The Nonexistence of God?

I am a Catholic teenager. In my highschool, we have debates, and my team must prove that God does not exist. I'm not trying to argue your beliefs here. But I would appreciate it if I could get arguments against the existence of God. Here are some of the points I need to be able to argue against: 1) the law of causality- this is kinda like the origin of life. Each cause is an effect of a previous cause. I need to be able to give a First Cause other than God. 2) the law of order- the complexity of the universe proves that there must be a God. 3) the law of Motion- every movement is the effect of a force applied to it. I need a force other than God. If I could get any arguments against these, I would really appreciate it. In the debate my team represents atheists, and without input, it will be hard for us to win. actually any points against the existence of God are appreciated too. Thank you.

{Edited to remove e-mail address. -Don-}

[-DM-]

Sigfridi:

First, note that your submission to our Feedback forum does not really constitute legitimate feedback per the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10) inasmuch as it does not pertain to anything specific on the Secular Web. Secondly, we do not provide a research service; as an all-volunteer organization, we simply do not have the manpower to be able to do so. Still, we do get a number of requests for the kind of information that you are looking for, so I am glad to offer at least a few pointers in this case.

--

Just as it is difficult or impossible to prove the nonexistence of Bigfoot or the nonexistence of The Loch Ness Monster, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of "God."

In fact, it is generally considered difficult or impossible to conclusively prove the nonexistence of just about anything that someone postulates may exist. For that reason (and others), it is generally considered the responsibility of those who assert the existence of Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, and/or "God" to do the proving.

Generally speaking, we tend to believe in the existence of only that for which there is convincing evidence and/or argument, and so far, there hasn't been convincing evidence and/or argument for the existence of Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, or even a generic "God"--let alone the specific "God" of any of the several "one true" religions.

Any argument for the existence of "God" says nothing about the existence of a specific "God," such as the "God" of Christianity; in other words, it takes a leap of faith to go from having been convinced of the existence of a generic "God" by an argument for the existence of "God" (which is what the vast majority of arguments for the existence of "God" are) to belief in the existence of a specific "God," such as that of Christianity.

And finally, to be an atheist, to embrace atheism, does not necessarily mean the denial of the existence of any and all gods. Some atheists insist only that they have no belief in any god and/or that they disbelieve the existence of a specific "God" or gods.

--

Now, there are some good ways to find out more:

1) Become a registered user of the Internet Infidels Discussion Board and then ask some questions and do some reading in the Existence of God(s) forum. See register (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/register.php?s=&action=signup).

2) Go to the following page in the Secular Web Library where you will find links to rebuttals of all of the common arguments for the existence of "God": Arguments for the Existence of God (www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/arguments.html).

3) Go to the following page in the Secular Web Library where you will find links to arguments supporting atheism: Atheism (www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/index.shtml).

Regards,
-Don-

[Huon]

It looks as if you were ascribed to the losing team... :)

If there was a perfect demonstration that God exists, (or does not exists), this demo would be known by everybody, and there would be no discussion at all. Does electricity exists ?

But the questions you have been asked to answer are well known. They are usually named "strawman", that is, questions which have been ill-formulated, so that they offer a superb occasion of being answered.

1) the law of causality- this is kinda like the origin of life. Each cause is an effect of a previous cause. I need to be able to give a First Cause other than God.

The First Cause has a long existence. In the Middle Ages, this argument was well known. The religious answer is "God is the First Cause". And a classical answer is "Who, or What, is the cause for God ?". We are in a vicious circle, that's all.

2) the law of order- the complexity of the universe proves that there must be a God. Nope. There is no relation of causality. "the complexity of the universe" is not a proof of "there must be a God". The existence of a baby (complex enough, no ?) is the proof of the existence of his father and mother, but these two parents are visible. It is anthropomorphism, that is assuming that someone has built the universe just as a clockmaker has built a clock. By the way, this was the point of view of Voltaire (look in the dictionary if you don't know).

In fact, we cannot speak scientifically of "the universe", because we know too little about that (first appearent reason), and second reason, much more serious, apart the trivial fact that "the universe exists", we cannot have a global description of it. We are inside the elephant, and we cannot say if he has tusks.

3) the law of Motion- every movement is the effect of a force applied to it. I need a force other than God.

"every movement is the effect of a force". No. When an object is left to itself, without any force applied to it, it keeps its speed, without acceleration, and goes on a straight line.

God is not the force which makes a motorcar go ahead. The motor needs fuel. Motion is a part of the question of energy, which has been studied for many centuries, and is part of Physics. God has nothing to do with that, or, if you want, we are again in front of the law of causality, which you quoted at first.

"In the debate my team represents atheists, and without input, it will be hard for us to win. actually any points against the existence of God are appreciated too."

