What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[ianb321red]

Interested to know from both Theists and Atheists...

From Theists - is there one particular argument against the existence of God you find hard/ struggle to answer or understand?

From Atheists - is there one (or more than one!) argument that you have still not had answered or explained? Or is there an argument you think is beyond rebuttal?

Thanks in advance for your input!

 

[Nabobalis]

Interested to know from both Theists and Atheists...

From Theists - is there one particular argument against the existence of God you find hard/ struggle to answer or understand?

From Atheists - is there one (or more than one!) argument that you have still not had answered or explained? Or is there an argument you think is beyond rebuttal?

Thanks in advance for your input!

Personally, it isn't an argument but the lack of empirical evidence for a god.

 

[ianb321red]

Personally, it isn't an argument but the lack of empirical evidence for a god.

Ok, but are you saying you personally can't believe in anything unless you have empirical evidence? Or is it just for a belief in God?

If it is anything, then do you personally ensure that you have tested and atested everything that you believe in empirically either through direct observation or experimental observation?

If the answer is no, then you have a belief system based on faith not empirical evidence. It may be faith in science or scientists or some other academic discipline but it is still faith nevertheless....

And finally, are you genuinely looking for the evidence and if so, what kind of evidence are you looking for?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Can we be clear here - do you mean the God of Christianity or any god in general?

 

[ianb321red]

Can we be clear here - do you mean the God of Christianity or any god in general?

Any God

 

[underheaven]

Personally, it isn't an argument but the lack of empirical evidence for a god.

It helps if you look ,do your homework. When you have used the God created internet to find as
much as possible,I will engage with you on evidence outside of the bible.!

 

[underheaven]

No one can empirically prove `god` does not exist and none can empirically prove otherwise, however, Christianity and the other monotheistic faiths have taken the concept of many`Gods` and channelled them into one.

This new multi-purpose `god` serves to explain the actions of what was once accredited to many.

Science has undermined through discovery and experiment the stranglehold these monotheistic deities once held over the population.

Therefore discovery and education are eradicating the `need` for a `god,` which leaves only the followers of `faith.`

The bottom line is, I cannot prove `god` doesn't exist but the concept is certainly not of major importance anymore, as science and progress are the `Gods` which are directing the way.

Frost

You could not be more wrong,but am going to answer this on questions by
non christians. As well as proof outside of the bible,which is morewhere I am coming from,the bible is an incredible work ,which is not understood at all even by christians,for it is multi - levelled with layer upon layer of prediction.

 

[ianb321red]

_

 

[ianb321red]

No one can empirically prove `god` does not exist and none can empirically prove otherwise

I totally agree.
The "lack of empirical evidence" is a complete non starter on both sides, as we are not a subject matter that falls in to realm of cold empiricism or experimentation.

I don't believe science however has somehow "replaced" or undermined God..
You know full well that science still does not have the answers for many things, and also has got many things wrong.
The current Cern experiments concerning E=MC2 vividly demonstrate this.
There are many other examples also..

Science is on a journey of discovery - I am happy to embrace this along with a belief in God. They can exist in harmony, but only in the sense that science supports of belief in God...

 

[SithDoughnut]

From Atheists - is there one (or more than one!) argument that you have still not had answered or explained? Or is there an argument you think is beyond rebuttal?

Basically, there is no evidence or demonstrated necessity for God. The only arguments I've seen to counter this are shaky attempts at logical arguments (which are generally useless as evidence anyway) or a response that we see in this very thread:

It helps if you look ,do your homework. When you have used the God created internet to find as
much as possible,I will engage with you on evidence outside of the bible.!

As you can see no actual evidence is put forward, just an unsubstantiated claim that it is out there somewhere and that it is somehow my fault that I can't support other people's arguments for them. This post is actually a perfect example, because not only does it use the "God created [insert man-made object here]" claim (again without substantiation), it also contains my favourite resonse to the lack of evidence claim, which usually goes along the lines of "I'll tell you the answer when you've looked it all up yourself". I find this entertaining, because not only does it once again demand that I do someone else's research for them, it also gives the ultimate cop-out, which is often subsequently used; if I do the research, and then come back to say I found nothing, the response will almost always be "well you haven't looked hard enough; I'll tell you the answer when you've looked more".

