There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[MrAnderson9]

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

 

[Greg Merrill]

A devout Christian myself, I would think Satan would have a "logical" argument against the existence of God. Not all logic is correct, and not everything that makes sense is correct, but it can still be logical.

 

[Speedwell]

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

An interesting question, but not germaine. The evolution-creationism debate is not really about theism vs. atheism, but about a bumptious Protestant minority with a political agenda vs. everybody else, theist and atheist together.

 

[pitabread]

This isn't the right forum for this discussion. You might want to try the Philosophy forum: Philosophy

 

[TLK Valentine]

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

God created everything -- what created God?

 

[Greg Merrill]

An interesting question, but not germaine. The evolution-creationism debate is not really about theism vs. atheism, but about a bumptious Protestant minority with a political agenda vs. everybody else, theist and atheist together.

No icon is given in which to express great dislike, or just dislike, so I will write it out that I strongly dislike this reply (though not the replier), using the phrase "bumptious Protestant minority", which just goes to show the negative bias of the replier, if not also their great ignorance in this subject. No disrespect intended. Just not wanting to be part of a silent majority, afraid to make an appropriate response.

 

[Drick]

Empirically speaking, it's not their job to prove the non-existence of anything in a proper debate.

 

[Greg Merrill]

God created everything -- what created God?

"What created God?" is a question that comes from ignorance, like most questions, and there is nothing wrong with honest ignorance that one seeks to illiminate. Nothing created God. God has always existed. God doesn't need a creator, as the question may suppose. Only one that is less than God would think the limitless, always existing God would need a creator. He is greater than all things that were created. One that thinks God would need a creator doesn't realize how great God is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"What created God?" is a question that comes from ignorance, like most questions, and there is nothing wrong with honest ignorance that one seeks to illiminate. Nothing created God. God has always existed. God doesn't need a creator, as the question may suppose. Only one that is less than God would think the limitless, always existing God would need a creator. He is greater than all things that were created. One that thinks God would need a creator doesn't realize how great God is.

Ah. Special Pleading Fallacy... with a touch of ad hom at the beginning.

So much for logic.

 

[pitabread]

No icon is given in which to express great dislike, or just dislike, so I will write it out that I strongly dislike this reply (though not the replier), using the phrase "bumptious Protestant minority", which just goes to show the negative bias of the replier, if not also their great ignorance in this subject.

You might not like the characterization, but is he actually wrong?

 

[friend of]

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.

 

[MrAnderson9]

An interesting question, but not germaine. The evolution-creationism debate is not really about theism vs. atheism, but about a bumptious Protestant minority with a political agenda vs. everybody else, theist and atheist together.

Thank you.. over time I've come to the conclusion that Religion created Atheism. Theism without assigning a set of religious beliefs to God seems not appeal to many that believe God exists..

It's almost like people believe the belief in God requires a complete understanding of "His" nature/will to go along with it.

Atheist in my opinion from all the discussions I've had seem to be more determined to disprove the religious God's..(especially the Christian God).. then they are with disproving the existence of God in general. I think a lot of atheist are more anti-religion than they are anti-theist.

With that being said.. I have not heard a logical argument from atheist that supports their belief that there is no God..not that there is no Religious God.

 

[MrAnderson9]

A devout Christian myself, I would think Satan would have a "logical" argument against the existence of God. Not all logic is correct, and not everything that makes sense is correct, but it can still be logical.

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

 

[Speedwell]

No icon is given in which to express great dislike, or just dislike, so I will write it out that I strongly dislike this reply (though not the replier), using the phrase "bumptious Protestant minority", which just goes to show the negative bias of the replier, if not also their great ignorance in this subject. No disrespect intended. Just not wanting to be part of a silent majority, afraid to make an appropriate response.

I'm sorry if you found that response offensive; I only meant to be as accurate as I could. But though it is a fact that there are creationist minorities in all of the Abrahamic religions, they are most numerous in Evangelical Protestant denominations, primarily in the US. Having lived in the Bible Belt as a non-creationist Christian and experienced them as a majority first hand, I think "bumptious" is a generous and kindly descriptor. As to the political agenda, it ranges from teaching creationism in public school science class (along with fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study, of course) to the totalitarian theocracy dreamed of by the Fellows of the Discovery Institute. If you think that is an ignorant response, perhaps you could enlighten me on the subject.

 

[pitabread]

With that being said.. I have not heard a logical argument from atheist that supports their belief that there is no God..not that there is no Religious God.

The problem is that an arbitrary "god" is often an abstract and ill-defined concept to begin with. Unless you define what you are asserting exists, then it's hard to argue against it.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Just the usual boring "future promises". Nothing to get excited about...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Seems to me that the argument i that God needs no creator as He has always existed. But if it turns out the universe has always existed, then it would require no creator, and thus the need for a God evaporates.

Many people like to cite the "Big Bang" as the beginning of the universe, but suppose for a moment that it's not? Suppose instead that it was merely one phase in an ongoing cycle, and that as some point in the future the Universe will collapse into itself and "bang" anew?

Big Crunch - Wikipedia

 

[MrAnderson9]

God created everything -- what created God?

Everything in the physical universe is subject to time.. so it logically appears created. So if this universe has an age that isn't eternal then an outer force that isn't subject to time appears to have created our universe.

This is why that argument doesn't seem logical. Unless you can provide a logical argument as to how the universe sprung from nothing and started itself.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Seems to me that the argument i that God needs no creator as He has always existed. But if it turns out the universe has always existed, then it would require no creator, and thus the need for a God evaporates.

Many people like to cite the "Big Bang" as the beginning of the universe, but suppose for a moment that it's not? Suppose instead that it was merely one phase in an ongoing cycle, and that as some point in the future the Universe will collapse into itself and "bang" anew?

Big Crunch - Wikipedia

The universe shows signs of an age. It's showing forward progression of physical objects.. it shows time. It would require a starting point to act as a reference point to another point in time. If the reference was infinite every point would be identical in distance from itself to every other point.. meaning you'd only have 1 point...no progression.

 

[pitabread]

Everything in the physical universe is subject to time.. so it logically appears created. So if this universe has an age that isn't eternal then an outer force that isn't subject to time appears to have created our universe.

In the absence of space-time how could something exist?