Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

Why?

Why what?

You'd say saving someone from a disaster is good... no? But God isn't as good as most humans?

I know what I mean when I use the term "good". I don't know what you mean when you use the term. What grounds are your moral value judgments based on? What makes something good or bad in your worldview? Why would a man dying in an earthquake be a bad thing or an evil thing in your worldview? On your view, what imbues such circumstances with any moral connotation at all?

Suppose I don't call you to task on your borrowing from my worldview those things which are not available in yours and let you slide with your argument. I see no reason at all to think that just because I would save someone from say, an earthquake, that therefore God does not love people because some die in earthquakes. I cannot by any stroke or contortion of my imagination come up with the additional premise(s) that would be necessary to lead to your conclusion.

Also, disasters aren't a necessary consequence of 'living apart from him. If God chose for earthquakes to come from sin, that's his choice, and not one he had to make. If anything it makes God more responsible for the suffering in the world.

God is Holy. As such, any world He creates wherein sin occurs, is going to be one wherein effects of said sin will be present.

If God is good, why would he create ways to hurt his 'children'? I wouldn't harm children.

What "ways" are you referring to?

1) I was a committed Christian, and if God shows himself as good, I would follow him. It's his fault because he''s given no good evidence he even exists.

Why are you no longer a committed follower of Christ? Is not Christ worthy of following?

2) You don't have to love or follow someone to save them. I wouldn't want a stranger to get cancer. If I could press and button, I'd stop all cancer. Am I better than God.

No you're not.

People have cancer, therefore God is pleased by people having cancer and is going to do nothing about it is an argument dependent upon some premise (s) you will need to defend.

I don't believe in God.



Rape violates other people. The problem is the violation and harm. Don't you see why people are against rape?

Consensual sex doesn't cause this problem.



God could stop rapists from raping people by stopping them in place for a few minutes. Why is that a crazy idea, if you really because in God?

God could stop everyone from sinning before they sinned. Then you would have people complaining about Him being a puppet master who won't allow them to do what they want. You would have no lying, no homosexuality, no transgendering, no sex before marriage, no adultery, no drug use, etc.etc..

You would take issue with this though I'm sure.

Thankfully, God does not treat us that way.

 

[KCfromNC]

Trying to define something into existence through wordplay is futile...

Not to mention self-defeating - if an optimally good being exists because one can imagine it, so does an optimally good refutation of the existence of such a being.

Which leads me to my best argument against gods - the fact that these sorts of things are the best that believers can come up with. The most parsimonious explanation for all of the dodging and weaving is that there's nothing behind all of the games.

 

[KCfromNC]

Philosophers of religion both atheists and theists routinely engage in discussions about God, understanding that the term "God" is a word that refers to that being which is maximally great

It is maximally great in blueness or maximally great in redness?

 

[anonymous person]

Not to mention self-defeating - if an optimally good being exists because one can imagine it, so does an optimally good refutation of the existence of such a being.

Which leads me to my best argument against gods - the fact that these sorts of things are the best that believers can come up with. The most parsimonious explanation for all of the dodging and weaving is that there's nothing behind all of the games.

Who made the argument that God exists because He is defined as the greatest conceivable being.

Show me where I have made that argument.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is really irrelevant to the question of whether a god exists or not isn't it?

If it makes the being logically inconceivable it certainly says something about the possibility of it actually existing here in reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

Who made the argument that God exists because He is defined as the greatest conceivable being.

Anslem did, for one, and you brought him up. If you agree with me that his argument sucks then we can move on to the part of my post you ignored for some reason.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why what?



I know what I mean when I use the term "good". I don't know what you mean when you use the term. What grounds are your moral value judgments based on? What makes something good or bad in your worldview? Why would a man dying in an earthquake be a bad thing or an evil thing in your worldview? On your view, what imbues such circumstances with any moral connotation at all?

Suppose I don't call you to task on your borrowing from my worldview those things which are not available in yours and let you slide with your argument. I see no reason at all to think that just because I would save someone from say, an earthquake, that therefore God does not love people because some die in earthquakes. I cannot by any stroke or contortion of my imagination come up with the additional premise(s) that would be necessary to lead to your conclusion.

No one's borrowing from your worldview. And for that we should be thankful given that you've indicated willingness to readily kill men, women, and children at the behest of your deity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It amazes me that you think we have to borrow from your worldview - a worldview in which even genocide could be considered "morally commendable" - in order for us to be able to make moral judgments. We have need of borrowing such poison.