One point is that, historically, "one God only" is a recent idea. Before that, you certainly have heard of Jupiter, Juno, Venus, Mars, and the other Roman gods. During 1000 years, approximately, these gods existed, unquestionably. And now, unquestionably also, these gods do not exist. Why, and how ?

Another point is "God almighty" and "God good". Either He is, or He is not almighty. And then, we are in front of the problem of the evil and sin. Why do I suffer ? My small baby has suddenly died asleep. What were his (her) sins ? Is he punished for my sins ? Couldn't God almighty inspire me a good conduct instead of letting me develop bad instincts ? Couldn't God almighty let him alive ? or is He not almighty, or is He not of good will ?

There is a dualist religious answer. There are TWO gods, one is good, the other one is bad. And a permanent conflict between them. And we are the victims. This point of view is still accepted by some people, in India, I believe.

There is a religious christian answer. Your priest can explain that. But the problem remains, whatever the answer. If you think it over, an answer provokes a new question.

The last point of view, is that religion can be useful to some people, but it has no power whatever to explain anything, except the traditional "God did it". The priests have NOT created physics (ask Galileo Galilei), and they have NOT created medicine (prayers don't cure all diseases).

[spanner365]

Here are some of the points I need to be able to argue against: 1) the law of causality- this is kinda like the origin of life. Each cause is an effect of a previous cause. I need to be able to give a First Cause other than God.
{Edited to remove e-mail address. -Don-}

You could argue that the universe did not have a cause. That it is eternal.

Atheists often apply Occam's razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

[Edited only to remove offsite URL that didn't work. -Don-]

[Alf]

Here are some of the points I need to be able to argue against: 1) the law of causality- this is kinda like the origin of life. Each cause is an effect of a previous cause. I need to be able to give a First Cause other than God. 2) the law of order- the complexity of the universe proves that there must be a God. 3) the law of Motion- every movement is the effect of a force applied to it. I need a force other than God.

As you can see from your responses these are "big" questions and people have thought about them for many years. In particular the wording you refer to can be traced back to Thomas Aquinas who used them as a way to "prove" that God exist. Unfortunately, all his arguments have two very significant drawbacks.

1. There are holes in them, so they aren't definite proofs that there is a God.

2. Even if there were no holes in them and one could establish that there is a God there is absolutely nothing in them that link such a God to the biblical God. The same proofs can be used by muslims to prove that Allah exist and the exactly the same proofs can be used by Hindu to prove that their gods exist.

For these two reasons any such proof is more or less futile. Anyone who were to prove that their particular God would have to first prove that there is a God and then he would have to prove that this God could be no other than his favorite God and not the God of some other religion. Most people who attempt to prove that God exist usually put a lot of work into step 1 and tries to make fairly good arguments (not without holes though) that there is a God and then just skip over step 2 as if it was "obviously" their particular God they had just attempted to prove.

Anyway, arguments against the existence of God as per your 3 points can be as follows:

1) The first cause argument fail due to the simple question: Who created God? Usually this argument goes back until "God" and say the chain start there, so God created the universe and we are all in the universe. However, If you claim that everything has to have a first cause then you cannot say that God is the first cause since something must have caused him. If you do make an exception for God and say that he just IS and does not need a cause then by the same token you could make exception for the step after it and say that the universe just IS.

Note that some people will here refer to "big bang" and say that it has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning. The problem with this is that if you allow for big bang then the part of the big bang theory is that there are many theories on exactly what caused the big bang and how it began. It therefore does not follow that the big bang proves that the universe was created and so need a cause while whatever created the universe does not need a cause.

Also, it is flatly not true that everything need a cause. For example radioactive material will - as far as we can tell - uncaused suddenly send off a neutron and other particles and change itself from one atom to another such as from Uran (U) to Lead (Pb). You might say that there is a cause there but we just don't know it. The problem with that is that it is similar to presuming that there must be an invisible elf pushing the planets so that they move. If we cannot see it, we cannot claim it was caused and so the basic premise that "everythign has to have a cause" is not true. They thought it was true in ancient times but today we are not so sure any more.

2) The law of order and complexity? What law is that? I consider myself knowledable in physics and I have never heard of such a law.

If you refer to Thomas Aquinas argument he essentially said that you have a ranking order in the world and the more similar something is to a human being the more perfect it is. However, humans aren't perfect so there must be something that is even more complex than humans. Angles and God were therefore placed above and so as there had to be a top of this pyramid he placed God. Yes, I know he didn't word his argument the way I do here but doing it this way shows the fallacy of the argument. Another related argument is that a simple thing cannot cause a complex thing. What does that mean? I can very well imagine simple things making very complex things. For example our brains have very simple brain cells called neurons. Each of these cells have a very simple working recipe:

a) Each cell is connected to other braincells. Some braincells are also connected to nerves which really are very simiilar to brain cells and other sensory inputs such as the nerve cells from eyes and ears. For a cell C let us call these connected cells C1, C2, ...
to Cn

b) Each cell is in one of two states, you can call these states 1 or 0 or A or B or on and off or up and down, doesn't matter, the point is that each cell can at any time be in one and only one of these two states so a given cell is either 1 or 0.

c) For cell C compute a weighted sum depending on the cells it is connected to:

S = W1 * C1 + W2 * C2 + W3 * C3 + ... + Wn * Cn

d) If S is greater than a threshold value T flip the state of the cell. If the cell C was 0 change it to 1 and if the state was 1 change it to 0.

