. Timmy was benefitted by the sharing of this individual. The individual may not "feel good" about the situation, but a definite benfit was introduced to someone, Timmy getting a toy to play with.

Therefore, God can be perefectly just and perfectly good. God is a "balance", if you will, between various traits. What makes Him perfect is this perfect balance. He is mercy. He is justice. He is grace. He is jealous. He is righteously angry. He is peace. God is a balance bewteen these(and some more I probably missed). What seems like contradictions are simply someone not thinking the necessary thought towards enlightenment on the subject.

Good is meaningless without the existence of a 'less good' state. And given that before everything there was only god, and because he was perfectly good, there was no such thing as a 'less good' state - first because god is singular, and second because god is perfectly good.

In regards to your example, it is obvious that sharing is better than not sharing. But depending on the goal, sharing indefinitely may be better or worse in terms of benefit to Timmy (short-term or long-term) than sharing for only 20 minutes. Does sharing also entail your company to 'share' with Timmy as well? If so, where does your own time and preferences come into this? Is sharing with Timmy automatically better than not sharing, even though by sharing with Timmy you have deprived, say, 3 other children of toys to play with? The lesser point I'm trying to make, that life is not a dichotomy, is relevant to this discussion, as it is to several others.

Why is jealousy 'good'? You have still yet to provide an explanation for how justice could exist in the absence of something less just. Like good, justice is relative. And if there is no relative point, there is no need for the term.

And by necessary thought...a variation of the No True Scotsman?

 

[Girder of Loins]

Good is meaningless without the existence of a 'less good' state. And given that before everything there was only god, and because he was perfectly good, there was no such thing as a 'less good' state - first because god is singular, and second because god is perfectly good.

In regards to your example, it is obvious that sharing is better than not sharing. But depending on the goal, sharing indefinitely may be better or worse in terms of benefit to Timmy (short-term or long-term) than sharing for only 20 minutes. Does sharing also entail your company to 'share' with Timmy as well? If so, where does your own time and preferences come into this? Is sharing with Timmy automatically better than not sharing, even though by sharing with Timmy you have deprived, say, 3 other children of toys to play with? The lesser point I'm trying to make, that life is not a dichotomy, is relevant to this discussion, as it is to several others.

Why is jealousy 'good'? You have still yet to provide an explanation for how justice could exist in the absence of something less just. Like good, justice is relative. And if there is no relative point, there is no need for the term.

And by necessary thought...a variation of the No True Scotsman?

You have obviously missed a point made in my argument. The "less-good" state you talk about is the unavoidable implication made by justice. Satan took that unavoidable implication and made it real. Justice and the "less good" state is outside this universe. It is an idea, not controlled by physical things. Therefore, Satan could have manifested in himself the "less-good" state. God did not have to create justice, or a "less good state" as it already existed due to God's existence.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You have obviously missed a point made in my argument. The "less-good" state you talk about is the unavoidable implication made by justice. Satan took that unavoidable implication and made it real. Justice and the "less good" state is outside this universe. It is an idea, not controlled by physical things. Therefore, Satan could have manifested in himself the "less-good" state.

So...who created Satan?

You know, this whole thing would have been much simpler if you had just let god "be". If there were no alternative to god's view, intent, and morals, then there would be no such thing as 'less good', or 'less just'.

God did not have to create justice, or a "less good state" as it already existed due to God's existence.

This is wrong. It existed because of Satan and god's co-existence. You need two points to create a line. One point does not a spectrum make.

So. I know that Christians are pretty set on having a god. So I'll leave him be for the time being. Let's focus on the other guy. Why have a Satan?

 

[Mess]

So...who created Satan?

You know, this whole thing would have been much simpler if you had just let god "be". If there were no alternative to god's view, intent, and morals, then there would be no such thing as 'less good', or 'less just'.


This is wrong. It existed because of Satan and god's co-existence. You need two points to create a line. One point does not a spectrum make.

So. I know that Christians are pretty set on having a god. So I'll leave him be for the time being. Let's focus on the other guy. Why have a Satan?

Do you really think Christians believe in God because they want to have a God? In todays society when people are frowned upon, ridiculed and told off for believing in God, do you really think that is the kind of situation that makes us go one day, well I want there to be a God so there is one? Do you really think that is why people in the Islamic world, or in places like China or North-Korea worship the God of the Bible? That's not how it works, besides it doesn't matter what we believe or what we want to believe, it matters what is true. The truth is God is the most amazing being in the world. I've lived without God for a long time, I thought I was fine, had no need for Him... till I met Him, most awesome moment in my life. Never want to live without Him again. As for proving that God doesn't exist? There isn't any evidence for that, as for Him being real, look around you, it's everywhere.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Do you really think Christians believe in God because they want to have a God? In todays society when people are frowned upon, ridiculed and told off for believing in God, do you really think that is the kind of situation that makes us go one day, well I want there to be a God so there is one?

