Can anyone give me some detailed analysis on god's nonexistent in a atheistic/scientific way?

Question

I am doing an essay for my philosophy class about god's Nonexistence using the atheistic argument. any help would do. thank you.

Answer 1

they can try but it won't make any sense
why don't u believe? He loves u anyway! Praise the Lord!

Answer 2

The thing about arguments involving either the existence or non-exsitance of a god is that there are no real "proofs". There is no conclusive analysis that can either prove or disprove the existence or the non-existence of a god. That being said there are powerful arguments against the existence of a god. Some of these are well known. And before I begin I'd just like to say that very few arguments you run across will be original, if any. I am in no way the creator of any of these arguments, just passing them along.
The first. If there is an all powerful "good" god then why do bad things happen. Why do hurricanes obliterate large parts of the country? Why do earthquakes devistate the poorest regions in the world? Why do diseases kill infants? Why are people born mentally retarded, or without limbs, or with genetic defects that are, in essence, a death sentance? Some will say that these are tests, or that the people brought some kind of divine retribution upon themselves because of thier "sins". But what "sins" could an unborn child have commited? Some will say that these are just unhappy circumstances of the human experience. The question arises then why create the world in this way at all? This god, being all-powerful could have created the world in any of an infinite of ways which did not include such disasters. Some will bring original sin or some other bit of dogma into the equation. These arguments have little, if anything to do with the discussion. They are irrefutable points of religious doctrine, unassailable because of the supposed divine author. Any argument that cannot be challenged should be looked at harshly. Forget the fact that the literature that such doctrine comes from is ancient, having been passed down for thousands of years both orally and written, translated countless times and been used and manipulated countless times to defend multiple seats of power.
Next is the complexity of the universe. Surely, such a complex and diverse, well machined , and infintely vast system of gravity, pushes and pulls, stars, solar systems, planents, not to mention the wonder of life itself must have had some creator at the heart of it all. Some intelligent being must have made all this. Why? Why is it so necessary that there must be some supernatural being at the heart of all this wonder? The argument can be made, that because the universe is so vast that everything we see is inevitable. If you had a trillion sided die and you rolled it some number MUST be rolled. The odds were a trillion to one for any of the numbers to be rolled! Yet without fail a number will turn up. Some order over trillions of years was bound to come together. Further, with the current theroretical work taking place within the M theory and the implications that it could have on our understanding of what exactly it is that existance actually entails, it seems ineviatble that what is happening to you right now was in fact inevitable.
Anyway, sorry i went on so long. I'd just like to say one last thing. There is no point in attempting to disprove, or for that matter prove, the existence of God. Faith has little to do with science. Kierkagarrd wrote once how he saw true faith. It's like climbing a ladder. You can use you wits and intelligence to get so far but then you get to top of the ladder. There are no more rungs which to climb. So you can do one of two things. Remain there and live with your incomplete faith or jump. Making a "leap of faith" keeping you intellect from thinking about what you are doing. And always remember that those who viciously attack those of faith and those who attempt to push their religion on others betray the true lack of faith that they have within themselves in the positions they wish to champion. They see in others the doubts that they themselves repress and fear.

Answer 3

My thought is that if God was real, as described in biblical writings, then he would have no concept of life or death, love or hate, pain, or anything that a biological lifeform experiences. So if he has no concept of life, how could he create it.

And, if God was real, and he actually created the universe, then there had to be something prior to that for him to exist in, not created by him.

Although it is near impossible to explain the universe's origin, scientifically or religiously using our current knowledge, I think it is beyond the comprehension of any being, including God.

Science has proven the existance of the Earth over 100,000,000 years ago. If God created it, and then immediately created humans at that time, then humans have gone through many extinctions since then. But, science has not shown the existance of humans that far back, actually only recently (10,000 years or so). So God could not have created both in the alleged 7 days.

So just by deductive logic, God could not have created any of it, even if he is real.

Biblical writings are mainly stories written by religious fanatics, and based on their own beliefs, supported by their people.

