Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

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

Because atheists are the ones making claims that Judeo-Christian values are evil and objectively bad and are doing so without any grounds for doing so that are not borrowed from a theistic view of the world wherein moral values and duties are grounded in a transcendent good.

 

[anonymous person]

What good would it do?

It would demonstrate to me that you have at least some reason for thinking there is no evidence for the existence of God for starters.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because atheists are the ones making claims that Judeo-Christian values are evil and objectively bad and are doing so without any grounds for doing so that are not borrowed from a theistic view of the world wherein moral values and duties are grounded in a transcendent good.

But you don't have such grounds. You've confused a ditch for a mountain.

 

[KCfromNC]

Demonstrate to me how every argument for the existence of God fails.

I'm not a believer in gods due to any of them. QED.

Look, if you're just going to ignore what I write there's no point in taking you, or the arguments you imply that I'm missing, very seriously. It just looks like you have nothing concrete to base your faith on. Is that really how you want to portray your religion? All it does it give confidence to people who view it as random guessing backing up wishful thinking.

This is what you have claimed so just back it up.

Where have I claimed that? The frequent need to resort to canned responses rather than actually addressing real objections to faith is yet another clue that there's nothing substantial behind religious belief.

Send these refutations to me in an email.

Feel free to post your e-mail address in this thread. I'm not going to respond to it, but you've got a God to protect you from spammers so knock yourself out.

Wonder if it will be the same e-mail as some previously-banned posters, though. Wouldn't that be interesting.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because atheists are the ones making claims that Judeo-Christian values are evil and objectively bad

Are they now? Tell us more.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I find it puzzling that you would think me giving you a definition of a word is an instance of me trying to define something into existence.

This is a favorite reply of atheists.

Strange though, they never accuse each other of attempting to cause something to exist when they define terms they commonly use.

What you have done is akin to me saying you are attempting to define quarks into existence when all you have done is told me that quarks are elementary particles and fundamental constituents of matter.

Me telling you that a certain word refers to a certain concept is not me attempting to create or bring said concept into existence.

Do you understand?

I understand that you don't understand, yes.

The definition you gave IS the basis of Anselm's argument for a god's existence. The argument is wordplay, as is the definition. It sounds like it's something, but it really isn't. "Maximally great" isn't objectively definable so the whole thing falls apart. You can replace the word "great" with any other subjective word (like "cool" for example) and it means the same thing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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

As it does not do that, I repeat it is irrelevant.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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.]

I would consider your first statement objectively false. Though there is no conclusive proof of the existence of a god, there is evidence. For instance, there is the testimony of the many people that say they have had personal contact with a god. That is evidence. You may personally reject the validity of that evidence,but it is not correct to say it is not evidence. Humans are unnecessary entities as well but they still exist so being unnecessary does not preclude one from existing. Gods, or a god, being unnecessary is as irrelevant to the question of whether a god or gods exist as the fact that there is suffering.

 

[anonymous person]

I understand that you don't understand, yes.

The definition you gave IS the basis of Anselm's argument for a god's existence. The argument is wordplay, as is the definition. It sounds like it's something, but it really isn't. "Maximally great" isn't objectively definable so the whole thing falls apart. You can replace the word "great" with any other subjective word (like "cool" for example) and it means the same thing.

Do you know who Quentin Smith is?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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.

Sounds like you are describing heaven.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sounds like you are describing heaven.

Have you been there? If not,where did you get that information?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Have you been there? If not,where did you get that information?

No need for me to go there... I just don't think there would be very much need for lying, homosexuality, sex before marriage, adultery, or drug use in heaven. Some of which I would disagree would even be deal breakers.

The argument was that for God to deliberately stop these things would hamper our freewill but somehow that is not the case when we will be doing none of these things in heaven (according to common beliefs).