Now, this computation is done through chemical workings of the cell but I hope you realize that this is very simple. In fact you can easily make a computer program that can simulate one single brain cell or several.

Yet, nobody has so far managed to make a true AI program that can simulate a human brain. So a simple cell can cause a complex brain to function. There are several such instances in the world where small basic things can create a huge complexity thereby proving that this so-called law of complexity is essentially bogus. It doesn't take lot of complexity to create a simple brain cell and yet when you combine them into a brain you get a very complex organ capable of thinking complex thoughts, reflecting over the complexity of the world and invent computers and all the other things we have today.

Now, if you say that a complex item such a watch need an even more complex being (human) to be created. This essentially ignore a few factors. One, we know how watches are made, we manufacture them in factories. We do not know how the universe was created, we have theories that give indications but we do not have solid knowledge. Also, while a watch is made fairly fast in modern mass production, the universe has taken billions of years to get where we are today. There are many things that can work to make complexity given enough time. For example the earliest life forms were simple and basic while later life forms become more complex. I am not saying that if you wait enough time a rolex will grow up from the earth but I am saying that complexity per se does not indicate that you have to have something even more complex.

Another blow to this argument is of course that it is essentially very similar to the first cause. So just like you can ask "who created God" to pick hole in the first cause argument so also can you ask "who created God?" to pick hole in this argument. If something must be vastly complex to create the universe then something even more vastly complex must exist to create God. Again, if you say that God just IS we are back with the same reasoning as to the first cause. We can just as easily say that the universe just IS. Again, big bang isn't really of much help against that argument since there are several theories surrounding what caused big bang and most of them leave little or no room for any God.

3) Every movement is the effect of a force. This is as someone already said not exactly correct. True, if some body is at rest and you then changes it to become a body that is moving, you must apply some force to the body. However, there are several problems here.

1. If a body was always moving then it doesn't need a force to continue to move. A body that is moving would instead need a force to change that movement. In every day, an item will usually stop moving due to friction but that is just another way to say that there are forces that stops the item from moving.

2. Some particles are such that you cannot stop them. A photon particle for example is always moving at the speed of light through whatever medium it is moving. You cannot apply any force to cause it to move faster or slower. The only thing that can modify the speed is to let it move through a different medium. For example if you let the photon move through vacuum it has the maximum speed known as c which is approx 300000 km per second. Whatever force you apply to the photon would not change its speed. It might change the frequency and wavelength of the wave associated with the photon (the color of the light) but not the speed.

So, some particles appear and move as soon as they appear. In fact ALL atoms move around. The temparature you measure is essentially a result of the movement the atoms is moving around a center point. The faster they move the warmer the thing appear to be. So, even that rock you see on the ground move around a little bit or all the atoms in it move around. If they did not that rock would have measured 0 K (kelvin) or -273 C (centigrades) and that is a theoretic bottom which has never been reached and I doubt you can ever reach it. You can only get closer and closer but not quite reach the value of 0 K.

So, it appears that it is moving that is the "natural" state of all things and so you do not need any force to cause the first movement as such. Of course, you do need force to case the rock to move. True, all the atoms in the rock is moving but the rock itself appear to stand still since they all move around an average point which appear fixed. If you apply force to the rock for example by kicking it or lifting it, you change that average point. The point here is that in the universe - and especially according to big bang theory - you do not need a first mover per se. The big bang theory indicates that everything is moving away from everything else since the universe began and so objects are moving. Later on some matter condensed into lumps which then grew bigger due to gravity until they became stars. Gravity is a force and can thus cause things to move, you do not need a first mover what you need is a force and gravity is a force that appear to be significant as soon as you have a lump big enough so that the gravity towards that lump is bigger than the gravity in other directions.

Also, for example in our solar system the earth is mainly controlled by the gravity of the sun since the sun is so much bigger than anything else. Yet, we are also influenced by the gravity of the moon because it is so close. Thus we have tidal water. The earth also rotates and wobbles in several directions and all those movements are added together to make up the total manner in which the earth moves. The earth's rotation is affected by the moon and the sun and even jupiter has some influence although it is hardly noticable since it is so far away.