Answer 4

If you were there when the earth was created, then you will have absolute answer. There are many theories about creation of earth, my question is how come the dead things such as planets/rocks/fire etc suddenly can create a human? God created human and sins make separation between the God and the Human. Sins lead human to punishment and dead, the only way to be safe is to have peace with God by repent from our sins and disbelieve.

Answer 5

As you probably will find out, from a philosophical point of view, it's just as difficult to disprove God's existence as is is to prove God's existence.

The easiest position to defend is either agnosticism or skepticism.

Having said that, the best way would probably be able to find objections to the standard arguments for God's existence. You can find an outline of the arguments and objections here:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/into/religion.html

Generally speaking, the most general objection is the problem of evil:

I f God is perfectly good, then He must want to prevent evil.
If God is all-powerful, then He can prevent evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore, God is either not perfectly good or God is not all-powerful, or both.

The problem as it stands appears to be a valid argument. (If a theist wants to reject the conclusion, the theist must find at least one false premiss (of course, there might be more than one false premiss).)

Of course theists maintain evil is a product of free will, but it's extraordinarly difficult to account for nonmoral evil (so-called acts of God by insurance policies: flood, famine, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.).

Two widely used books might be in your library: _Arsenal for Skeptics_ and Bertrand Russell's _Why I am not a Chrisitan_, but I would recommmend the method of putting the burden of proof on the theist, so your initial position should be that there no reason to assume God exists unless a proof can be given. And, of course, proofs for God's existence are not difficult to refute as noted below in the links.

Logical proofs or philosophical proofs are generally thought to be impossible among contemporary philosophers, and so they aren't particularly interested in the "proofs" because of the objections alluded to in the links below. Also, many philosophers recognize any purported proof would be subject to the "existential fallacy." See the Kierkegaard source below for more information. (Incidentally Kierkegaard was very religious; he recognized religion is a matter of faith, not of reason.)

Several professional and philosophical answers to your question are listed here (Smith and Rachels may well be the most respectible):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html

Answer 6

I think you analyze the existence of God the same way you would analyze the existence of leprechauns. You can't prove that leprechauns *don't* exist, so you make appeals to common sense and point out the inconsistencies in a belief in leprechauns.

In the case of a belief in God, you ask how much common sense there is in 21st century man adhering to a book of myths written by tribal desert dwellers, for example. You point out the inconsistencies in the religious books themselves, you point out how little of the content of the books actually pertains to modern society, and you point out the inconsistency of believers choosing to believe some passages in their books while ignoring others because the latter are wildly out-of-date, totally incomprehensible, or often just inconvenient. You point out the common-sense dilemma of the existence of a multitude of gods, religions and churches in the world, many with conflicting beliefs--shouldn't one religion or church clearly deliver more tangible benefits to its believers than the rest? And if not, then why not choose the easiest religion you can find and go worship the giant stone heads on Easter Island? Or why believe any of them?

And so on, and so on.

But don't expect that you're going to convert anyone with common sense arguments. A key foundation of religion is repudiation of common sense. A "leap of faith" and all that...

Answer 7

It's a difficult question to answer, but all the best to you anyway. I'd love to read your essay when you're done. The problem is that the scientific and philosophical evidence seems to point towards an eternal, non-caused, creator. There are some atheists who argue against this but most seem to opt for an agnostic position because it is impossible to prove absolutely that God does not exist. To prove that God does not exist requires us to know absolutely everything about the universe, otherwise the thing that we don't know might actually be God! Very few scientists would claim to know absolutely everything! Any arguments you do come across for God's non-existence are sure to be well-answered in a book called: The Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. It is just one such book among thousands!

Many people think faith is a leap in the dark - believing something when there's no real evidence for it. But this isn't faith according to the Bible. Faith is a leap in the light. It's relying on something or someone because all the evidence points you in this direction.

Many people have faith in God because they believe it's the most reasonable explanation to all the evidence (including the scientific and philosophical evidence). Many people also believe that it's the most defendable position against any arguments to the contrary. This claim is made in light of the sceptic’s websites mentioned by others below. For example, one argument against God is the existence of evil. The problem is sometimes presented thus:
I f God is perfectly good then He must want to prevent evil.
If God is all-powerful, then He can prevent evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore, God is either not perfectly good or God is not all-powerful, or both.