 

[grasping the after wind]

No need for me to go there... I just don't think there would be very much need for lying, homosexuality, sex before marriage, adultery, or drug use in heaven. Some of which I would disagree would even be deal breakers.

The argument was that for God to deliberately stop these things would hamper our freewill but somehow that is not the case when we will be doing none of these things in heaven (according to common beliefs).

You would need to show that God would deliberately stop those things from happening in Heaven to make your comparison fit.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You would need to show that God would deliberately stop those things from happening in Heaven to make your comparison fit.

Is God not sovereign? Does He not have control over His own kingdom? Will people be able to do what they want in heaven or will there be limits to what you can do?

 

[Davian]

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 "good". It would seem that your use of the word allows for unobstructed rape of children, but you have yet to fully clarify your stance on that.

I don't know what you mean when you use the term. What grounds are your moral value judgments based on?

A flexible, varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract.

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?

Most probably a bad thing. I would doubt that he wanted to die, or that those that knew him would want such a thing.

On your view, what imbues such circumstances with any moral connotation at all?

A flexible, varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract.

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 am not aware of any concepts that I might borrow from your worldview that did not exist prior to the invention of Christianity or were developed completely independent of it.

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.

This is why I do not argue the "problem of evil" or suffering. Your imagination must conform to your beliefs, if one's brain is to minimize cognitive dissonance.

God is Holy.

God is god-like. How circular.

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

Without gods, there would be no sin.

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

Question begging. If she doesn't think that God/Christ exists, what does their worthiness have to do with anything?

...
God could stop everyone from sinning before they sinned.

There was recent shooting in the news, and the article quoted one of the victim's texts: "pray for us". Pray for what? God's intervention? What were we to pray for, and to whom?

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..

I guess that might depend on one's theology. I understand that for some, anything goes as long as you believe. In particular, I have no idea why homosexuality or transgendering might be a "sin".

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

Thankfully, God does not treat us that way.

Indeed. A complete hands-off approach. By every objective measure to date, it is like he isn't there at all.

 

[Davian]

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,

Atheism is only a theological position on the subject of deities ("I am not convinced"). My disbelief in gods, goblins, and/or extraterrestrial aliens, etc does not inform my morality.

have no grounds for denouncing things like genocide as being objectively wrong.

Why does it need to be objective?

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

 

[essentialsaltes]

I would consider your first statement objectively false. Though there is no conclusive proof of the existence of a god, there is evidence. For instance, there is the testimony of the many people that say they have had personal contact with a god. That is evidence.

Perhaps, but it's pretty worthless. Some say they've been contacted by Jesus, others by Shiva, others by Amaterasu... And there is no substance to these claims. They are just claims -- expressed opinions. Since they are contradictory, it's hard to lend any credence to them.

Humans are unnecessary entities as well but they still exist so being unnecessary does not preclude one from existing.

Of course not, but it's easy to point to evidence of the existence of human beings. But god-believers can only point to the sincerity of their claims. I don't doubt the sincerity, but that doesn't turn it into evidence.

 

[Davian]

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.

Given the thousands of religions, denominations, sects, and millions of personal theologies, it would seem that the theist views of the world demonstrably lack objectivity.

Man is the measure of man in such a reality.

Man exists.

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.

To whom is this addressed?

So no, I do not consider you to be doing anything other than borrowing from my worldview

Borrowing what, exactly?

to compensate for the utter bankrupt nature of yours

How so? Such as holding one responsible for things beyond one's control? No, wait - that was your worldview.

when it comes to grounds for objective moral values and duties.

What objective moral values and duties?

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

If God does it, it's okay. I think that was sorted out some time ago.

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

I have heard that something might happen soon.

maybe next week

• Davian
• Dec 1, 2014

 

[Davian]

My grounds is God's commands.

Do you hear voices?

 

[Davian]

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.

Would it not be easier to simply look back at the history of the arguments that have been posted in this forum?

I could give you a list of usernames to reference in your search, but you probably already have them.