Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

In a way, we cannot define God, because we can't fit Him into our understanding. That's why He defined Himself for us with the Bible. However, sadly, only those willing to listen will understand Him.

I think the driving motive behind disproving God is fear. If He is true, yet you have livestock your entire life counter to Him, He must be a scary concept. It's easier to deny your problems than face them.

Indeed. I do think that the idea of God's existence is something some have an aversion to. For some it is like being given evidence that they have cancer. No matter how many test results they are shown, no matter how many different doctors give them the same diagnosis, they don't want to believe it.

I think this is true for some.

 

[anonymous person]

No...that's not how I understand the term. Everyone defines god differently, so I try not assume anything about what people mean when they say "god".

Now, is there any way to define what a "greatest conceivable being" is...? It sounds like a nonsensical term to me...since what one finds great another person may find awful.

A maximally great being. This concept was fleshed about by Christian philosophers like Anselm.

Contemporary philosophers of religion such as Plantinga have written on this concept in depth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't doubt that the consensus of atheists here is that I am ill-prepared for giving a defense for Christianity! lol.

I think you're well prepared...given that the argument is one that WLC has addressed in the past and not one you've never seen before (like the one I constructed).

 

[Ana the Ist]

A maximally great being. This concept was fleshed about by Christian philosophers like Anselm.

Contemporary philosophers of religion such as Plantinga have written on this concept in depth.

I've never found Anselm or Platinga useful on this topic. Actually that's dishonest, I think they're completely illogical on this topic.

However, if you think they're useful...why don't you use their explanations to describe what a maximally great being is? It's a fairly ridiculous term for rather obvious reasons...like the fact that in this context, the term "great" is completely subjective.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indeed. I do think that the idea of God's existence is something some have an aversion to. For some it is like being given evidence that they have cancer. No matter how many test results they are shown, no matter how many different doctors give them the same diagnosis, they don't want to believe it.

I think this is true for some.

This is a rather poor analogy...

I can safely say that no one has ever been given "test results" or anything even remotely close to that level of objective evidence regarding god.

It's more like if you were to crack open a fortune cookie after eating some chow mein and it read "Good things are coming your way!"

Some people will read that and believe it because they want to...others will look at it and see it for what it is, an empty platitude.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

This is a rather poor analogy...

I can safely say that no one has ever been given "test results" or anything even remotely close to that level of objective evidence regarding god.

It's more like if you were to crack open a fortune cookie after eating some chow mein and it read "Good things are coming your way!"

Some people will read that and believe it because they want to...others will look at it and see it for what it is, an empty platitude.

We can neither definitively prove nor disprove something we do not understand. It's like the atom. There were many theories on how matter was constructed, and even now we don't have a full understanding. Imagine trying to understand the intellect behind the atom, and we are far beyond human comprehension. That's why no human theory or philosophical argument will ever "prove" God. We can see Him everywhere if we desire to see truth. If you desire to find other explanations, you can find those too. Plenty of evidence exists for God, but only when you are willing to accept the possibility of Him will it support Him. That's why it's a faith. Science, likewise, requires faith. We are just much more willing to accept it's findings because we are in control of the theories we test.

 

[Davian]

All of that may be true. It would do nothing at all, however, in demonstrating that the arguments and evidences that these apologists present are unsound or invalid. It would do nothing at all in the way of demonstrating God does not exist, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the tomb in which He was buried, etc. etc.

"You are evasive, therefore God does not exist!" is not a very good argument.

Indeed, but your evasiveness is suggestive of holes in your theology that you are unable to address.

 

[Davian]

...
I have talked with many different people who all have their own reasons for rejecting Christianity. Most tell me that they reject it because of a lack of evidence for the existence of God.

Recently, however, I have noticed that some hold the position that any talk of God is useless, because the word "God" cannot be coherently defined.

Or, no one has done so, to date.

They call themselves ignostics.

The label is irrelevant. Better to address the issue, than to make it personal.

