Although I'm an atheist, I personally have never found any sound, water-tight proofs against the existence of God. But then again, I can say the same about invisible unicorns. It's hard to prove a negative (not impossible though; I can prove there is no highest prime number for example).
Though the reason is often because "God" can be so vaguely defined. For example, most arguments don't rule out the possibility of deism (the idea that there is a God, but that he plays no role in personal affairs). When it comes to over-specific definitions of God though (e.g. he's omnipotent, AND benevolent, AND wants you to do this, AND created the world by precisely doing this...etc.) those are much easier to debunk.
I've certainly heard all the usual arguments FOR God though and why they're flawed:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html
2007-10-03 19:03:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
the best argument is to drop it and live without it for a year .
All the multitudinous revelations should start appearing .
There are entire books on the subject that are more than can be put in one of these boxes. But experience is the best teacher and truth seekers return from their journey with the understanding to relate . the first time I heard Richard Dawkins speak I just thought hey I already know this he's redefining what i've discovered on my own . this is a very rewarding feeling
Try reading Sigmund Freud's explaination of religious belief and BF Skinners demonstration of superstitious thinking with pigeons . they are important to understand. And why is this god of man's contrivance so similar to the shortcomings and peculiarities of mankind itself . would a god of omnipotent mentality knowling the future have to create evil to test his own creation already knowing the outcome and do it with such sloth cruelty and inconsistency. A mean god that argues with himself through diferent factions of belief. oh come now.
I hear people claim they just have to love god and be rewarded yet such appeasement used to be virgin sacrifice and witches burned at the stake . the tactics of criteria have not changed that much but have been merely watered down by the secular conscience of mankinds sense of compassion.
peace through knowledgable understanding not religious vexation.
2007-10-03 19:28:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by dogpatch USA 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Contradiction.
All knowing means that God set up Adam and Eve for failure and doomed humanity for shits and giggles. Compassion and forgiving falls under here too.
There's the whole Jesus persuading God thing by committing suicide, but there goes another flaw in the all knowing.
No more flooding the Earth, but parts of Asia an New Orleans don't count apparently.
The fact that anything biblical is history. There's countless stories in the bible that bland on about divinity hullabaloo with an adequete number of spectators. Nowadays it happens to people only one by one. And they usually end up tearing apart their own skin to take out the maggots.
Human suffering. O praise be to God.
A lack of what is absolute.
Meaning how the bible can be interpreted as literal historical documentation or as a mere outline of morals. The first sentence should obviously not have been like, "In the beginning.."
It should have read more like, "This is fcking real.." or "WARNING: All documentations and experiences are written by people. Many interpretations have been passed down through ages before documented. As experiences may be only a sidetrack of reality, we strongly advise you don't bother people with propaganda on the TRUTH at your local grocery store."
And then there are more of the obvious arguments. Enjoy. :)
2007-10-03 19:13:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dave Divinorum 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
J.S Mill - Three Essay's on Religion
While he ultimately states that he thinks god exists, is good, but is not omnipotent, the argument can be use (appropriately) to refute the existence of god.
Essentially, he explains that god allows bad things to happen (assuming he exists), and that is immoral - consequently god is immoral or unable to act. I am seriously over-simplifying the argument here, so you will have to read it for yourself, but that is the gist of it. The argument is very compelling.
2007-10-03 19:06:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Quincy S 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i'm unsure if this is a sturdy argument against the existence of God, a greater suitable case must be made for undeniable old commons sense. yet your counter-argument isn't very persuasive. If imperfection is "friendly" in some types, you're caught on the horns of a quandary on the definition of the be conscious "god", which, as on your case, could would desire to incorporate misguided layout (for the sake of "attractiveness"? delivery defects???) and cruelty (facilitates suffering yet "loves" you).
2016-12-17 16:44:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
By definition the creator is the one who has not been created by something else, so the latter argument doesn't make any sense. If you start with the creator, then you accept that as the beginning.
I thumbed down Maddi accidentally.. sorry.
2007-10-03 19:09:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by w2 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
If god created everything god created the devil. This raises the issue of whether god truly is benevolent.
"The idea of an omnipotent God who creates a creature capable of reason, then throws an eternal hissy fit when that creature doesn't spend all his time telling God how wonderful He is... Well it seems like rather insecure behavior for an all powerful, all loving being."
Besides, there have been thousands of gods in recorded history. Which one would you be talking about?
2007-10-03 19:03:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by qxzqxzqxz 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
why are you so puzzled just think practically.we human are very clever when something is beyond our control and beyond any others control(other include all persons or man made things) then we cleverly say O god! help.that is how God come into existence.so God is no material but is something inside our self which generate a feeling that someone is there to help us out.nothing else .NATURE IS EVERYTHING.
2007-10-03 19:07:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Abhishek 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Apart from the fact that it's an invention of the human mind prompted by fear and ignorance there is the problem of which god to you choose from the hundreds available from history. The jewish god is just one among many.
2007-10-03 19:16:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Sorry, all the good arguments have flaws or skips inconvenient truths. Try researching it: get scholarly articles for and against a creator, a Flood, evolution; and compare what info they trump up and ignore. Both sides do it a little. The problem is niether side has enough evidence to convince the other.
ll
===
ll
ll
2007-10-03 19:05:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Drowning chemist 3
·
0⤊
4⤋