Best Arguments For Atheism

There’s a few out there…

The freewill argument states that god cannot exist if he has freewill as he is all-knowing. Since there can never be a state of uncertainty for god, then he cannot exist and have free will. This makes god a slave to himself.

Then there’s the transcendental argument for god’s non-existence. Essentially it states that if everything god created is contingent on god, and god created logic, then god is also a slave to his own creation. Since it would be gibberish to state that god can contradict laws of consistency and retain any value to anything, he cannot exist.

Then there’s the teleological argument against god. If god wants us to believe in him, then why would he give us the capacity to doubt him. Since god is defined as a benevolent force that requires our worship (in order for him to have any personal purpose and in order to justify organized religion), then this god cannot exist.

The most common one is probably the argument from evil. If god is all good, all knowing, all benevolent, and all fantastical, then why is there evil in the world? Since there is evil in the world, and god is the creator of the world, then god must have been creator of evil. Since this contradicts the definition of god’s nature, god cannot exist.

One that I just thought of a couple days ago that I’m not certain if it’s been stated before is a form of an ontological argument against his existence. Existence is really only a subset of potential. Since god is considered unlimited, he would have to both exist and not exist at the same time. Since something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, god must only exist if he is to be real. Since existence is limited, then god’s power is limited by present existence, and therefore, by definition of god (that of which none greater can be concieved), god does not exist as I can concieve of a being not restricted by the properties of existence.

Thank you, Rafa.

I’ll jot that down.

Sorry, Friedrich, there can be only one.

Me.

Now turn around and carry those ashes back up the mountain, young man.

Thanks Rafa. There were some good ones there.

Polytheism is still a viable alternative, De’trop, for young tender-footed Gods still making their mark in the universe… Let’s rule together.

Marshall McDaniel wrote:

I’d like to hear the Atheist’s answer to the problem of evil too. To me, without a God, evil or pain lack justification.

It is generally said that God can do all things that are logically possible for God to do. Having said that, there are logically contradictions wherever we are. If we use pure logic to prove existence, then all we could say is that something exists and at least one other thing exists. (I believe it is called the philosophy of Somethingism?) Anyway, no matter how we look at it, there is something out there that seems to defy logic. A mystery.

What would be sufficient evidence for God? I don’t think we could ever prove or disprove God because God would be a first principle. It’s like the first principle of existence or the fact of knowledge. We don’t prove these principles; we prove everything else with them. We get to know them by acquaintance so to speak but not by proofs.

Why couldn’t morality be part of God’s essence? IOW, it is what it is?

I read a book by Gasset called, ‘The Revolt of the Masses’. Although he’s aristocratic, the book is a good read and some of his musings could almost be called prophetic. He nailed the atrocities the Nazi’s would commit well before the war even started. In his book, he has a chapter on specializations and the critiques he made I find most relevant to the so-called proofs of God’s existence. Because of specialization, the mathematician cannot see a valid proof in history and the scientist finds deductive reasoning a juggling of words. I’ve found here recently, the practical man finds every thought ultimately leading to filling the till. Sometimes, it seems, we miss the bigger picture.

Thank you for your response, Stephen Kingsley

The revolt of the masses remains one of the great philosophical classics. I recently re-read it myself. Is a specialist really knowledgeable? This was Ortega’s question. I mean it used to be that you had those who knew little and those who knew much. Now, with the advent of the specialist, you have those who know much about little.

Well first of all we are talking about the hypothetical existence of some entity. What are that entity’s attributes? I mean if i were looking for a chair and ran across a 3 tentacled space alien who had never seen a chair (but just happened to speak perfect English) i could tell him that i am looking with something with 4 legs, a back, and a seat for sitting. I would not ask him to prove the existence of a chair before he actually knew what a chair is! Before we talk about proving the existence of something, a necessary prerequisite is that we know what that something is. That should be the first question asked.

Well, there are the thoughts that other people my contradict your points with, Rafajafar, but I think these proofs of God’s non-existence are very well written and explained. And all of them are logical to us, Agnostics. But, to most Christians, they would be terrible arguments and they might point out the things I mentioned. My rebuttle against you was mostly for Bill’s paper, as you cannot write a decent pro-side paper without considering the anti’s arguments, and vice-versa.

~After Death~

Yeah, I didnt want to counter argue these, but I felt as though you was curious of what would be said. shrugs As an agnostic, I wont claim any one of these is “right”. There are some pretty good arguments FOR god, too, ya know?