I never said that people believed in god because they consciously wanted a god.

Do you really think that is why people in the Islamic world, or in places like China or North-Korea worship the God of the Bible? That's not how it works, besides it doesn't matter what we believe or what we want to believe, it matters what is true. The truth is God is the most amazing being in the world. I've lived without God for a long time, I thought I was fine, had no need for Him... till I met Him, most awesome moment in my life. Never want to live without Him again. As for proving that God doesn't exist? There isn't any evidence for that, as for Him being real, look around you, it's everywhere.

See above.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

I think you may be on to something there

 

[Johnnybabe]

Have a video on this whole argument!

Starlight and the Young Earth by Dr. Charles Jackson - YouTube

There's a reason why science isn't taught in relation to God in schools. It's because you can't apply religion to science adequately enough for there to be any true scientific discussion. That's the point I would raise in argument to this man's explanations.

What you can do (and what I sought to do with my earlier post) is try to apply science to religion, because that can create scientific and theological discussion.

 

[Paradoxum]

Argument: God created everything. Evil is part of everything. God had to create evil, then. If God were to give free will, he would have to have created the antithesis of His will(evil). Evil is the antithesis of good(God). If God created evil, then God must not only be good. Therefore, God is a paradox.

This was a piece of logic thrown at me by an atheist. For awhile, I was stalled. I couldn't find the answer. But I finally have. God is good. He is also just. Justice infers a wrongdoing of some sort. Therefore, the "evil" taken by Satan was not original "evil" as we know it. We know Satan cannot create, he can only change things already created. Therefore, Satan took the original "evil"(the inference of justice), and changed it. He stretched it into what we now know as sin. Therefore, God is not a paradox.

There is a much easier answer than this that makes more sense in my opinion. All you have to do is question the premises. (1) God didn't create everything and (2) evil isn't necessarily a thing.

1) God didn't create everything that exists today, what He did do it what exists now possible to exist. God didn't make my table, He just made the energy that ended up as wood and so could be used to make a table. Its the same with evil. God didn't create evil, but He made it possible. Evil is an invention of created beings.

2) Many consider evil to be a lack of goodness rather than a thing in itself. God created a good universe and then the beings within the universe 'missed the mark'.

On another subject the video is wrong. I don't get my science from VFX

 

[Girder of Loins]

There is a much easier answer than this that makes more sense in my opinion. All you have to do is question the premises. (1) God didn't create everything and (2) evil isn't necessarily a thing.

1) God didn't create everything that exists today, what He did do it what exists now possible to exist. God didn't make my table, He just made the energy that ended up as wood and so could be used to make a table. Its the same with evil. God didn't create evil, but He made it possible. Evil is an invention of created beings.

2) Many consider evil to be a lack of goodness rather than a thing in itself. God created a good universe and then the beings within the universe 'missed the mark'.

On another subject the video is wrong. I don't get my science from VFX

Point 1 is true.

Point 2 is false. We know God is wholly perfect, but for one thing to exist, the antithesis must exist as well(if there was no "evil", how could we know what "good" looks like?). Therefore, due to the very existence of God, the existence of evil exists. However, God did not create it. Evil was merely an "idea" if you will to allow humans to have free will. If humans simply "missed the mark" as you say, then the existence of a state of "lower than the mark" must have existed before they "missed the mark" as you say. If you already believe this, then forgive me for misunderstanding your post.

As to the whole video thing, I figured it was a better explanation than,"God made it that way." I would rather have a scientific explanation than a fall-back explanation. While it is simply a hypothesis right now, it is an explanation. But I won't put all my eggs in that basket right now.

 

[Girder of Loins]

So...who created Satan?

You know, this whole thing would have been much simpler if you had just let god "be". If there were no alternative to god's view, intent, and morals, then there would be no such thing as 'less good', or 'less just'.


This is wrong. It existed because of Satan and god's co-existence. You need two points to create a line. One point does not a spectrum make.

So. I know that Christians are pretty set on having a god. So I'll leave him be for the time being. Let's focus on the other guy. Why have a Satan?

Satan was an archangel given control of one-third of the angels. When Lucifer fell, he took with him his third. Lucifer fell because he(like all angels) have free will, and he chose the "less good" state already created(indirectly) by God's existence.