 

[Nabobalis]

It helps if you look ,do your homework. When you have used the God created internet to find as
much as possible,I will engage with you on evidence outside of the bible.!

Well what homework would you suggest? The internet is a big place, I also don't think god created the internet.

 

[Nabobalis]

Ok, but are you saying you personally can't believe in anything unless you have empirical evidence? Or is it just for a belief in God?

If it is anything, then do you personally ensure that you have tested and atested everything that you believe in empirically either through direct observation or experimental observation?

If the answer is no, then you have a belief system based on faith not empirical evidence. It may be faith in science or scientists or some other academic discipline but it is still faith nevertheless....

And finally, are you genuinely looking for the evidence and if so, what kind of evidence are you looking for?

I try to base my beliefs on what has been tested/observed. I can't test everything, that would be impossible but other people have throughout history. This allows me to accept things that are true and I can move on without having to question every little thing.

I never said I didn't have any faith. I have faith in the people I work with, my friends and my loved ones. Everyone has faith in some form, but mine tends to be faith in humans who I know exist

Well, I'm not on the lookout for evidence, I've got other things to do with my life right now but if some was presented to me I would consider it as best as I could. What evidence would convince me? I don't know, it is a difficult question to answer.

 

[Nabobalis]

I totally agree.
The current Cern experiments concerning E=MC2 vividly demonstrate this.
There are many other examples also..

That is an incorrect statement. It has called into question the speed limit of the universe however it does not affect E=mc^2 as the speed of light has not changed and that equation has been tested and passed rather well.

 

[ianb321red]

Basically, there is no evidence or demonstrated necessity for God. The only arguments I've seen to counter this are shaky attempts at logical arguments (which are generally useless as evidence anyway)

Regarding your first point, do you mean:
(1) “there is no evidence” for you personally?
Or you do you mean
(2) “there is no evidence” at all for anyone?

If you mean:
(1) Then are you saying that you are genuinely looking for evidence? Or have you decided there is no evidence and therefore will not look for, or further consider anything that other people deem to be “evidence”. I think what you really mean is that you have rejected what other people who do actually believe in God consider to be “the evidence”
(2) If you mean no evidence for anyone at all, then that clearly is fallacious. I for one think there is evidence for the existence of God, and there are clearly millions of people who also believe in God. For a single individual to say that there is “no evidence” for themselves AND everyone else as well is clearly absurb.

What you can say is that you don’t accept the evidence, you don’t want to believe the evidence or that you are not searching for the evidence – and I expect the later to be more accurate. The question then follows from this position is to turn to you and ask either (i) why you don’t accept the evidence, and /or (ii) where have you been looking for the evidence?

But the position that there is “no evidence” at all is clearly false.
If I said there is “no evidence” for 5 kilometre high building in the middle of London, then that is clearly false and easily demonstrated to be false. You will also not find one single person on this planet that believes that.
You will find more than one single person who believes in God.

Your second point regarding the demonstrated necessity for God:

This can also be established quite clearly from ironically reading great Atheistic works. There are a number of Atheist quotes that prove that we really need God. Try reading Nietzsche, Sartre, Russell, Hume and others…

Sartre said “I needed God, I reached out for religion, I longed for it, it was the remedy. Had it been denied me I would have invented it myself”
Freud said “It would be very nice if there were a God” and he admitted “a sense of man’s insignificance in the face of the universe”
Nietzsche said “To the last of all that are lonely, oh, come back!....And my hearts final flame flares up for thee! Oh, come back, My unknown God! My pain! My last-happiness….
Camus said “For anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful”
Russell said “Even when someone feels nearest to other people, something seems to obstinately belong to God”……
Russell also said “”I care passionately for this world and many things and people in it, and yet….what is it all? There must be something more important one feels, though I don’t believe there is”

Here in the last quote Russell is essentially saying “I need God….but I won’t believe in him”

I can pull out more quotes if need be, as there are many further examples where individuals desperation to understand their own existence causes them to reach out in necessity for God! The existence of God amounts one of choice ultimately:

• Theists admit it
• Atheists reveal it


I have to say I really like discussing these matters with Atheists – it really strengthens my faith when I realise what weak ground Atheism is actually based on..