I am an Agnostic as well, I want some proof before I make my decision. But, through this, I am an Atheist, as there is absolutely no proof that God exists, and there never will be. So, how about we become brave and give up our comfort object (God) and go eat cookies, shall we? Oh, and I have yet to see one argument for God that I, or someone else, couldn’t counter. Can you show one to me that I can at least attempt to disprove?

~After Death~

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

My favorite is #25.

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

exist
\Ex*ist", v. i. [imp. & p. p. Existed; p. pr. & vb. n. Existing.] [L. existere, exsistere, to step out or forth, emerge, appear, exist; ex out + sistere to cause to stand, to set, put, place, stand still, fr. stare to stand: cf. F. exister. See Stand.] 1. To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual.
Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

The word exist can also mean to persist or continue to be - which is something that the christian God does. Whether you see “God” as being nowhere, somewhere or everywhere, it is difficult to claim he doesn’t exist
because he is at least in the mind of the believer and with that, he is existant.

When Quentin Smith writes: “the reason for the universe’s existence lies within the universe itself”, he isn’t far off from the Mystic’s approach. It has for sometime been a problem for the church that one form of Mysticism suggests the “atheistic belief in God” - an attempt to free the terminology from all sorts of imaginations and return to the Mystery that God is. This “atheistic Theism” denies the various Metaphers used to describe God and states that all “knowledge” is lacking the final truth that explains everything, and which lies hidden to us though open for all within the universe itself.

Shalom
Bob

Bob wrote:

Firstly, talking about God being ‘nowhere, somewhere or everywhere’, the ‘nowhere’ part goes against that entire definition of existence part you quoted earlier. Correct me if I’m wrong but I will assume that your arguement would lead to that even if God is currently nowhere to be found, at some point in time he has/will ‘step out or forth, emerge, appear, exist’ at which point he will prove all athiests wrong with his patented ‘Ta-Daa!’ approach. Then all anyone would have to do to know if God exists would be to be there at the time. Well, fair enough…

Bob continued to write:

I think Bob has a good point, and that he has cut through to the crux of the problem. If you are looking for God, he exists in the mind of a believer. That connects a rare physical aspect to God, the mind of the believer being the physical point where Non-believers come into contact with God through the Believer’s knowledge about God. This is as Knowledge of God can create Belief in God, and Belief being a prerequisite to being a Believer.
Following that, the arguement then turns away from the fairly generic “Does the christian God exist” originally posed by Bill, into more specific questions such as “Why does a Believer believe in God?”, “Does God exist outside of the Believers mind?” and most importantly “How can Bill Walton go about applying any of this to his argumentative paper in his english class?”

That isn’t proof at all. (1) is flawed, it doesn’t successfully argue. Thus, here is what it means, to me.

(1) There is a man who argues the existence of a circular square.
(2) Here is his address.
(3) Therefore, a circular square does exist.

or

(1) There is a website that claims the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

~After Death~

And of course we mustn’t forget the argument of the man with the loaded gun in his hand who orders you atheists to believe in god.

Did I hear someone say something?

It was a joke site LOL. Geesh. 300 arguments for the existence of god, and ALL of them are flawed. Read it.

Firstly, Mentat Monkey, you should read before you comment upon something. I wrote “Whether you see “God” as being nowhere, somewhere or everywhere…” implying nothing about my own views, and consequently not “going against” anything I’ve written.

Thank you for inviting me to correct you, but God isn’t about right and wrong, God is about life and whether perhaps you would reach out for Him - “indeed, He is not far from each one of us, for in Him we live, and move, and are …” (Acts 17:27)

Shalom
Bob

X_Post_Mortem_X writes:

(Italics mine)
Theism and Atheism simply refer to the presence or absence of belief in God. Agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge of God.

The mystic denies any limits on God. To limit him is to already define him in human terms.

It’s really helpful to be able to read a message over again when someone replies to it. Thanks a lot, guys.

If you were being serious, thank you. If you were being sarcastic, as some people here are, too bad. LOL I hope you were the former. And no problem, it helps me keep my posts on topic and correct.

~After Death~

Assumptions:

If you are good fodder for redneck jokes, then you are not God.
If you are your own father, then you are good fodder for redneck jokes.

For homework produce the resultant argument agianst the Chritian (triplicate) conception of God.