What's the greatest argument against God's existence? We can't see Him? Scientific proof?

Question

"How about- the whole concept runs contrary to every known law of the universe."

So does quantum physics, but no one questions the existence of that.

"only source for his existence (the bible) is ridiculously easy to refute."

And the refutations are themselves ridiculously easy to refute.

"There is no evidence for the existence of God."

There's also no evidence for the existence of alternate dimensions, but many scientists still unquestioningly believe in them.

"Dinosaurs and evolution"

Neither of which have stopped people from believing in God along side of them.

"Occam's Razor is a good one."

Neither are alternate dimensions, but that doesn't stop scientists from inserting them into the equation.

"It is that there is ZERO evidence in any form, that can be measured by any of our scientific instruments."

Many decades ago, atoms could not be measured or detected, either. Does that mean they didn't exist back then?

Answer 1

According to 04% of the USA there is no God. I don't have to justify a God. You are the factual persons--prove by Facts God does not exist--He lives in my heart--and app. 70% of the USA. You insist on facts--prove God does not exist--other than not in your mind. That is the only non-proof you have.

Answer 2

Unified Theory

Can there really be a unified theory of everything? Or are we just chasing a mirage? There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.
The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.
However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.
However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

Answer 3

Ever see a Baby Pigeon? I haven't, but they must exist. How about Infra red light, even seen it? Or Ultraviolet. How about wind, have you ever seen that? And Atom? A Virus? What about a black hole? What about the inside of your nose? Up in the sinus Cavity? Just because you can't see things, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Scientific proof. Let me share something here. I watch a lot of science channel programming and a friend of mine pointed this out to me and it's freaked me a little ever since. On the Dinosaur Programs, Scientists tell you what T-rex had for breakfast - who he watched the game with and the color of his tail fletchings. They know absolutely how he lived. Then, watch a Civil war documentory. There are a lot of guys standing around going "We think the offensive went this way" or "We aren't really sure what they did with this little gizmo we found.

Wait a tick. People in the Civil War were just 150 years ago, T-rex was MIllions. And The Civil war guys were much more literate. How can we know one and think the other? It's because scientists have been put in the unenviable postion of "Savior of the Universe" They can't say "We don't knwo" or it's "only a Theory". They have to know absolutely. I don't trust science enough to accept it's proofs or disproofs.

To answer your question....

As a Christian, I'd say the greatest arguement against God's existance would have to be suffering. I don't mean whiner, I broke a nail, I'm not rich an famous suffering. I mean Babies Starving in Africa suffering. I mean kids with cancer suffering. What did they ever do to God? I've never heard a satifactory answer from Christianity on this issue. I have one of my own, mind you, but i don't want to share. :)

Answer 4

Whats the greatest argument that God DOESN'T exist?
That is the better question.
I mean honestly anything you can come up with can be asked the same for most scientific ideals.
Here's a good argument against science. "If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. And this is to me the final test. This is how I distinguish dreaming and waking. When I am awake I can, in some degree, account for and study my dream. The dragon that pursued me last night can be fitted into my waking world. I know that there are such things as dreams: I know that I had eaten an indigestible dinner: I know that a man of my reading might be expected to dream of dragons. But while in the nightmare I could not have fitted in my waking experience. The waking world is judged more real because it can thus contain the dreaming world: the dreaming world is judged less real because it cannot contain the waking one. For the same reason I am certain that in passing from the scientific point of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else. "
-C.S. Lewis

Answer 5

The greatest argument against the existence of the God of the Bible is that the whole story in inconsistant.

Does man have free will or not?

If God created everything, why isn't evil his fault?

What's with the stupid creation stories that don't jive with reality?

WHERE THE HECK IS HE? He's been AWOL for 2000 years.

There could well be some kind of god, spirit, life force, real kum bah yah kind of thing that exists, but it's not the God that asks you to sacrifice your first born then yells "Yoink! Hahaha! Oh man I got you, you were really going to kill that kid, ah hah, hahaha, oh man I got that on tape. Whew...yeah here's a lamb."

Answer 6

Take the most famous formulation of the God hypothesis, that there is an all powerful God who created and sustains the universe.

But against the fact of our limited knowledge and the imperfection of our theories, we have explained both the creation and the sustenance of the universe adequately. This is not proof that the God hypothesis is wrong, rather this is proof that it is unnecessary, and therefore could be and should be scrapped.

Answer 7

Science is not a good tool for figuring out whether there is a God or not, just as science is a poor tool if you want to know if you are in love or not.

Science cannot disprove the existence of something. It can only theorize or infer from evidence it can detect.

Since God is spiritual, you cannot use science techniques to disprove Him.

Answer 8

Science isn't out to prove or disprove God. That's the fundamental misunderstanding.

There is no proof that god does/does not exist. None. The bible was written by PEOPLE, no matter what you believe, and therefore is fallible. Beyond that, it's a matter of faith. You can argue that because bad things happen, god does not exist, but because good things do, he does.

It's all really wrapped up in what you think of God. What do you think of? What is you idea of God?

In the answer to this question lies the answers to yours.

Answer 9

It is far more than we "can't see Him".

It is that there is ZERO evidence in any form, that can be measured by any of our scientific instruments.

Similarly if you had all of the resources of science available to find the evidence for Leprechauns you would find ZERO evidence.

Hmmm,

The amount of evidence for god: 0
The amount of evidence for leprechauns: 0.

If you have at least one functioning brain cell the answer should be obvious.

Answer 10

Occam's Razor is a good one. God is not a necessary part of explaining the existence of the universe, so there is little point in putting one in.