Atheists: Do you know any good philosophic arguments that refute God?

Question

It seems we have Christians beaten when it comes to scientific arguments, but are there are few philosophic ones that refute God's existance.
I know of a few, like Russell's Teapot, but I'm pretty sure there are more of them out there I do not yet know.
So, I would like to know what are some your favorite philosohic arguments against God's existance?

Thanks for the answers everyone. And, for the few Christians that answered that atheists don't have Christians beaten in the scientific argumants: I urge you to read a REAL science book. Thank you.

Answer 1

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

Unexplained phenomena are an indication that a particular scientific theory does not provide a satisfactory model sufficient to explain or predict all outcomes. For example, the wave theory of light does not explain the photoelectric effect, though it successfully predicts the results of the double-slit experiment. However, later theories based around quantum mechanics provide an adequate explanatory model of both.

It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God. This variant is known as the God-of-the-gaps argument.

For example, the current lack of evidence about unexplained aspects of evolution indicates that the theory of evolution is incomplete, rather than necessarily incorrect. The theory of evolution has yet to successfully explain how most species have evolved stepwise in a "punctuated equilibrium" pattern rather than in continuous random fashion (anagenesis). The lack of current evidence adequate to verify and explain these specific aspects of evolution is, in itself, not properly taken as an indication either that they do not occur, or that there are not natural causes for these empirical phenomena. In fact, there are new theories such as koinophilia and frozen plasticity which try to explain this "punctuated equilibrium".

However, it is also a logical fallacy to assume because a theory does explain all known relevant phenomena, that said theory must be correct. The fact that no counter-examples seem to exist does not prove a theory, because there is always the possibility of a counter-example that has not been observed yet. For example, there are no known phenomena that are inconsistent with the Big Bang theory. However, this does not constitute definitive proof that the universe actually did originate with the Big Bang.

That said, scientists often do proceed as if a given theory — such as the Big Bang theory — were definitively true. This is because it can be highly impractical to devise experiments or evaluate data with no assumptions at all. However, if a phenomenon that cannot be explained by an existing theory is discovered, scientists are forced to revise that theory to account for the new data, or abandon the theory entirely if they deem it irreconcilable with the new data.

But science for all its sins can abandon long held theories when new evcidence comes allong, Theists are not able to revise their faith when new evidence comes allong to poke holes in the religious texts, thus the ancient texts are followed despite the blindling obvious gaps and contradictions.

This is why faith is blind, and outdated. It is a mentality of an earlier period, frozen in obscure texts, and large sections have no relavance to the world today, but to question them is automatically taken as an attack on God, thus it is impossible to question god objectivly to support your faith, without breaking the built in rules, thus questions are never asked and a beter soloution to the gaps will never be found.

Answer 2

I'm a Christian but I seem to have a few more for you than some of your fellow atheists.... [By the way, great answer cosmo, I agree with you.]

Another argument by Russell is pretty strightforward - a God of Love would never have allowed his people to commit such heinous acts en masse.

Daniel Quinn has a good argment, I think, in saying that if Christianity is true then God has been inept at communicating it and therefore must not be real or at least not omnipotent.

The most honest one - I do not experience God as you claim to and therefore FOR ME he doesn't exist. Will you concede that your belief ultimately rests on your experience and that if mine is different we have no basis for adjiudicating either but to live together we must merely agree the physical world exists and leave your experience of God in your own social circle?

Last but not least: natural disasters. Far harder to dal with than any other philosophical objection I know about. All explanations I have ever seen about why God allows pain to exist answer free will or some permutation of it - which covers human-caused acts and some others. But I have never seen any answer that covers natural disasters. Why allow tsunamis and hurricanes and mudslides and earthquakes and floods? We call these acts of God and they often kill innocent and even devout people (see the book of Job where God kills innocent people to win a bet). If God exists but allows this, does that not indicate he is not love but rather has some sort of sadistic streak? If so, isn't it far more likely no God exists?

Note: I would not use Occam's razor as Occam himself was a Franciscan friar.

Answer 3

"To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a Christian theistic framework. " How wonderfully self diluted. No rationality and logic do no work in a christian framework. Quite the opposite. Goddidit is not logical. God is the 'source' of morals, but what is a moral in your religion? Whatever you god tells you to do or not do. That's all. And that changes all the time. One minute it's don't kill, the next there's a long list of people you need to kill. Heck in the "bibles" he commits mass genocides for crying out loud. "we could not argue that logical contradictions cannot occur in a distant galaxy, distinct from conscious observers." This sounds like the kon, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound. The answer is yes, yes it does. However, while I consider this to be quite fallacious logic, I still am giving you a star for an interesting question. It's rare to see someone present a question with any sources, well, from theists anyway. Good for you.

