Best argument against god

S

Socratic Spelunker

Registered Senior Member
What is the best argument against God you've ever heard?

If you are an atheist, and don't mind sharing, what is the single biggest reason you don't believe in the Christian god.
 
Dawkin's argument is that the universe is big and exceedingly improbable.
So if it was made by God that God would have to be even more improbable.

*Shrug*
Meh, I don't have a dog in this fight.
 
Socratic Spelunker said:
What is the best argument against God you've ever heard?
Click to expand...

I've never encountered an argument against the existence of a theistic God that has caused me to step back and say "Wow, that really settles the matter for me once and for all". In the end it is probably the absence of compelling positive evidence I find to be the most significant factor. That and the fact that naturalistic explanations tend to do the job quite well.
 
Socratic Spelunker said:
Originally Posted by billvon
Never heard a convincing one. I have heard some excellent ones that argue that God is not _required_ to exist, but none that God does not exist at all.
Click to expand...
Well, lets here them.
Click to expand...

Such arguments most often take the form of a response to the theist claim that the existence of the universe requires a special explanation, and that the only decent explanation is that it was created by an omnipotent being.

In a nutshell, if something can exist without a cause (i.e. a creator god) then something can exist without a cause (i.e. the universe). In other words, if brute-force necessary existence is possible (likely because the impossibility of nothingness means that something must exist) then there's no reason that such an idea can't be invoked to explain the existence of the universe, just as it is invoked to explain the existence of a creator god. But what about the fact that our best cosmological theory is quite clearly suggesting that the universe had a beginning? Well, the universe as we know it might have had a beginning, but there's nothing to suggest that the energy that's responsible for the Big Bang hasn't simply always existed and is now just manifesting differently. In other words, the other way to look at the universe is to see it as an infinite amount of energy that exists eternally but manifests dynamically.
 
Last edited:
chimpkin said:
Dawkin's argument is that the universe is big and exceedingly improbable.
So if it was made by God that God would have to be even more improbable.

*Shrug*
Meh, I don't have a dog in this fight.
Click to expand...

My intention in starting this thread was not to argue with any of the arguments. I really just wanted to know what some of the big arguments are, But this one I don't get, how does the second part follow from the first?
 
Socratic Spelunker said:
If you are an atheist, and don't mind sharing, what is the single biggest reason you don't believe in the Christian god.
Click to expand...

Against the Christian God:

In Christianity, there is the doctrine of eternal damnation.

Firstly, for eternal damnation to be possible, God would have to make parts and parcels of Himself (ie. the individual souls) burn in hell for all eternity. That would make Him a sado-masochistic God and very confused. And thus not worthy of worship.

Secondly, for individual souls to end up in hell forever, it means they would have to have a value system categorically different than God. This would only be possible if they were not created by God or otherwise not be related to Him. Which means that the Christian God is, on principle, merely a demigod or an alien god, and thus not worthy of being worshipped as God, the One And Only.
 
Socratic Spelunker said:
Originally Posted by chimpkin
Dawkin's argument is that the universe is big and exceedingly improbable.
So if it was made by God that God would have to be even more improbable.

*Shrug*
Meh, I don't have a dog in this fight.
Click to expand...
My intention in starting this thread was not to argue with any of the arguments. I really just wanted to know what some of the big arguments are, But this one I don't get, how does the second part follow from the first?
Click to expand...

I hope chimpkin will forgive me for jumping in.

This one is largely a response to the teleological argument (argument from design) and is probably most easily expressed in terms of the watchmaker analogy. Dawkins is essentially saying that the watchmaker (God) is necessarily even more complex (or ordered or perfect) than the watch (the universe), and therefore it is even more improbable that God has just been sitting around forever (without a creator).
 
Last edited:
The best one to date is God does not exist because I can't see Him.
This is the only one that actually makes sense.

jan.
 
OK, let me try:

1. There are 100s of gods to choose from.
2. It is possible that choosing the wrong one will anger the real one, causing trouble for eternity.
3. Angering the real one could be much worse than being a non-believer.

Conclusion:

So the safest scenario is if one choose NOT to play and be a non-believer. Any reasonable god would understand the above logic...

What did I win???