All this is mainly caused by gravity so in a way you can say that the gravty is the first mover, but be aware that in the early universe it wasn't gravity that was significant. We know of 4 fundamental forces today, gravity, electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. All other forces in nature is essentially just one or more of these forces acting in a certain way. However, the nuclear forces only affect things very close - in the atomic nucleus and electromagnetic force only work if you have an uneven distribution of positive and negative charge so at long distances over electric neutral objects gravity is the only force that has any effect and that is why gravity is so important in cosmos today. Yet, in the early universe when distances where small gravity probably had very little if any significance. In the early universe you probably had the other forces playing significant roles and causing things to move so in that sense it probably was those that was the very first movers. You can lump those three together since in the early universe things was different and under those conditions those three forces turn out to be the same force.

Add to this the heisenbergs uncertainty principle that essentially say that the uncertainty over a measurement of a particle's speed and direction multiplied with the uncertainty over a measurement of the same particle's position must alwasy be greater or equal to a theoretical limit and combine this with chaos theory and you can see that even small insignificant movements in the early universe can result in big movements in today's universe without there being a need for a first mover.

Note that none of the above prove there is no God. The arguments you put forth was originally put forth to prove that there was a God and what I have argued against are those arguments and as such it only shows that those arguments does not prove there is a God.

To prove that there is no God you would first have to ask "which God?". One cannot prove there is no "generiic God" for the same reason you cannnot prove there are invisible elves right next to you. Specific Gods such as the christian God, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter etc is somewhat easier. Such Gods often have traits and if you can show that those traits doesn't make sense then you have a good argument that such a God cannot exist. True, many theologians will give you some rationale or reasoning why one might believe there is such a god - perhaps by redefining some words or reinterpreting some texts but all such reasoning and rationale usually raises more questions in turn.

Also, to conclude, I want to emphasize and repeat that even if you somehow managed to prove that those arguments showed that there was a God, you still haven't even gotten close to show that this God is a personal omnipotent omniscient benevolent God as the christian God as described in the Bible is assumed to be. That is a HUGE step which most people who attempt to prove God simply skip over and hope that people won't notice.

If I were to asked to prove that there is no christian God I would not use those 3 arguments above but would rather raise problems with attributes of this God

1. He is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent. Each of these are problematic in and of themselves as well as there are problems how a being can have 2 of these qualities and still create a world as we have today.

2. He is supposedly the source of absolute moral. What does it mean "absolute moral"? What is the content of this moral? For example, is slavery moral or immoral? If slavery is immoral, why didn't the bible say that you shouldn't own slaves? If slavery is moral according to God, isn't he then immoral compared with modern day man who generally thinks that slavery is wrong?

Alf

[Rationalbeliever]

You are exactly correct to say that it is impossible to prove that a supremely intelligent being, or God, does not exist, for to prove this assertion, you may well nigh be omniscient, a level of knowledge no one possesses.

So, if you have not proved that such a being as God or gods do not exist, how come you are an atheist? The Thesaurus Web Dictionary defines the word "atheist" as follows: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent being." I think that claiming to be an atheist and believing in any God or gods are mutually exclusive positions to take.

As someone who has an above average knowledge and understanding of the bible, I know that no proof for the existence of God is offered in it. It is simply stated as fact. Sometimes I wonder why this is the case. One possibility may be that there is no need to prove God's existence because his existence speaks for itself. It may be that it is so obvious that it does not require any proof, and you have to be very determined to be blind, or ignorant of this fact to begin to think or consider that a supremely intelligent being, or God (or even gods) do not exist.

Proving that God or god(s) do not exist is like trying to prove that there is no light in the universe. The reason you cannot prove this is that, there is light in the universe.

I am convinced that proving that God, or a supremely intelligent being, or god(s) exist is a needless task. I personally do not even consider it an intelligent activity, for it is clearly obvious everywhere that there is someone, or "people", or being(s) who are higher than ourselves.

[Deleted complete quote of previous post, above. -DM-]

[-DM-]

So, if you have not proved that such a being as God or gods do not exist, how come you are an atheist? The Thesaurus Web Dictionary defines the word "atheist" as follows: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent being."One can correctly be identified as an atheist, as the definition states, simply by reason of the fact that s/he disbelieves the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent being. Not only that, but the definition is not inclusive enough even at that given that so-called weak atheism amounts to nothing more than an absence of a belief in a God or supreme intelligent being.

I think that claiming to be an atheist and believing in any God or gods are mutually exclusive positions to take.Yes, believing in any God or gods AND claiming to be an atheist would be mutually exclusive positions, just as disbelieving in the existence of a God or gods AND claiming to be a theist would be mutually exclusive positions. But what is the point of stating the obvious?

As someone who has an above average knowledge and understanding of the bible, I know that no proof for the existence of God is offered in it. It is simply stated as fact.This is not entirely accurate. The Bible does provide what is alleged to be evidence for the existence of God. One example of such evidence: alleged miracles.