 

[Davian]

In a way, we cannot define God, because we can't fit Him into our understanding. That's why He defined Himself for us with the Bible.

It has been my experience here that there is no position, however contrary to another, that someone cannot find support for in the Bible.

However, sadly, only those willing to listen will understand Him.

Yet even those that claim to understand 'him' are unable to define this thing they claim to exist.

I think the driving motive behind disproving God is fear. If He is true, yet you have livestock your entire life counter to Him, He must be a scary concept. It's easier to deny your problems than face them.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Mind-reading hat fail.

My fear of god concepts is as small as my fear that I was to receive a lump of coal in my stocking this Christmas morning.

 

[Davian]

Indeed. I do think that the idea of God's existence is something some have an aversion to. For some it is like being given evidence that they have cancer. No matter how many test results they are shown, no matter how many different doctors give them the same diagnosis, they don't want to believe it.

I think this is true for some.

Do you still consider belief to be a conscious choice?

 

[Davian]

We can neither definitively prove nor disprove something we do not understand. It's like the atom. There were many theories on how matter was constructed, and even now we don't have a full understanding. Imagine trying to understand the intellect behind the atom, and we are far beyond human comprehension. That's why no human theory or philosophical argument will ever "prove" God.

I am not asking for proof. I would just like to see something that might define and demonstrate that "gods" are possible, in some way that might raise them above characters in books.

We can see Him everywhere if we desire to see truth.

"Truth" as in "religious opinion"?

If you desire to find other explanations, you can find those too. Plenty of evidence exists for God, but only when you are willing to accept the possibility of Him will it support Him.

What is this evidence that you allude to? Can you present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

That's why it's a faith.

That's why it does not sound to me like an accurate description of reality.

Science, likewise, requires faith. We are just much more willing to accept it's findings because we are in control of the theories we test.

How does science require faith? We can accept the findings of scientific methodology, or not. We can dispute or falsify the results using the same methodology. Do I require faith in semiconductor theory to turn on and use my computer?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

It has been my experience here that there is no position, however contrary to another, that someone cannot find support for in the Bible.

Yet even those that claim to understand 'him' are unable to define this thing they claim to exist.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Mind-reading hat fail.

My fear of god concepts is as small as my fear that I was to receive a lump of coal in my stocking this Christmas morning.

Yes, almost anything can be justified by quoting the Bible out of context. This has no bearing on the author, it only speaks to our sinful nature.

We cannot define God because He is infinitely greater than our understanding allows. Christianity can not be abandoned because Christians can't define perfection. If we perfectly understood God, we wouldn't need Him. The whole point to Christianity is that we aren't perfect, are incapable of perfect understanding, and therefore need Him.

You may be perfectly happy where you are. But be careful. The devil will keep you content so you find no reason to seek truth elsewhere.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Indeed. I do think that the idea of God's existence is something some have an aversion to. For some it is like being given evidence that they have cancer. No matter how many test results they are shown, no matter how many different doctors give them the same diagnosis, they don't want to believe it.

I think this is true for some.

I agree. Although the real problem is that atheists are waiting for Christians to come up with a fool-proof explanation for God, and it will always simply require faith in the end. Even a diagnosis of cancer can be something you refute for other "what ifs." If anyone is waiting for 100% confirmation of anything, humans will not be able to provide it. The only thing we have definitely proven is three scientific laws. Everything else has more than one explanation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm no philosopher, but this argument easily defeats itself.

If we assume God is all-knowing, and the creator of everything, the it stands to reason He both created love and fully understands it.

In this sense, He would be like a professor 100% versed in quantum physics, trying to teach a kindergarten class. As the student, His concepts seem so irrational, and require so much more foundational knowledge, that we assume He's just speaking nonsense. When, in reality, we have such a ways to go in our education that we can't even begin to understand.

Sin exists because people wish to be free from God. This means, whether you love God or not, bad things are bound to happen. Just like when your child wants to do something on their own, and you can see it ending badly, but you stay out of it so they learn a lesson. Most would agree that a crucial part of parenting is to not shelter your children. You understand that experiencing the real world brings wisdom.

