Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[grasping the after wind]

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.



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.

Again, the claims are evidence they would be admissible in a court of law as evidence. You ought not confuse evidence with proof. For instance, I would be wrong to say that there is no evidence that AGW exists but correct to say there is no proof it exists. One can look at the evidence and conclude whether the evidence is convincing or not in both cases. Secondly your claim of contradiction about the evidence given by multiple witnesses about multiple gods does not stand scrutiny. There is no contradiction in the testimony on the subject of whether deities exist only about which ones and what they might be like. All the testimonies agree without exception that there is at least one god. That there are different perceptions of what those or that deity may be like does not make their testimony on existence contradictory anymore than the evidence about the existence of Tyrannosaurs coupled with evidence about the existence of Triceratops could be seen as contradictory in claiming that dinosaurs existed.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree that there is lots of evidence for gods. Terrible evidence, for sure, but lots of it. I do not find it compelling.

There is evidence that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial aliens, from sightings to abduction testimonies. What measures have you personally taken to protect yourself and your family against the risk of alien abduction?

The same measures I have taken to ward off climate change catastrophes. I hope no one is upset that I object to someone claiming something is true unless it is actually true. No matter what one may think of the evidence presented it is still evidence. So claiming there is no evidence is simply a completely false statement and I will not just let such a false statement be made without commenting upon it.

 

[anonymous person]

Are you attempting to pass the burden off to someone else?

It is you claiming your God exists. This means, it is up to you to support this claim.

I never made the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

This is a claim that several people here have made and I'm just asking for them to provide support for it.

What people should say is that they have reviewed the evidence theists provide for the existence of God and find it unpersuasive or unconvincing which is a far more modest claim and one which is easier to defend.

One still would be responsible for giving reasons why all of the arguments and evidence marshaled for the existence of God are unpersuasive to them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This begs the question though, of what you count as a successful demonstration that one's beliefs are true.

That question can't be answered until the specific claims are properly presented in a testable and / or falsifiable manner.

Religions usually come with a boatload of claims, each of which falls and stands on its own merrit.

All rests on how you define your beliefs.

What counts? and why think your criteria is one that I or anyone else should use in determining if a belief is true?

Logic.

One analyses the claims and asks "how could this claim be falsified? what data/evidence would we expect to find and NOT to find, if this claim is true?".

So your claim requires a form of testability.

You suggested that the demonstration of a belief's comporting with reality is how we determine whether it is true did you not?

It's upto the people making the belief claims to support their beliefs.
So, since you are a theist, I'ld say it's a very appropriate thing to ask you how you plan on demonstrating that your religion comports to reality, while all the others do not.

I see no reason to think that this approach is one which should be taken.

You see no reason to actually define what X is when you claim that "X exists"???

 

[DogmaHunter]

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—so perfect and splendid that nothing greater is conceivable, or as Anselm succinctly put it, the Greatest Conceivable Being.

I still don't know what that is, this "Greatest Conceivable Being".
Also, how was it determined that that is what "god" is - whatever it is?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Depends on which god we're imagining here. So far I haven't seen any useful definitions to work with, so it is an open question.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you know who Quentin Smith is?

There are lots of people with the first name Quentin. There's even a wikipedia page with a list of them - who would have thought? Looking through the list, I'm surprised at how many of them are American football players. Anyone know if there's some common point of origin for that? I mean, it looks like it is in the top 1000 most popular names but at the uncommon end of the range.

Aren't you glad you asked about a random name rather than actually making a point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

I suggest an experiment. Warning: this is a thought experiment and not an invitation to actually do it.

Take a baseball bat.
Go outside and start to randomly hit people in the face with it.

Will "god" stop you and hold you accountable for it?
Or will your fellow citizens?

Clearly, what you say isn't true. You very MUCH are accountable for your actions and decisions. In this life, right here on planet earth.

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.

Says the person who's idea of a moral compass is "whatever my perceived authority commands".

Meaning that the ONLY argument you can give to an islamic suicide bomber for why what he does is wrong is: "you have the wrong religion".

If he had the RIGHT religion, then in YOUR belief system - what they do would be a moral duty.

That's what moral bankrupcy is. What you call "morality", I call "mere obedience".

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

Clearly, it does, as god commands and engages in genocide several times.
In my moral compass, there is NO CONTEXT in which it is okay to engage in genocide or to keep slaves or whatever.

Read your old testament. And spare me the excuse of "new covenant!!". It is the same god. "Objective morality" doesn't change. That's actually what makes it "objective" - that it can't change on the whim of a change of heart or a change of opinion.

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

Right, because babies and puppies are so evil.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

I'ld say that it would be a lot easier if you just provide what you think is the BEST and MOST CONVINCING evidence for god, except of expecting anyone to write you a refutation of every single conceivable argument ever made in an attempt to support religious beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn't think you would send me these refutations.

Weren't you supposed to post your e-mail address here for everyone to see? Hard to complain that no one sends you anything when you're hiding from the truth like that.

But seriously, I've already answered your question. Did you not read it, or did you not understand it?

