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 :)

Views: 2944

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Technically, I would try to avoid getting into a situation where I'd have to defend an argument that god doesn't exist.  I think that it is technically possible that god could exist.  It is also technically possible that I am the only thinking creature in existence, that the physical world is an illusion, that I am a 'brain in a vat' (any scenario where what we'd consider a normal human being has his brain directly manipulated to create a perfect but false experience of a possible physical world- think The Matrix), or that I'm a disembodied soul in some sort of purgatory.


Some would express this by saying that, we have access to phenomena, but not to noumena


Still, I'm not an agnostic.


I'm an atheist because, while I don't want to argue for the nonexistence of god, I am quite happy to argue that it isn't rational to believe in god.  If you want to be rational (and I do) then you'll abandon theism.


I call myself a 'Bright' because as I understand it, the Brights hold that nothing exists other than the sort of entities and objects posited by science.  In my opinion, a rigorous application of this view would mean not only that you'd need to be a metaphysical materialist, but that you'd also have to be a nominalist. (Most Brights seem not to care much one way or the other.) The scholastics were very concerned with the notion of universals, and William of Ockham advocated nominalism by arguing that a theory in which only particulars exist is sufficient to account for everything in the real world, and that adding universals to one's ontological menagerie has no explanatory benefit.


This argument was later called 'Ockham's Razor.'  I pay a modest homage to him with my username & avatar.  :)  Of course, people now use the term in all kinds of areas outside of metaphysics (which makes me grumpy).  >:( The more appropriate term in such cases is 'The Principle of Parsimony'.


Anyway, the same reasoning which shows that it is more rational to accept nominalism and reject realism shows that it is more rational to believe that god doesn't exist and that accepting theism is irrational.


Of course if they're willing to acknowledge that they value something connected to theism more than they value being rational about their fundamental belief system, then I have no conflict with the religious on this particular question.  You might be surprised at how many religious folks, who would never be willing to say that god doesn't exist, have been willing (when its put to them in a reasonable and non-confrontational manner) to make just such an acknowledgement.  :)

organized crime, organized religion = fail = organized religion, organized crime

and they wonder... about nonviolence.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service