Sometimes I wonder why this is the case. One possibility may be that there is no need to prove God's existence because his existence speaks for itself. It may be that it is so obvious that it does not require any proof, and you have to be very determined to be blind, or ignorant of this fact to begin to think or consider that a supremely intelligent being, or God (or even gods) do not exist.Hardly. Keep in mind that the "God" of the Bible isn't the only "God" whose existence can be proffered on the same basis.

Proving that God or god(s) do not exist is like trying to prove that there is no light in the universe. The reason you cannot prove this is that, there is light in the universe.This is hardly a good analogy inasmuch as light can be seen whereas the "God" of the Bible cannot be seen--at least not at present by individuals whose sanity and judgement is above question.

I am convinced that proving that God, or a supremely intelligent being, or god(s) exist is a needless task. I personally do not even consider it an intelligent activity, for it is clearly obvious everywhere that there is someone, or "people", or being(s) who are higher than ourselves.This amounts to a horrendous non sequitur if ever there was one.

-Don-

[Alfy]

ok here u go:

if God exists, then He is omnipotent. If God exists, then he is omniscient. If God exists, the He is benevolent. if God can prevent evil, then if He knows evil exists, then He is not benevolent if he does not prevent it. If God is omnipotent, then He can prevent evil. If God is omniscient, the He knows that evil exists if it does indeed exist. Evil does not exist if god prevents it. Evil exists, therefore God does not exist. - Logic Techniques of formal reasoning. p.35.

ok, so this is the problem of evil...ur question reminded me of it.

[defense]

ok here u go:

if God exists, then He is omnipotent. If God exists, then he is omniscient. If God exists, the He is benevolent. if God can prevent evil, then if He knows evil exists, then He is not benevolent if he does not prevent it. If God is omnipotent, then He can prevent evil. If God is omniscient, the He knows that evil exists if it does indeed exist. Evil does not exist if god prevents it. Evil exists, therefore God does not exist. - Logic Techniques of formal reasoning. p.35.

ok, so this is the problem of evil...ur question reminded me of it.


Dear Alf,

Your statements of logic are true, but your premise is false. Why must you assume God is not benevolent if he does not prevent evil. That is like saying your parents are not benevolent if they allow you to do harm to yourself.

You are leaving out a very crucial point. Each person has a freedom to make a choice and it is this power of action that God cannot compromise.

He will try to persuade and help us recognize truth, and live accordingly, but he will never control or manipulate us to make us do what is right.

This power of freedom which allows us to love and sacrifice for the sake of the other is what changes your premise and effects your logical statements.

[-DM-]

He will try to persuade and help us recognize truth, and live accordingly, but he will never control or manipulate us to make us do what is right.Not so fast. If you are talking about the "God" of the Bible, then you are wrong inasmuch as there are biblical examples of "God" preventing or controlling behavior on the part of individuals. Although only one such example is sufficient to make the point, here are a few brief examples:

GE 2.21: God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam.

GE 3.24: After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, "God" drove out the man and then placed a guard around the "Tree of Eternal Life" to keep them from eating its fruit. (He could have done the same, of course, for the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" before Adam and Eve disobeyed, but even with his alleged omniscience, He did not.)

GE 20.13: According to Abraham, God caused him to leave his father's house.

EX 13.17-18: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt: But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.

DT 8.2: And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.

EZ 20.25-26: Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

2TH 2.11-12 God deceives the wicked (so as to be able to condemn them).

[Ken]

You are leaving out a very crucial point. Each person has a freedom to make a choice and it is this power of action that God cannot compromise.
...
This power of freedom which allows us to love and sacrifice for the sake of the other is what changes your premise and effects your logical statements.
How does the free will defense answer the problem of a 4-year-old child dying of leukemia or a forest chimpanzee slowing starving to death?

[bdburck]

god is not controlling adam...

[deleted excessive verbiage pasted-in from elsewhere.]

[-DM-]

god is not controlling adam...Baloney. When, for example, "God" drives "the man" out of the Garden and puts a guard around the Tree of Eternal Life, He is controlling behavior and preventing "the man" from eating of the Tree of Eternal Life.

-DM-

[bdburck]

Baloney. When, for example, "God" drives "the man" out of the Garden and puts a guard around the Tree of Eternal Life, He is controlling behavior and preventing "the man" from eating of the Tree of Eternal Life.

-DM-
sorry dm but if copy writting from the bible is wrong then im wrong and i appologize. and he did keep adam from eating the fruit of eternal life so that
we would not only know good from evil and vise versa, but become like god having all the powers that we are not capable of controling he knew that. we would be a bunch of demons or satan in that matter i mean satan knows good from evil and is imortal for now anyways. let's say for an instant that this was all a folk tale or a great story produced to inlighten the hearts of men why would a man ever create such a higher being why wouldn't we all want to do things our own way. even greek romans believed in a higher force they just did not have the right info. almost every person on earth believes in some sort of a god and that's fine. but if this is not true if there's no god then what could it hurt to believe in a god that promises everlasting life or redemption from our guilty conscince? spelling check on that word? i mean if we all die and that's certain,... why not believe? what could it hurt maybe self pride?

