There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[Tayla]

For me, the proofs offered for god claims are not logically sufficient to warrant a belief in the existence of the god claimed.

Frankly, atheism doesn't need a logical argument beyond 'I see no good reason to believe'.

As a Christian, I agree. I require evidence beyond the material physical world to believe in God; such things as the subjective feeing that there must be an absolutely good, divine, holy entity to explain my feelings for such things.

Using the Bible as proof of God's existence is not a good argument unless you first demonstrate it to be a trustworthy source of truth about such things.

 

[Tayla]

It is because they have taken a position just as much as the theist has. Both have taken a position. They say No ..we say Yes.

Trying to put the weight of the argument on the person that says yes is intellectually dishonest.

If you don't know.. then the proper stance is you don't know... not "No/Atheism".

As a Christian, it seems to me the default position is to not believe there is a God; after all he can't be discerned through science.

 

[Tayla]

Most atheists, including myself, are agnostic, not gnostic. We don't firmly believe that deities don't exist, but rather we lack faith in their existence due to a lack of evidence that they do exist.

Again, the problem is that I don't believe in said being due to the lack of evidence that it exists.

Yes, the evidence is not there using materialistic science. I don't think we can blame someone for not feeling the need to look beyond that. Just because Christians insist on it is not a compelling reason.

 

[Tayla]

I feel that some christians try to use the argument of "well, you can't be 100% certain"

Yes. By the nature of the question to be proved, there cannot be 100% certainty. Only deduction can provide certainty; induction and abduction cannot.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).

I think it is very logical , if someone has not met Jesus,
looking at history,
to say that it is not logical for God to exist since so many people have been killed, murdered, exterminated by religious groups who claim to believe in God.

If God was real, He would not logically permit this.

That is a frequently used "logical" argument against the existence of God.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I agree but why would God allow the same logic I use to determine He exist.. to be wrong in determining His will (religion)?

Is it okay if I answer this ?

 

[quatona]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

1. That´s not my belief.
2. To ask for a logical argument against an unfalsifiable claim is pointless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There isn't really enough information to rule out physical/non-physical interactions.

If something exists that we would not term it "physical" like the universe, say, pre-space/time then we don't have any data to say how it would interact with the universe as we know it in a physical sense today (via physics).

So, a exclusively dualist definition of such a state is free to be wrong.

OK; in that case, I would like to know what 'non-physical' means, if not 'having no influence on the physical', and request an example - if only hypothetical.

 

[Dave RP]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.

I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).

Thoughts and thanks

I can only say that from a personal point of view, my atheism is based on the following:

My understanding of theism is (dictionary definition) "belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." on that definition I am an atheist.

I cannot envisage how a being exists who can just "think" things into existence, who can just create the entire universe in all its size and complexity by its own actions, yet this being did not need to be created itself as it always existed. I just simply don't get it and cannot accept that as a logical description for how the universe exists. I think that those who believe god created everything are merely moving the lack of knowledge up one level, - "I can't explain how the universe came into existence so it must be god"and then because god is un-explainable they can justify this belief.

Then we get into specific gods, and as this is a Christian site, the god of the bible, of Jesus and all that and my disbelief is increased. I see the old testament as full of myth and legend, I see no logic in many of the stories, and I see most as simply too ludicrous to warrant any consideration as being any way accurate. These matters have been discussed before but for an atheist the stories of, to name only a few, creation in 6 days (out of logical sequence), the talking serpent, god being all knowing and all seeing yet somehow missing Adam and Eve eating the apple, the existence of angels, arch angels, cherubim and all those mythical creatures, Cain and Abel, Jonah and the fish, the flood, "choosing" one particular branch of humanity when he apparently made everything..... these are a few examples of stories so ridiculous as to be clearly myth, therefore the bible cannot be gods words and is merely a series of myths and stories.

Then the new testament - inconsistencies between gospels, the fact the Pauls gospel is written by a man who never even met Jesus, revelation being incomprehensible to 99.999% of the population and the whole idea of death, judgement and everlasting life or torment based on the fact that you were lucky enough to believe and "worship" god - all of this makes me believe that the new testament is written as myth by those wishing to perpetuate the Jesus story.

Then there interference in the universe - I see absolutely zero evidence that God intervenes in any way in the universe, let alone on this insignificant speck of a planet tucked away in a tiny corner of the unimaginably vast universe. All the prayers for world peace, for an end to hunger, for an end to war all go unanswered, god ignores his creation until it seems he's going to raise the dead for the sole purpose of sending 80% of them to eternal torment and giving 20% eternal life - really?

I believe that the manufacturing of god in peoples imaginations is because of an inherent need to feel that there is more to life that this, that there is some greater meaning and god provides that. We have always been a human-centric organism, we look at the world from our little speck of rock and everything seems to revolve around us, for hundreds of years it was Catholic teaching that the earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around us. This type of thinking has resulted in organised religions which places humankind at the centre of gods creation, but in my opinion this is based only on humanities need to feel part of something greater. Christianity, with its message of eternal life for non believers seemed to thrive most in areas of strife and persecution, where the message would have been gratefully received.

So in summary I don't believe in a creator god as I find this to be beyond reasonable belief, I don't believe in the god of the bible for the reason outlined above HOWEVER i will say that I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if there turned out to be some force of nature so far beyond our comprehension that we label it god, but it certainly will not be the god of the bible or of any of the organised religions of the world.

I cannot ever offer evidence of the non existence of god, but these are, in summary, the reason why I do not believe in the existence of god and in particular of the god of the bible.