The Lord loves those whom He corrects. As we are His children, He both loves and corrects us. He allows us to go out on our own, no matter how painful the consequences. These are usually the experiences that bring us to our knees.

Now, as far as natural disasters, war, and plagues caused by God in the Old Testament, these were all disciplinary actions taken after years of warnings. Noah warned people for 100 years before the flood, but nobody wanted to believe in God. He sent nine different plagues that also proved His power as God before the final plague of taking the firstborn, and that was only the firstborn of those who deliberately chose to not show their belief by refusing to put blood on the door. Then, God even let his own people be taken into slavery and lost in the desert because they still fell away from Him. But, at the same time, He brought them out of tribulation as soon as they turned back to Him.

The wars He ordered in the OT were to wipe out horrifically evil nations. These nations would sacrifice their children, gouge out the eyes of their captives, slowly impale criminals on large poles, and practice many other tortures and sinful actions. God gave multiple warnings to repent, but they didn't. He told the Jews He wasn't giving the Promised land over to them because they were so good, it was because the inhabiting people were so bad that they had to be wiped out.

A loving God created a perfect world. Then, an evil devil convinced people it wasn't good enough. We create evil by desiring to live apart from God.

You're definitely not a philosopher. Funny you should be making this argument...It's the same one AP has been wanting to make for about the last 20 pages or so...

Anyways, you said "earthquakes" (which fall under natural disasters) were "disciplinary actions" taken after years of "warnings". Who are they intended to discipline? There are plenty of good people, who are christians, who have died in earthquakes all over the planet? Why would god want to "discipline" them? If they aren't being punished for their behavior (morality) or their beliefs (christianity)...then what are they being executed for?

What about people born with seriously disabling birth/genetic defects? Are they being punished as well? If so...what are they being punished for?

A philosopher would probably ask themselves these questions (or similar ones) before declaring the problem of "suffering" as one that "easily defeats itself."

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

This is like asking for some evidence that a sixth dimension were possible. How can we know? What would we test it against? If something is infinitely more knowledgeable than us, how could we begin to theorize how it came to be? We cannot quantify the possibility of something that, if it existed, by that very existence being possible, we could not understand it?

There are plenty of scientific evidences for the existence of God, and proof of Biblical events. However, if you approach that evidence with a bias of already disbelieving it, then it won't "prove" anything. Not until you can be objective about the possibility of a God.

Yes, scientific studies are quantifiable, repeatable, and observable. However, it is by no means perfect. We are continually learning, meaning we will never know everything. There will always be more to learn and understand. If that is true, and we cannot ever attain full knowledge, that in itself points to a more knowledgeable being than us.

We are comfortable with science because we created it, and we control it. We measure it, and we interpret it. At it's basic level, all it does is give us facts. It is up to fallible, biased people to give us conclusions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, almost anything can be justified by quoting the Bible out of context. This has no bearing on the author, it only speaks to our sinful nature.

We cannot define God because He is infinitely greater than our understanding allows. Christianity can not be abandoned because Christians can't define perfection. If we perfectly understood God, we wouldn't need Him. The whole point to Christianity is that we aren't perfect, are incapable of perfect understanding, and therefore need Him.

You may be perfectly happy where you are. But be careful. The devil will keep you content so you find no reason to seek truth elsewhere.

You said this...

"Christianity can not be abandoned because Christians can't define perfection. "

I agree with you there...the thing that you should abandon though is the word "perfect".

If you describe god as being "perfect"...but then tell us that you don't really understand what that means...how do you know god is perfect?

The easy answer is....you don't.