[-DM-]

sorry dm but if copy writting from the bible is wrong then im wrong and i appologize.It isn't necessarily wrong to copy from the Bible. Copying a verse or two from the Bible in an effort to make a point is not wrong, even if those verses are from a copyrighted version of the Bible. Such usage comes under the fair use provisions of the copyright law. Copying and pasting large portions of text from a copyrighted Bible could, however, be a copyright violation. We, as operators of a discussion forum, do have to be careful not to allow violations of copyright law.

and he did keep adam from eating the fruit of eternal lifeOK, then you now agree that it is incorrect to say "he will never control or manipulate us to make us do what is right," as you once said.

so that we would not only know good from evil and vise versaThis is supposition or mind-reading at best inasmuch as that is not said in the context of the verse, and I don't buy it. Interestingly, when it comes to "explaining" why "God" allegedly did or does some of what he did or does, even Christian apologists often disagree on why "God" did or does what he did or does.

let's say for an instant that this was all a folk tale or a great story produced to inlighten the hearts of men why would a man ever create such a higher being why wouldn't we all want to do things our own way."Enlightening the hearts of men" is only one of the many possible reasons that men would produce such a storybook; another is that putting words in the mouth of "God" is (or was at one time) a good way of controlling the masses. But, in any case, whether I or anyone else can come up with a reason that you would accept as to why men would write such a storybook is irrelevant; the question represents a kind of reasoning error (the appeal to ignorance) in that the absence of a satisfactory answer doesn't prove your assertion about the purpose. To illustrate what I am getting at, ask yourself why men would write the Hindu Scriptures, the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon.

even greek romans believed in a higher forceYes, and they once believed that the heart was the organ involved in thinking and that the brain was an instrument for cooling the blood. In other words, what men believed and now believe says nothing necessarily about the truth of the matter.

they just did not have the right info.And you do have the right info, correct?

almost every person on earth believes in some sort of a god and that's fine.My personal opinion is that it cannot possibly be "fine" to believe in what is false. Probably the difference between you and me in terms of belief in gods is that I believe in one less god than you do.

but if this is not true if there's no god then what could it hurt to believe in a god that promises everlasting life or redemption from our guilty conscince?It would, were there no god, be a complete waste of time--worse, it would, amongst other negatives, take effort and energy away from humanistic approaches to solving the problems of mankind. After all, if you believe that Jesus is going to return soon to make everything right, and that you are going to go to "heaven" if you die before the Second Coming, then there is little use in worrying about the condition of the world and mankind in the present.

i mean if we all die and that's certain,... why not believe?It would take me days and days to give you all of the reasons that one should not believe on the basis of faith (which is what your question implies), but there have been many books and articles written on the subject, which you could find and read. Or, you could take part as a registered user in our open discussion forums (other than the Feedback Forum) and discuss this with others. But suffice it for now for me to ask you: Why not believe in Islam? Or Mormonism?

-Don-

[bdburck]

i would not believe in mormonism because they do not beleive in the trinity. and they can't drink caffeine products. islam does not believe that jesus purged their sins they believe they can make self-ratify their sins.
and god did not control adam by taking the fruit away. he was eleminating the temptation b/c he only allows us to be tempted to what we can overcome. you don't go and bake a batch of cookies and leave them to be eaten by your four year old son or daughter, you give them one or two and then put the rest in a cookie jar with a lid on it and stick it out of reach, so they don't eat them and get sick. b/c you know what is best and what the cookies will do or could possibly do (make him or her sick/tummy ache). we have to grow and become full of knowledge and trust god that he gives us what we need to be the best he has to offer us.

[-DM-]

i would not believe in mormonism because they do not beleive in the trinity. and they can't drink caffeine products. islam does not believe that jesus purged their sins they believe they can make self-ratify their sins.You are being highly and subjectively selective in terms of what you choose to believe. Had you been raised in Iran, you would almost certainly be a Muslim who had similar types of reasons for rejecting Christianity.

and god did not control adam by taking the fruit away.Baloney. He drove Adam out of the Garden and put a guard in place to prevent him from eating of the Tree of Eternal Life lest he regain eternal life.

(Remainder of mind-reading "God's" mind will remain unaddressed.)

-Don-

[bdburck]

there are more muslims converting to christianity than christians converting to being a muslim. and i don't despise being a muslim but george bush was wrong when he said we worship the same god we do not. christians are trying to help muslims and the majority of muslims are trying to kill or over throw us in a so called holy war.(not all muslims) christianity just makes sense :angel: :thumbs: there's scientific reasoning, prophesies and the commandments written on the hearts of men. so even if you don't believe you do believe there is a right and wrong, don't you. :huh:

[-DM-]

The main point of my last post: "God" did directly control the behavior of Adam in the sense that he effectively prevented him from eating of the Tree of Eternal Life by:
1) driving him from the Garden, and
2) by putting a guard on the Tree of Eternal Life.
In fact, the verses in question (GE 3.22-24) state that "God" did this for the specific purpose of preventing Adam from eating of the Tree.