You have not dealt in depth with all of the arguments for the existence of God. You have not dealt in depth with all of the evidence.

Neither have you. And yet despite this you lack belief in the gods of hundreds of different religions those argument discuss. You words say one thing, but your actions agree with my particular approach to the topic. In these cases, I typically believe that the actions don't lie - especially when one plays dumb word games like complaining that someone didn't e-mail you at an address one never posted.

 

[KCfromNC]

"Oh, you know... all of them."

It's not as if it would matter anyway. Even if every argument were decisively refuted, a.p would still maintain that one ought to believe regardless.

"The argument I can't explain is a compelling reason to believe in a god I can't describe. Trust me."

 

[KCfromNC]

I still don't know what that is, this "Greatest Conceivable Being".
Also, how was it determined that that is what "god" is - whatever it is?

It is maximally how and maximally cold at the same time. It is also simultaneously maximally a pizza and maximally a salad. How can it be so many mutually contradictory things at once? It is also maximally imaginary.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

One still would be responsible for giving reasons why all of the arguments and evidence marshaled for the existence of God are unpersuasive to them.

I can see where this thread is going... It's going down an explicitly apologetic path, and thereby toward its premature expiration.

 

[DogmaHunter]

One still would be responsible for giving reasons why all of the arguments and evidence marshaled for the existence of God are unpersuasive to them.

And I reckon every single unbeliever here will be happy to do exactly that.
Give them an argument and they'll tell you exactly what it is about that argument that makes it unconvincing.

But don't request us to give every possible conceivable argument any theist could come up with, only to then refute it.

Present your own arguments. Don't ask people to do you own homework.

 

[anonymous person]

That question can't be answered until the specific claims are properly presented in a testable and / or falsifiable manner.

Religions usually come with a boatload of claims, each of which falls and stands on its own merrit.

All rests on how you define your beliefs.



Logic.

One analyses the claims and asks "how could this claim be falsified? what data/evidence would we expect to find and NOT to find, if this claim is true?".

So your claim requires a form of testability.



It's upto the people making the belief claims to support their beliefs.
So, since you are a theist, I'ld say it's a very appropriate thing to ask you how you plan on demonstrating that your religion comports to reality, while all the others do not.



You see no reason to actually define what X is when you claim that "X exists"???

But your belief is not testable or falsifiable though. By your own standard, it is the same as a religious belief.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But your belief is not testable or falsifiable though. By your own standard, it is the same as a religious belief.

What belief are you referring to?

 

[anonymous person]

The belief that claims require a form of testability.

It is neither testable or falsifiable. But philosophers have already dealt with this decades ago.

 

[anonymous person]

And I reckon every single unbeliever here will be happy to do exactly that.
Give them an argument and they'll tell you exactly what it is about that argument that makes it unconvincing.

But don't request us to give every possible conceivable argument any theist could come up with, only to then refute it.

Present your own arguments. Don't ask people to do you own homework.

Well now notice what this thread is about. It is about arguments against the existence of God.

I don't make the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Some here have but think they can just say there is no evidence for God as if that is a good argument. It's not an argument. In fact, it is actually as someone else has mentioned, demonstrably false.

So shifting the burden over to me to prove God's existence is not going to get you off the hook.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well now notice what this thread is about. It is about arguments against the existence of God.

I don't make the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Some here have but think they can just say there is no evidence for God as if that is a good argument. It's not an argument. In fact, it is actually as someone else has mentioned, demonstrably false.

So shifting the burden over to me to prove God's existence is not going to get you off the hook.

Here's yet another example of a good argument for no believing - people who do believe have to resort to "but you can't prove it is impossible" and "but you haven't searched the entire known universe" games rather than just actually getting on with explaining why they do believe whatever it is they're trying to sell. That's a big hint that they really don't have anything backing up their faith.

This thread has been a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. The rationalization and word games we get in response to legitimate reasons not to believe are in themselves even more reinforcement that a lacking belief is the correct conclusion.

 

[bhsmte]

I never made the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

This is a claim that several people here have made and I'm just asking for them to provide support for it.

What people should say is that they have reviewed the evidence theists provide for the existence of God and find it unpersuasive or unconvincing which is a far more modest claim and one which is easier to defend.

One still would be responsible for giving reasons why all of the arguments and evidence marshaled for the existence of God are unpersuasive to them.

I have not crawled out from under a rock. This site is LOADED with explanations from non believers as to why the supposed evidence from believers, that a God exists, is not convincing and is certainly not objective verifiable evidence.

If you want to claim a God exists based on your personal experience and experience and say you believe on faith, then I won't question your belief. Start to claim you have objective logical arguments for your belief and you are going to be asked to support the same.

My experience on this site has told me this, some Christians can not just say; I believe on faith and I know, I can't support my belief with objective and verifiable evidence, to another person.

Then, we have the Christians, where just saying they believe on faith, is not good enough for them and they have to convince themselves, they have logical, rational and objective verifiable evidence to support their belief.

IMO, the Christians who can say; I believe on faith and don't have to pretend to have objective arguments, are much more secure in their beliefs, than those that play the other game.