Since you don't know what it "perfect" means when you say "god is perfect"...then you're just making a meaningless statement. God may be imperfect...you simply don't know since you don't seem to understand what "perfect" means in relation to god.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We can neither definitively prove nor disprove something we do not understand. It's like the atom. There were many theories on how matter was constructed, and even now we don't have a full understanding. Imagine trying to understand the intellect behind the atom, and we are far beyond human comprehension. That's why no human theory or philosophical argument will ever "prove" God. We can see Him everywhere if we desire to see truth. If you desire to find other explanations, you can find those too. Plenty of evidence exists for God, but only when you are willing to accept the possibility of Him will it support Him. That's why it's a faith. Science, likewise, requires faith. We are just much more willing to accept it's findings because we are in control of the theories we test.

Let me start by saying that I fully accept the "possibility" of god. The existence of a god creature/entity is something I consider "possible". However, I don't see any evidence of the existence of such an entity...at all. You said some strange things here that I'd like to go over....

You said, "Imagine trying to understand the intellect behind the atom...". Well, how do you know there's an "intellect" behind the atom? What would make you think that? I look at the concept of the atom and see no evidence of an "intellect"....but apparently you do. So what is it? What is it about the atom that makes you think that something intelligent created it?

If you can't come up with a reason to think there's an "intellect behind the atom"...then you've got some serious problems with the way you think/look at the world. If you come to the conclusion that something must have created the atom...yet nothing about the atom indicates that is true...then you should ask yourself "why do I believe in this without any reason to?" I think the answer to that question might be very enlightening for you.

You also said this..."We can see Him everywhere if we desire to see truth."

That's another troubling statement. You seem to think that you "see him everywhere" because you desire to see the truth. Basically, you've decided that the consequence of seeking the truth is seeing god everywhere. That makes me think that if you don't see god in something...then it isn't the truth for you...no matter how much evidence we find for it. Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe that god created all life on earth and just placed it here?

What you should be doing is seeking the truth...and then believing in it based upon evidence, reason, logic. If you seek god...then base the "truth" upon him...chances are that you don't have a very accurate picture of reality. Perhaps you should consider what it is that you're afraid to find if you stop seeking god everywhere and just start seeking the truth.

You also said this, "Plenty of evidence exists for God, but only when you are willing to accept the possibility of Him will it support Him. "

That's not how evidence works. Evidence either supports a conclusion...or it doesn't. My personal beliefs won't matter to the evidence either way. Again, maybe you should consider this is your problem. If you just follow the evidence where it goes...you'll get to the truth. It may not be the truth you want, it may be a truth you're afraid of, but it's still the truth regardless.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

You said this...

"Christianity can not be abandoned because Christians can't define perfection. "

I agree with you there...the thing that you should abandon though is the word "perfect".

If you describe god as being "perfect"...but then tell us that you don't really understand what that means...how do you know god is perfect?

The easy answer is....you don't.

Since you don't know what it "perfect" means when you say "god is perfect"...then you're just making a meaningless statement. God may be imperfect...you simply don't know since you don't seem to understand what "perfect" means in relation to god.

You have a point. We don't know true perfection, so we can't know God is truly perfect.

However, if God were true, and created everything as He claims, He would be infinitely better than mankind. Therefore, He would be the best example of perfect. And without anything better than Him, then He would be the measure of perfection, although we still could not understand Him completely.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have a point. We don't know true perfection, so we can't know God is truly perfect.

However, if God were true, and created everything as He claims, He would be infinitely better than mankind. Therefore, He would be the best example of perfect. And without anything better than Him, then He would be the measure of perfection, although we still could not understand Him completely.

Sure...it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, I do. It's that words like "perfect" or even "greatest" are matters of perspective. They're a result of viewpoints and not matters of fact.

To you, god may seem like perfection. To Satan, I would imagine god seems like the cruelest, most evil entity ever. Are either of you wrong? No. Are you both right? Yeah...from your viewpoints you are.

 

[anonymous person]

It's that words like "perfect" or even "greatest" are matters of perspective. They're a result of viewpoints and not matters of fact.

By the same token, what a "flaw" is is a matter of perspective and not fact. This renders your whole "logical argument" against the existence of God to be nothing more than you telling me that you think God did a lousy job at getting His message across. I think He did a marvelous job.

According to you, we are both right. Your argument collapses.