The number of Muslims converting to Christianity and vice versa does not negate that had you grown up in Iran you would most likely be a Muslim who rejected Christianity for reasons similar to those that cause you to now reject Islam or Mormonism.

Yes, there is some "scientific reasoning" for the validity of Christian belief; it is hardly one-sided in favor of scientific reasoning for Christian belief, however, inasmuch as there is enough about the Christian belief system that does not jibe with science to more than counterbalance the "for" side of the equation. Thus using science as a reason FOR belief is specious indeed.

That commandments are written on the hearts of men is nothing but a cliche. The fact that the majority of people come to some agreement on what is right and wrong is counterbalanced to some extent by the existence of sociopaths such as Hitler. Were commandments written on the hearts of men by an omnipotent "God," then it should be universal, there should be no sociopaths, and everyone everywhere should agree on what is right and wrong.

If fulfilled prophecies are evidence FOR your "God," then failed "prophecies"--and there are plenty of them--are evidence against the existence of your "God." See, for example, Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html) by Farrell Till.

This particular discussion is getting repetitious. Feel free to have the last word.

-Don-

[Wads4]

I am a Catholic teenager. In my highschool, we have debates, and my team must prove that God does not exist. I'm not trying to argue your beliefs here. But I would appreciate it if I could get arguments against the existence of God. Here are some of the points I need to be able to argue against: 1) the law of causality- this is kinda like the origin of life. Each cause is an effect of a previous cause. I need to be able to give a First Cause other than God. 2) the law of order- the complexity of the universe proves that there must be a God. 3) the law of Motion- every movement is the effect of a force applied to it. I need a force other than God. If I could get any arguments against these, I would really appreciate it. In the debate my team represents atheists, and without input, it will be hard for us to win. actually any points against the existence of God are appreciated too. Thank you.

{Edited to remove e-mail address. -Don-}

I presume you need some quick and short answers so you can do well in your debate, so,-try these quick rebuttals of the usual pro-god arguments:

1. First cause argument. If everything needs a cause, then so does God, so who caused Him? It is not established that everything does in fact require a cause,-eg Quantum events. So the Universe may be uncaused and eternally existing. this would also include Motion.

2 Design argument: Apparent design is the result of cosmological and chemical and biological evolution, and as above, also includes Motion. This design is the result of arms races between different organisms,-each fine-tuning the other until they are perfectly adapted to each other. So no designer-god is required. This rebuttal has greater strength ever since Darwinian Evolutionary theory.

3.Ontological: Objects conceived of do not necessarily exist. I can imagine the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn, but it is improbable that she actually exists.

4.Personal Revelation: "God has revealed his truth to me".. Try interrogating claimants individually and see how many quite different revelations show up.

Transcendental: " God is beyond argumentation, and above Logic";-- so he can't therefore be sensibly discussed, or logical statements made about him, such as that he Necessarily Exists. It is more probable that the only thing that Necessaily exists is the Universe itself; therefore the God notion is superfluous. I can pick up a stone and show you a piece of the Universe,- can you show me a piece of God?

Good luck--I hope you slaughter them.

[duaneduane]

As long as God is a general concept I think it's fair to say no one can, as yet, prove her nonexistance. But once you add a few theological details it becomes easy to demonstrate (and that's close enough to a proof as you really need) the nonexistance of any particular god. All you have to do is find conflicting or already disproven details. To disprove the existance of the Christian god all you have to do is read the various conflicting accounts of, well you name it, there are many in every translation of the not so accurate Bible.

For example (1 of hundreds that come to mind), the Christian god is claimed to have infallably inspired the writing of the Bible, which is the most often cited evidence for his existance. But the bible has conflicting narratives of the line of descent of Jesus. Since this bible contradicts itself it contains innacuracy, which at this level of obviousness is clearly either falsehood or stupidity, therefore it wasn't infallably inspired by the 100% truthful god it describes, therefore the Christian god doesn't exist as an infallable and truthful diety. Some other god may exist, but not the one described, he has been disproven by contradictions in the only evidence for his existance.

Any holes you find in this hastly written example can be patched with little effort. The basic premise is that once you add enough details to something, then it can be tested and refuted. All the major relegions have enough details to disprove themselves.

So everything is OK until your god decides to flesh out the details and become GOD, then he or she ceases to exist by viture of the mistake of becoming falsifiable. That's how we test bad ideas and get rid of them.

You just don't need to understand the cause of everything to know that some "answers" aren't right.