 

[Dave RP]

Romans 1:17-23

Atheists may consider it a fallacy by claiming it an Appeal to Grandiosity or some such. But they will have no excuse in the end, as the verse above proves.

17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

Romans 1:23 seems to be talking about Evolution specifically.

That's Pauls opinion, but surely as he never even met Jesus he cannot be speaking gods words - only his thoughts on what gods words might be?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's Pauls opinion, but surely as he never even met Jesus he cannot be speaking gods words - only his thoughts on what gods words might be?

Really? Paul didn't have a run-in with the same Resurrected Jesus who would just appear and then disappear...but still with at least a scrap of a trace for his disciples? Surely you jest, my good man!

 

[durangodawood]

Let's see if this is applicable. Say a person wants to believe in the erroneous concept of reincarnation. They go to a show and see a hypnotist put somebody under hypnosis. While under hypnosis that person, who is proven to be honest and not knowingly under any planned ploy of deception, tells the audience they know no other language but English. The hypnotist now tells them that they are going to take them back to the memory of a "previous life" they lived while in ancient Egypt. The "subject" then shows they can speak in an Egyptian language under these circumstances of hypnosis. The person that wants to believe in reincarnation, now logically comes to this conclusion, having seen it demonstrated in this way, and not being able to explain it any other way. It makes sense, and it is logical. I would suggest another explanation. The person under hypnosis, for this particular occasion, and for my own explanation, is temporarily possessed by a deceiving spirit, a demon, that makes it look like this person knows this ancient language, and that the reason is because they really did know it in a previous lifetime. Rather than get off topic, I am stopping here, hoping that this is an acceptable example of logic coming to an incorrect conclusion.

Thats more an example of bad premises (demons dont exist, reincarnation does exist, and so on) rather than bad logic. Dont you think?

 

[Dave RP]

Really? Paul didn't have a run-in with the same Resurrected Jesus who would just appear and then disappear...but still with at least a scrap of a trace for his disciples? Surely you jest, my good man!

He had a vision, but not a meeting as I understand it???!!!!???

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He had a vision, but not a meeting as I understand it???!!!!???

What's the difference between a risen Christ who appears for 40 days and then disappears verses one that appears for 40 seconds and then disappears? Time?

 

[Dave RP]

What's the difference between a risen Christ who appears for 40 days and then disappears verses one that appears for 40 seconds and then disappears? Time?

Well I don’t think there’s much evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, so I guess they’re both either just hallucinations or the stories were exaggerated, or both. Paul, as I understand only claimed to see a vision of Christ, not a reserected person in the flesh.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well I don’t think there’s much evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, so I guess they’re both either just hallucinations or the stories were exaggerated, or both. Paul, as I understand only claimed to see a vision of Christ, not a reserected person in the flesh.

What evidence would you expect there to be, assuming that when Christ rose again, He would continue to work and move within the same epistemic and social contexts that He did before during his earthly ministry?

It sounds to me that you don't give Paul the benefit of the doubt because you've pretty much already laid out your own epistemological framework, with all of the assumptions that go along with whatever that framework is.

But, be that as it may, if you don't perceive God in the details, then you don't see God in the details. I can't fault you for that, other than to bring to your attention that you may want to ask yourself if this is truly due to simply feeling that you haven't been 'visited' by God, or you aren't motivated because you're holding back something in your life and mind that you don't really want to give up.

Either way, I don't know. Only you know. And God knows.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Dave RP]

What evidence would you expect there to be, assuming that when Christ rose again, He would continue to work and move within the same epistemic and social contexts that He did before during his earthly ministry?

It sounds to me that you don't give Paul the benefit of the doubt because you've pretty much already laid out your own epistemological framework, with all of the assumptions that go along with whatever that framework is.

But, be that as it may, if you don't perceive God in the details, then you don't see God in the details. I can't fault you for that, other than to bring to your attention that you may want to ask yourself if this is truly due to simply feeling that you haven't been 'visited' by God, or you aren't motivated because you're holding back something in your life and mind that you don't really want to give up.

Either way, I don't know. Only you know. And God knows.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

We’ve drifted off topic, for which I apologise. The original post was about logical arguments to support atheism, I got distracted onto a subject covered a million times.

I see no logical reason to not be an atheist and I explained why, clearly if god did decide to come into my life, once I’d established which god it was, if then probably follow the sacred texts of that god. As that hasn’t happened, I remain where I am. My “girlfriend” is a Christian and she hopes one day I’ll change, but as I’m 60 now, I think that’s unlikely.

Thanks for your response.

 

[bhsmte]

Really? Paul didn't have a run-in with the same Resurrected Jesus who would just appear and then disappear...but still with at least a scrap of a trace for his disciples? Surely you jest, my good man!

Do you believe people who claim they have been abducted by aliens and give specific descriptions of their experiences?

 

[variant]

I don't think you can strip that many qualities from Yahweh though, even we were to take every logical argument against Him as fact. For starters, you can't disprove that a deist kind of god doesn't exist, right? So you can't disprove that Yahweh isn't a personal, intelligent being that created the universe. So what else could possibly be proven about Him that would make Him cease to be Yahweh?

At some point you have to be talking about something with some discernible qualities to be talking about anything at all.

The reason we couldn't possibly strip the adjectives you are speaking of from Yahweh is because they are things we could never properly know about the subject.

 

[variant]

OK; in that case, I would like to know what 'non-physical' means, if not 'having no influence on the physical', and request an example - if only hypothetical.

My argument is that if such a thing exists that is not constrained by physics such that we describe in the universe, then we can't know if it could or could not interact with the universe.

I don't think the definition "can not act upon the physical" is a proper way of limiting the possibilitys of something we know nothing about.