However, as it is also suggested below (where this argument was taken from), there is a problem with at least one of the premises. In the first premise it could be maintained that God does want to prevent evil, but there is another reason why he is not doing so at the moment. Maybe God has already presented a solution. Maybe it is yet to be realised in a far superior way than simply preventing it right now. Maybe evil (including non-moral evil) is the result of the “fall” (a biblical term for man’s original rebellion against God, and the reason for the world being ‘out of sink’ with the way it should be). Maybe God’s wisdom in creating a world where it could potentially end up in a “fallen” state and then be eventually restored is better than it never having this potential in the first place. The options are endless. In the end this is not a very convincing argument against the existence of God.

To then make the claim that I have brought something into the equation that can’t be refuted (as someone has suggested below) does not mean that it’s untrue. It might just mean that it’s unprovable via the scientific method – just like many other things are. Remember science can’t prove that science is the only way to prove things! It’s not unreasonable to believe that there are other ways to know things. For example, it’s possible that God could reveal himself and tell us something that can’t be known by the process of repeatability and observation in a laboratory!

As a side issue, some of the other arguments you’ll read below are far from convincing. I reject the claim that the Bible has been changed countless times throughout history. I think the historical evidence suggests otherwise. The Dead Sea Scrolls certainly confirm the credibility of the Old Testament, and the overwhelming number of ancient manuscripts confirms the credibility of the New Testament in this area. There are simple historical tests that are applied to any ancient historical writing to test its credibility. And when applied to the Bible, I think the New Testament documents are by far and away, the most reliable ancient historical sources known to the world. But perhaps the claim to the contrary has a certain presupposition behind it. I also don’t believe there are contradictions in the Bible. Most people make this claim but then struggle to name just five alleged contradictions. They are also usually much less willing to hear any reasonable explanation. I also don’t agree with the claim that you have to pick and choose between different passages or ignore others because some are “wildly out-of-date, totally incomprehensible, or often just inconvenient.” In fact, if you read the whole bible, it becomes pretty clear what has been fulfilled (e.g. the Jewish sacrificial system) and what hasn’t.

The idea of a “common-sense dilemma of the existence of a multitude of gods, religions and churches in the world, many with conflicting beliefs” does not mean that they are all necessarily wrong. At least one could be right! And having different churches doesn’t necessarily mean that they disagree with each other. And the claim that “Biblical writings are mainly stories written by religious fanatics, and based on their own beliefs, supported by their people” sounds slightly hypocritical in light of this writer’s own arguments (see below).

Further, the claim (below) that on a trillion sided die a number must turn up despite the odds of a trillion to one, misses the point for a number of reasons. Firstly, these are good odds compared to the universe coming about by chance. Secondly, it is illogical to assume that something was caused by nothing. This is clearly against what we know by analogy – something science relies upon heavily to “prove” something. In every other case, according to scientific analogy, everything has a cause, unless of course there is an uncaused cause. Hence, the argument that this must be God by definition! And thirdly, according to the scientific evidence from any point of view about the age of the earth (young, old, or really old), time is a problem for the odds to work out in the atheists favour. There just isn’t enough of it!

However, I personally don't put much weight behind the philosophical arguments for God's existence - although some of them are quite appealing and have yet to be successfully denied by people who argue against them - including some of the websites mentioned below (just check out a good Christian apologetics website). I think the issue can also be looked at from a historical point of view. It involves examining the claims and teaching of Jesus Christ. I personally find this the most convincing proof for the existence of God – despite many sceptics’ claims to the contrary. While many would disagree with me, the point is that the existence of God is not just a matter of faith apart from any evidence – at least not for me!

Answer 8

Wow that's a doozy because there's so much evidence around us of His existence, God is everywhere, when the wind blows, you believe it's the wind blowing but you don't see it but you believe anyway, so good luck with your paper. God bless

Answer 9

the answer your looking for can be found by reading the many articles on secular humanism.Good Luck

Answer 10

look at Darwin's theory (theory of evolution) that will put a whole new perspective on things for you.