-Duane

[Wads4]

As someone who has an above average knowledge and understanding of the bible, I know that no proof for the existence of God is offered in it. It is simply stated as fact. Sometimes I wonder why this is the case. One possibility may be that there is no need to prove God's existence because his existence speaks for itself. It may be that it is so obvious that it does not require any proof, and you have to be very determined to be blind, or ignorant of this fact to begin to think or consider that a supremely intelligent being, or God (or even gods) do not exist.

Of course it was stated as a fact. They knew no better in the days before rational Science and Philosophy. The only mental activity they knew was to believe and obey.

[Wads4]

Dear Alf,

Your statements of logic are true, but your premise is false. Why must you assume God is not benevolent if he does not prevent evil. That is like saying your parents are not benevolent if they allow you to do harm to yourself.

You are leaving out a very crucial point. Each person has a freedom to make a choice and it is this power of action that God cannot compromise.

He will try to persuade and help us recognize truth, and live accordingly, but he will never control or manipulate us to make us do what is right.

This power of freedom which allows us to love and sacrifice for the sake of the other is what changes your premise and effects your logical statements.

This makes me wonder, where in the Bible does God say "I have given you Freewill",-perhaps there is such a passage, I don't know; more likely it is just another invented dogma of the Church to try and explain away evil.

[Wads4]

sorry dm but if copy writting from the bible is wrong then im wrong and i appologize. and he did keep adam from eating the fruit of eternal life so that
we would not only know good from evil and vise versa, but become like god having all the powers that we are not capable of controling he knew that. we would be a bunch of demons or satan in that matter i mean satan knows good from evil and is imortal for now anyways. let's say for an instant that this was all a folk tale or a great story produced to inlighten the hearts of men why would a man ever create such a higher being why wouldn't we all want to do things our own way. even greek romans believed in a higher force they just did not have the right info. almost every person on earth believes in some sort of a god and that's fine. but if this is not true if there's no god then what could it hurt to believe in a god that promises everlasting life or redemption from our guilty conscince? spelling check on that word? i mean if we all die and that's certain,... why not believe? what could it hurt maybe self pride?

Ever heard of Pascal's Wager,--and the excellent rebuttals of it that are available?

[Wads4]

As long as God is a general concept I think it's fair to say no one can, as yet, prove her nonexistance. But once you add a few theological details it becomes easy to demonstrate (and that's close enough to a proof as you really need) the nonexistance of any particular god. All you have to do is find conflicting or already disproven details. To disprove the existance of the Christian god all you have to do is read the various conflicting accounts of, well you name it, there are many in every translation of the not so accurate Bible.

...

So everything is OK until your god decides to flesh out the details and become GOD, then he or she ceases to exist by viture of the mistake of becoming falsifiable. That's how we test bad ideas and get rid of them.

You just don't need to understand the cause of everything to know that some "answers" aren't right.

-Duane
Yes exactly-- it is also known as the "Incompatible attributes argument"

[dmilioto]

Jesus people. Yea, I can say that even though I'm an atheist. You know, Carl Sagan wrote a good book: "Our Demon-Haunted World". His best I think. That'll get you thinking like an atheist. Anyway, it just ain't there. You know, God. None of that stuf is. Just a reflection of our frailities as humans. Don't get me wrong. We have marvelous strengths. Some things you can understand only by living a long time. Such is the proof you seek.

[Jephthah]

the original post was over 18 months ago.

there was one reply at that time.

why do you people now, a year and a half later, feel compelled to pick up this long-dead flamebait to beat around some more?

by the way, God did exist, but He's dead now. He died on March 3, 1956. Look it up.

RIP

[arricchio]

It is up to the one who makes the assertion that something exists to provide evidence for his/her assertion.
Since the atheist is not making an assertion of existence, the atheist is under no obligation to prove anything whatsoever.
I am no more obligated to argue the nonexistence of god than I am obligated to argue the nonexistence of green flying monkeys in the room in which I am currently sitting. There are evidently no green flying monkeys here.
Now, if someone wants to assert, all evidence to the contrary, that there really ARE green flying monkeys in this room, then the burden of proof is on them, not on me.
All I'm required to do is evaluate the evidence offered in support of their assertion. If I find the evidence is unconvincing, I am not obligated to accept the truth of their assertion. And they can go peddle their monkeys somewhere else.
All I have to say to the theist is, when you come up with anything more substantial than what has been previously offered, let me know. Otherwise, save it.

Arricchio

[Master Of Puppets]

While "proving" God does not exist may be elusive, we have never had any communication, any direct evidence, any person returning from the dead, any location of his heavenly abode, zero, zilch, nada, nothing that proves in a conclusive way that this silent and elusive supernatural being actually exists. Those things attributed to him have decreased in the face of science and reason for centuries, to the point where the only things we can attribute to him are coincidental events that seem to point to some unseen hand, the same human reasoning process that lead us to believe the sun was pulled by a chariot.