What are the most compelling and irrefutable arguments against the existence of God?
When I say irrefutable, I mean “beyond a reasonable doubt”, as in a court of law.
First, we need to define the term “god”, so I will be referring to the Judeo-Christian god
of the bible who we must agree has the following attributes:
That god is omniscient
That god is omnipotent
That god is omnibenevolent
Let us also agree that the Christian bible is the true word of this god, and that it is his commandments to all humans.
Also please consider all philosophical counter arguments posed by C.S. Lewis, et’al.
Please explain and justify your argument.
For example; if you believe the Argument for Evil is compelling, please explain why the theist counter argument is not acceptable.
It could be argued for example, that god does not send any souls to hell, we send ourselves to hell by our own free will and that god has given us every opportunity to make that decision, and in our own free will, god is simply granting our request.
All philosophical and scientific arguments should have a justification.
For example; the bible says god created the earth and the “heavens” in 6 days, on the 7th day, he rested. We know from many disciplines of science that this cannot be true; however, it could be argued that the term "6 days" could have other biblical meaning, etc.
Be careful of logical falicies in forming your agruments. :)
Please contribute your argument(s).
P.S. your argument does not need to be in your own words, you can copy and paste, just mention the source :)
Assuming the bible is the true word of god then we can examine the claims of his abilities according to that word.
god is omniscient: refuted by god not knowing that the earth is spherical
Luke 4:5 - And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
god is omnipotent: refuted by his inability to lie or to deal with iron chariots
Titus 1:2 - In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Judges 1:19 - And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
god is omnibenevolent: refuted by his repeatedly killing babies along with adults and animals
Gen 19:25 - Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
Gen 7:21 - And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
I agree that science cannot prove nor disprove a god; however, we can prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that religions are human inventions and deduce that there is no god.
However, this can be argued as a logical fallacy; an Argument from Probability.
Without Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time.
God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.
Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.
Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
God doesn't exist.
I know of no counter argument to Draygomb's Paradox other than to usual objection to all paradox's
that they have no real meaning. I think it does based purely on a logical standpoint, but if you know a counter argument to dispute the paradox, please post :)
I have Contributed to Wikipedia on this subject. In fact I even went right into what a first cause of causation would be, and why no conscious mind could ever solve infinite regress, or be the first cause. All of you can enjoy reading the following:
My Contribution to Wiki:
Also found here:
My article on Causation is here:
I hope all of you enjoy these. I am also currently writing an article on Non-materialism to which entails theists worshiping a GOD made of nothing, or the nothing God concept. It deals with why they are forced to defect to the other side in order form them to think they can win a debate. ;) Cheers!
My reply above yours pretty much collapses all 36 of those arguments o.O And most of those arguments are fallacious and have been thoroughly debunked. Heck, you can just watch the videos "Why do Creationists get laughed at" to understand why those 36 arguments are just piles of nonsense :/
And of course she doesn't address the complexity of consciousness :/ She's just another writer looking to profit off peoples ignorance.
It wouldn't matter if the list was infinite or not.. Consciousness itself is too complex to not have a cause. Thus consciousness can not answer the mighty questions you seek. It's well defined in my articles. There are 3 principles, or laws that govern all to which has existence, complexity, function, or process. This includes emotions, feelings, morals, ethics, action, reaction, response, choices, decisions, cognitive dynamics, processes, systems, evolution, natural selection, behavioral adaptation ect. And they are the 3 properties of energy, or the substance of existence itself.
There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral; action, reaction, response, process, phenomenon, Natural selection, adaptation, ability, emotion, feeling, dynamic, function, feedback, ethic, relevance, information, state, position, point of view, thought, idea, system, or emerging property.
This link does a very good job of explaining this very subject, and even addresses cosmology and everything on that list you have provided. It's not Platos Key exactly, it's what I have posted under the subject.
Energy has three properties:
Ethics, Morals, emotion, love, feeling, hate, anger, happiness all have have three fundamental properties of energy:
It's what energy means.. It's to be alive with vigor, or to be animated and real. It's the base of process, interaction, action, response, form, substance, and value. It can neither be created or destroyed, nor can it's purpose ever be lost!
Thus existence simply exists without creation because non-existence (nothing) can not be a literal existing person, place, thing, or substance. Thus non-materialism is essentially literal Nihilism! But many people don't realize that non-materialism was meant to describe energy before they understood that what we see as solid matter is in fact made of energy. ;)
Thus one can not design or create that which one's self is slave to require in order to exist. Minds can not solve infinite regress! Thus information itself is =/= energy as both substance and value to which gives rise to complex. It's the substance from which we are comprised of that makes our existence real, possible, and existent. Thus not which is slave to require it.
Existence is thus seen as the following:
Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass, or anything even with a consciousness possible. "A universal set of all sets"
It's pretty funny to understand that no matter how complex you think everything is, it can all be summed up with 3 basic ground state properties. It's really that simple of an answer ;). These can neither be created, written, designed, defied, or destroyed. It's why the following is true:
Well.... who can really make a list with every
argument for god... and then debunk them
I can, and just did with 1 word with 3 basic properties: Energy :)
Kind of makes reading her books or arguments rather moot now doesn't it ;)
That's some serious anger issue you got there.. Now try having consciousness without information lol.. Good luck with that ;)
In fact, try posting a reply without having to use information as well!.. Or try feeling that anger you have there without physically feeling it since you think I am bull-shitting you. And when you are done, you can come back and perhaps have a real intellectual discussion.
Your entire post reminds me of Scientologists that use social dogma as a means of argument in order to discredit what others have to say, or those who do not agree with their ideological constructs. Hence, calling people bull-shitters, rapists, murderers, haters, non-Americans, demons, evil, or snake talkers ect.
When I see arguments like that, it's a clear sign of someone who has no argument. Especially when their own argument proves every point I had made, and proves that they don't even comprehend their own self-collapsing arguments. You don't even realize you have entirely self-contradicted your entire argument just by merely posting it.. ;)
Thus your "Negative" behavior is I guess expected, an not much of a surprise.
Good to know my argument isn't implausible.. I find it fascinating that you don't even realize why your posting of a reply here is a total self-collapse of your argument.. Might want to try again. ;)
And I don't claim to know you, or even care to know you.. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Good luck though at trying to prove the fantasy of my arguments without contradicting yourself. Hence, I can tell you didn't read the articles and just posted hot air nonsense :)
This is pretty much how people are going to read you in this discussion:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response