Answer 4

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan

To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

Woody Allen

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

Albert Einstein

Religion is a by-product of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?

Arthur C. Clarke

A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth
even if no one believes it.


Anon

It's an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe something now in exchange for something after death. Even corporations with their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous.

Gloria Steinem



That the world is in a bad shape is undeniable, but there is not the faintest reason in history to suppose that Christianity offers a way out.

Bertrand Russell

Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder.

Homer Simpson

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God
who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Galileo Galilei

Scientific research confirms that humans are a link in the evolutionary life chain. There is no credible evidence for the existence of an immortal supernatural element. Our only life is here and now. Make it worthy of a moral person.

Keith S Cornish
Past President (1975-2005)
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people.

Katharine Hepburn

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

Delo McKown

Answer 5

i am a Christian and believe 100% in God. A loving God, good and all powerful. The argument many athiest use to refute my God is that of suffering.

Why does a God, if all good and all powerful, let people suffer? Could not have God made the world without sin, if he is really all powerful?

We Christians give answers to these questions, most of which people don't like because well, it just doesn't seem fair, but if you really want to argue against God's existance, suffering is a way to go.

I would like also to encourage you to look at the other side of the argument. The evidence for God's existance. Might as well if you are trying to deny Him. If you are so sure He doesn't exist than there is no harm in seeing how we prove he does. understand?

p.s. - look up some scientific arguements that include the Christian side before you go saying you have us beat.

Answer 6

I think the most important philosophical idea is the (well established) argument that morality is independent of religion. This comes, in part, from the theory of value---what is of value, and why. Things have value independent of any supreme being giving them value. Ethical conduct can be determined without reference to rules set down by a deity.

I think many religious people feel that they need to believe, because otherwise there would be no morality, and then the world they value would fall apart. If it were more widely understood that morality actually has philosophical origins, there would be less need for gods.

Answer 7

Philosophy is not for proving or disproving. Its is more towards the 2 getting along, and defining there places in existence. Religion has a place. Science has a place. They should not over step there bounds. Christianity is trying to do that everyday. Which provides you atleast a little annoyance.

admitedly theres a good chance that you and I agree on what constitutes scientific bounds.

Answer 8

Woody Alan:

The Critique of Pure Dread:

"In formulating any philosophy, the first consideration must always be: What can we know? That is, what can we be sure we know, or sure that we know we knew it, if indeed it is at all knowable. Or have we simply forgotten it and are too embarrassed to say anything? Descartes hinted at the problem when he wrote , "My mind can never know my body, although it has become quite friendly with my legs." By "knowable," incidentally, I do not mean that which can be known by perception of the senses, or that which can be grasped by the mind, but more that which can be said to be Known or to possess Knownness or Knowability, or at least something you can mention to a friend.

Can we actually "know" the universe? My God, it's hard enough to find your way around in Chinatown. The point, however, is: Is there anything out there? And why? And must they be so noisy? Finally, there can be no doubt that the one characteristic of "reality" is that it lacks essence. That is not to say it has no essence, but merely lacks it. (The reality I speak of here is the same Hobbes described, but a little smaller.) Therefore the Cartesian dictum "I think, therefore I am" might be better expressed "Hey, there goes Edna with a saxaphone!" So, then, to know a substance or an idea we must doubt it, and thus, doubting it, come to perceive the qualities it possesses in its finite state, which are truly "in the thing itself," or "of the thing itself," or of something or nothing. If this is clear, we can leave epistemology for the moment."

Answer 9

Yes, there is the Riddle of Epicurus or Epicurean paradox is the earliest known description of the Problem of evil, and is a famous argument against the existence of an all-powerful and providential God or Gods.

Answer 10

I love studying religions, but I have no belief in any gods. I do not have a philosophical argument, I just can't make myself believe in all the mysticism that surrounds religion. I have nothing against someone for having their beliefs and I think their beliefs typically make them better people, but it is not for me. Jesus was supposedly sent as the son of god to teach of god's love, but millions of people have died in wars fought in god's name. Mohammad was also given the message of god's love, but his followers kill people every day. I feel I am more at peace with myself than most people and that is not because of a religion. I just live my life as a good person.