 

[ianb321red]

That is an incorrect statement. It has called into question the speed limit of the universe however it does not affect E=mc^2 as the speed of light has not changed and that equation has been tested and passed rather well.

Misquote from me.
I never said it changed E=MC2.
It questioned the previous understanding that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. I believe this experiment has been repeated a number of times.

No big deal as far as I'm concerned - just don't put all your eggs in the "science has all the answers" basket, that's all....

 

[ianb321red]

I try to base my beliefs on what has been tested/observed. I can't test everything, that would be impossible but other people have throughout history. This allows me to accept things that are true and I can move on without having to question every little thing.

I never said I didn't have any faith. I have faith in the people I work with, my friends and my loved ones. Everyone has faith in some form, but mine tends to be faith in humans who I know exist

Well, I'm not on the lookout for evidence, I've got other things to do with my life right now but if some was presented to me I would consider it as best as I could. What evidence would convince me? I don't know, it is a difficult question to answer.

Thanks for your reply - all fair and honest comments...

Interesting that you think that Christ didn't exist (have I read between the lines correctly?)

Did you know that there is a huge amount of non biblical historical evidence to support the existence of Christ? Tacitus for example, a Roman historian who wrote an account of Roman history around AD110 refers to both Christ (Christus) and Pontius Pilate in his "Annals"...
Tacitus was no disciple or follower of Christ - so why mention this person Jesus Christ if he never existed?

Generally speaking approx 20 world religions accept the person "Jesus Christ" in some form or another.

Most serious academics in history and anthropology regardless of religious belief concur that there is little doubt that someone called Jesus Christ lived approx 2000 years ago...

The real question is was he who he claimed he was??!

But this is going off thread now, so would need to be treated separately from the OT which I am intending to try and keep separate from Christianity or "religion"

 

[brightmorningstar]

Actually the best evidence for me is concerning the debate is the unwillingness of some atheists to recognise plenty of scientists who ponder on the evidence and the possible supernatural design agency it could point to. The disbelief is often spiritual. After all even Richard Dawkins admitted there might be some sort of higher 'force' at work as long as it wasnt God.

 

[Inept]

Actually the best evidence for me is concerning the debate is the unwillingness of some atheists to recognise plenty of scientists who ponder on the evidence and the possible supernatural design agency it could point to. The disbelief is often spiritual. After all even Richard Dawkins admitted there might be some sort of higher 'force' at work as long as it wasnt God.

It isn't that atheists don't recognise them, there are obviously Scientists who consider themselves religious or theist. It doesn't change the fact that there's no actual evidence for the existence of God and, as such, no logical reason to believe it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Inept,

It isn't that atheists don't recognise them, there are obviously Scientists who consider themselves religious or theist.

Well yes I guess they do recognise them, but not their views. And I wasnt thinking of scientists who consider themselves theist or religious, but more those who consider themselves atheist.

It doesn't change the fact that there's no actual evidence for the existence of God and, as such, no logical reason to believe it.

LOL! Except for the atheist scientists who see the evidence suggesting inteliigent design.

 

[ianb321red]

It isn't that atheists don't recognise them, there are obviously Scientists who consider themselves religious or theist. It doesn't change the fact that there's no actual evidence for the existence of God and, as such, no logical reason to believe it.

Hi - regarding this comment, please read my post from 11:56am this morning which addresses the claim made by Atheists that there is "no evidence".

You have to be very careful when you make an absolute statement that you are absolutely right!