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 :)
I already put that entire concept out before you.. You might want to go back and study lol.. Wow, how many airplanes fly over your head in a day Johny D?
It's like you didn't even comprehend this statement:
And You know what doesn't have informational value John D.. NOTHING lol
The bell is ringing but I don't think you can hear it. ;)
And You know what doesn't have informational value John D.. NOTHING lol
This plane will buzz over your head for a very long time John D :) And I am still waiting for you to take up my challenge so I can worship you!
Try posting without using information, energy, or material-physicality. .. WOOO WOO!! Right?? You seem to avoid this like the plague >:)
Lets see.. without information, Johny D wouldn't even have a Language? Without language there is no understanding? hmmm :)
It is therefore a complete fiction!
This is Golden right here!.. Information is "Fiction"! lol I'm glad we have a professor Johny D to tell us information is fiction! I don't know how I would ever understand if I didn't know information was fictitious O.o
<insert face palm here>
You make a reasonable argument.. My original argument was only to address an all OMNI GOD.. I think we can reasonably rule that out. However, gods in general are just simply concepts of opinion regardless if the object of the opinion exists or not. It can only be a GOD if it's worshiped as such, and is only a GOD to those who would worship it as such. Otherwise it's simply not applicable as a concept to those who don't.. And when Theists say there GOD is made of nothing, it's quite evident no scientific proof can be given for it's existence. But for those of us who actually understand the definition of the term "nothing", a nothing GOD simply doesn't exist by definition. It only exists as an Idea, concept, or belief. And ideas, concepts, or beliefs are not the objects of those ideas, concepts, or beliefs. Theists don't seem capable of comprehending the difference between the idea of GOD and what is supposed to be the object of the idea. And they probably do so by intention because its the idea they grasp on to. And in order for it to survive, it must be kept alive by keeping people believing in it. Thus duplication of the idea through indoctrination becomes a critical part of the ideology's future. Hence, what is a GOD with nobody to worship it as such?
However, the absolute proof of no GOD's exist is very simple. I wouldn't view or worship anything as a GOD. Thus the GOD concept is entirely irrelevant, and such things simply don't exist.
Implicit in the statement that a being is a perceiver that cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality is that there might not be one. In this it is impossible for a being to acknowledge (in the absolute sense) the existence anything more than its perceptions. This argument was originated by Descartes and has stood the test of time for 400 years. Moreover, Hawking acknowledges the validity of it on p#45 of his new book The Grand Design.
Now, the Biblical god demands that beings worship him. Therefore, it expects them to acknowledge his existence absolutely. Since it is impossible for them to do this the Biblical god expects them to do the impossible. As such it cannot be good and, in this, is inconsistent with its own definition. Accordingly, a Biblical type god cannot exist.
I'm not clear about what "acknowledge (in the absolute sense)" entails. What Descartes maintained was, to the best of my understanding, that one cannot have knowledge of the existence of god (at least until he went further and posited an easily refutable argument to the contrary). Of course, the definition of 'knowledge' is not something on which there is any consensus amongst epistemologists. Moreover, Descartes' criterion (an inability to be doubted) was set much higher than that of any contemporary theory of knowledge with mainstream adherents.
I don't have 'The Grand Design', perhaps if you told me more about it I could better understand what you mean by 'acknowledge' in this context.
Perhaps there is a meaning of 'acknowledge' which is used specifically with reference to theological questions of which I am ignorant. As I understand it, the word 'acknowledge' is not one which refers to belief or some epistemic state of affairs, but is rather a matter of behavior such as giving a sign of recognition.
I am not trying trying to be difficult. It seems to me that these are significant distinctions because one could certainly express belief in something when there is not certainty so strong as to exclude all doubt. If worshiping only requires acting the way that one would reasonably expect one to act IF they had knowledge of god's existence, and especially if 'knowledge' is used in accord with modern theories of knowledge, then worship would be quite possible.
I am not going to spend a lot of time on this because the meaning is actually very simple and is explained in detail in the definition of a being that I presented in the disproof.
To acknowledge that something exists as the word is used in the disproof means to self-honestly know beyond any doubt whatsoever that it exists. Since we experience our perceptions we can self-honestly know beyond any doubt that they exist. However, we must jump to a conclusion to hold that they validly reflect any external reality that might exist.
Perhaps you should get Hawking's last book, The Grand Design, and read p#45 of it.
Basically, I look at statistical data.
With that said, everything falls within statistical norms...
IF there was a god, and that god interfered in any way with this world, it would show up as a glowing statistical anomaly... basically what science would reluctantly agree is a "miracle".
But there are none.
No statistical anomalies pertaining to heavenly bodies.
No hand of god.
So that renders all prayer pointless.
And it renders any belief of gods intervention pointless, at least in the present tense.
So either god doesn't give a crap about what happens to his followers enough to intervene...
... or he doesn't intervene, because he doesn't exist.
The bible teaches you that you get what you pray for.
This is therefore a complete fallacy.
You get what you strive to get.
You accomplish what you push to accomplish.
No god will help you.
No god has helped anyone, for as long as we've been paying attention.
Any claims to the contrary are bull****, otherwise those events would have been detected as an anomaly, and scientists would be clamoring to research it further.
If the Christians, Muslims, or any denomination were the "followers of the truth" or the "chosen ones", they would show up with an anomalous statistical trend that shouldn't exist.
But they don't.
They have the same death rates.
The same rates of agonizing deaths.
The same poverty rates amongst the uneducated.
The same everything.
... clearly, they aren't chosen, favored, or paid attention to at all.
I don't argue for the non-existence of God. I don't argue for the non-existence of the invisible pink unicorn, which is incredibly pink, yet invisible at the same time. I don't go down the street, and think to myself "that woman is very non-pregnant". How far do I need to go with this, I'm having fun with it!
People who believe in God either need to prove God's existence, or admit that they believe in something that has absolutely no reason for being true.
The best I can do is point out the errors in the bible, which is the infallible word of God, and let them decide what else might not be true in their perfect book.
It is possible to prove the negative of the existence of a Biblical god as follows:
1.) A Biblical god is good - by definition of a Biblical god.
2. A Biblical god wants to be worshiped - by definition of a Biblical god.
3.) Good beings do not want to be worshiped - by definition of good.
4.) Therefore, a Biblical god does not want to be worshiped - from 1.) and 3.) above.
5.) Consequently, a Biblical god both does and does not want to be worshiped - from 2.) and 4.) above.
6.) Resultantly, the concept of a Biblical god is self-contradictory and, as such, a Biblical god cannot exist in reality.