 

[anonymous person]

Anslem did, for one, and you brought him up. If you agree with me that his argument sucks then we can move on to the part of my post you ignored for some reason.

I would be very surprised if you had refutations of every argument for the existence of God. Care to send them to me in an email?

 

[anonymous person]

It amazes me that you think we have to borrow from your worldview - a worldview in which even genocide could be considered "morally commendable" - in order for us to be able to make moral judgments. We have need of borrowing such poison.

Well I've never argued that one must be a theist to make moral judgements. What I have argued is that you being an atheist, have no grounds for denouncing things like genocide as being objectively wrong.

It's an ontological thing, not an epistemological one.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well I've never argued that one must be a theist to make moral judgements. What I have argued is that you being an atheist, have no grounds for denouncing things like genocide as being objectively wrong.

Yes, we've been over this in the threads that you abandoned (1), in which it was revealed that it's you who has no grounds for denouncing such acts as wrong.

 

[anonymous person]

In a world without God, you've got a bunch of opinions and preferences about genocide, which are themselves based on certain opinions. There is no law giver or law to whom we are accountable or that we are obligated to order our opinions or views around.

Man is the measure of man in such a reality.

But you don't live that way I'm sure. You are not even consistent on this forum where nothing you really hold dear is at stake.

So no, I do not consider you to be doing anything other than borrowing from my worldview to compensate for the utter bankrupt nature of yours when it comes to grounds for objective moral values and duties.

And by the way, you can stop with the whole "the bible promotes genocide" argument. It doesnt.

What it does do is show that God will only tolerate unrepentant evil for so long.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, we've been over this in the threads that you abandoned (1), in which it was revealed that it's you who has no grounds for denouncing such acts as wrong.

My grounds is God's commands.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In a world without God, you've got a bunch of opinions and preferences about genocide, which are themselves based on certain opinions. There is no law giver or law to whom we are accountable or that we are obligated to order our opinions or views around.

As compared to religious opinions about what this or that god commands?

So no, I do not consider you to be doing anything other than borrowing from my worldview to compensate for the utter bankrupt nature of yours when it comes to grounds for objective moral values and duties.

You've already shown us your lack of moral integrity by indicating that you would wilfully engage in cruelty at the apparent behest of the Biblical God.

And by the way, you can stop with the whole "the bible promotes genocide" argument. It doesnt.

What it does do is show that God will only tolerate unrepentant evil for so long.

Would you care to recommence our discussion in the thread on the Flood? I'm somewhat reluctant to challenge you on this point here knowing that you are likely to abandon the thread if I do.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There's no evidence of gods.

Applying Occam's Razor, gods are unnecessary entities.

[I don't see how you could argue against a totally hands-off deist god. It might be there, but being nilpotent, it's superfluous.]

 

[KCfromNC]

I would be very surprised if you had refutations of every argument for the existence of God. Care to send them to me in an email?

You first. Let's see a refutation of every argument for the existence of everything you lack belief in.

In my view the idea that one needs to refute something there's no reason to believe in in the first place is a flawed approach towards understanding reality. But if you really think it is worthwhile, I'm open to a demonstration of how well it works.

 

[anonymous person]

There's no evidence of gods.

Applying Occam's Razor, gods are unnecessary entities.

[I don't see how you could argue against a totally hands-off deist god. It might be there, but being nilpotent, it's superfluous.]

You too must have refutations of every argument for the existence of God. If you will, please send them to me in an email. Thanks.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well I've never argued that one must be a theist to make moral judgements. What I have argued is that you being an atheist, have no grounds for denouncing things like genocide as being objectively wrong.

It isn't as if theists have convincing proof of objective morality either. Not sure why you'd single out atheists here.

 

[anonymous person]

You first. Let's see a refutation of every argument for the existence of everything you lack belief in.

In my view the idea that one needs to refute something there's no reason to believe in in the first place is a flawed approach towards understanding reality. But if you really think it is worthwhile, I'm open to a demonstration of how well it works.

Demonstrate to me how every argument for the existence of God fails. This is what you have claimed so just back it up. Send these refutations to me in an email.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Demonstrate to me how every argument for the existence of God fails. This is what you have claimed so just back it up. Send these refutations to me in an email.

What good would it do?