P.S.: I want extra credit for the unusual approach and that I play the religions against each other instead of arguing against god. :)
 
Syzygys said:
OK, let me try:

1. There are 100s of gods to choose from.
Click to expand...
much like there are numerous medicinal applications one can utilize in the attempt to cure or treat an illness
2. It is possible that choosing the wrong one will anger the real one, causing trouble for eternity.
Click to expand...
It is possible that one could choose a bogus treatment or a treatment that inflames the condition, possibly even resulting in fatality
3. Angering the real one could be much worse than being a non-believer.
Click to expand...
Choosing a medicinal application that causes fatality is much worse than simply living with the chronic conditions of an illness
Conclusion:

So the safest scenario is if one choose NOT to play and be a non-believer. Any reasonable god would understand the above logic...
Click to expand...
Conclusion :

So the safest scenario is if one choose NOT to apply any medicinal treatment to illness or disease and deal with it as a chronic condition. Any reasonable medical practitioner would understand the above logic .....
What did I win???
Click to expand...
Only if we are looking for a victor in the field of general principles in an argument being rendered absurd when applied in a uniform fashion

P.S.: I want extra credit for the unusual approach and that I play the religions against each other instead of arguing against god. :)
Click to expand...
I don't think the credit you acquire is of the nature you imagine ....
:eek:
 
Best argument is not to argue at all because the more you talk about something that doesn't exist, makes it seem to exist after all.
 
Firstly, for eternal damnation to be possible, God would have to make parts and parcels of Himself (ie. the individual souls) burn in hell for all eternity. That would make Him a sado-masochistic God
Click to expand...

Which I guess makes Jesus's name the safe word...
 
Can't have a fundamental Being being first; no source for anything other than nothing (note the balance of charge and matter state to zero); what is eternal as the cosmos admits of no creation, thus no Creator.
 
SciWriter said:
Can't have a fundamental Being being first; no source for anything other than nothing (note the balance of charge and matter state to zero); what is eternal as the cosmos admits of no creation, thus no Creator.
Click to expand...
No source for anything but nothing?
Sounds like the best absurd argument against god ....
 
lightgigantic said:
much like there are numerous medicinal applications one can utilize in the attempt to cure or treat an illness

It is possible that one could choose a bogus treatment or a treatment that inflames the condition, possibly even resulting in fatality

Choosing a medicinal application that causes fatality is much worse than simply living with the chronic conditions of an illness

Conclusion :

So the safest scenario is if one choose NOT to apply any medicinal treatment to illness or disease and deal with it as a chronic condition. Any reasonable medical practitioner would understand the above logic .....

Only if we are looking for a victor in the field of general principles in an argument being rendered absurd when applied in a uniform fashion


I don't think the credit you acquire is of the nature you imagine ....
Click to expand...

Your analogy does not apply. A person's belief in god informs all their reasoning and life; decisions about health do not. Decisions about and belief in God are something unique, and cannot be modeled with analogies.

Also, Syzygys is working with the notion of an evil god. An evil god is unpredictable and impossible to please. An individual who is not able to figure out which god is the right one, and thus cannot choose, thus remains in apathy.


So the safest scenario is if one choose NOT to apply any medicinal treatment to illness or disease and deal with it as a chronic condition.
Click to expand...

This is an example of risk-aversion.
People deal differently with risks. It's not clear what the optimal solution would be, as stress is an important factor (ie. even if it turns out that the person has made the right choice, the process can be so stressful that it diminishes the attractiveness of the choice).

Perhaps, for the sake of the argument, you can work out a model of how to, in terms of risk assessment and risk aversion, deal with a person who is both 1. immoral/evil and 2. infintely threatens you.
 
Syzygys said:
OK, let me try:

1. There are 100s of gods to choose from.
2. It is possible that choosing the wrong one will anger the real one, causing trouble for eternity.
3. Angering the real one could be much worse than being a non-believer.

Conclusion:

So the safest scenario is if one choose NOT to play and be a non-believer. Any reasonable god would understand the above logic...
Click to expand...

Any reasonable god would not be angry with your choices to begin with, so 2 and 3 do not apply.


What did I win???
Click to expand...

There's always the trip to the tolette. :D
 
Socratic Spelunker said:
What is the best argument against God you've ever heard?
Click to expand...

The modern situation:
1. the existence of religious pluralism,
2. many people born into non-religious families and then having to find their way on their own,
3. the organized religions laying the whole responsibility for "choosing the right religion" on the individual person,
4. the organized religions being unkind to outsiders and newcomers; one can get in only if one abandons all reason and caution.

This is not fair. The average run-of-the-mill person should not have to jump through a million hoops in order to be able to do right by God.


This is not an argument against God's existence; it is a line of reasoning that questions whether God is worth worshipping or not, given that he permits such a messy situation in religion and spirituality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top