The arguments of God's nonexistence

never heard of the invisible gardener, the stuff from Plato is just stuff from Plato.

I find this pre-eminently silly. I know of no plausible evidence that gods or goddesses exist. Equally, i know of no plausible evidence that gods or goddesses do not exist . . . this is mental self-abuse . . .

Of a far more interesting character to my mind, is to know why god has one "d," but goddess has two . . .

Welcome to the forum, Jason. I hope you enjoy a long stay.

The argument you present, blaming God for the world's ills, shows your lack of understanding of the biblical explanation for human suffering. One clue may be found in the first few chapters of the book of Job, which you apparently know (a little) about. Note that it was Satan who inflicted Job's trials, not God.

Here is link you may find useful, a definition of Straw Man. No one is going to insist you believe the bible. But you should at least know what it is you are disbelieving.

Jason

What is this "God" that doesn't exist?

I seemed to have made some mistakes while in the process of editing the part on Job. But my point would still make sense when corrected it. see?

Another example is the Book of Job (if you have read it) that reveals a sadistic, selfish God who agrees to become part of a wager with the devil. God tries to prove Job's faithfulness by allowing the Devil to inflict Job with leprosy, kills all his children, and turn him into a vagabond, and God rewards him later by giving him more than he ever had. If this is the characteristic behavior of a good God, then there is a contradiction of what the Bible tries to depict Him as the all-good, moral God. God's actions give a bad moral example to humanity, which tells us that we must do "good" not because we have to, but because of what he can give us in return; that we must do the things that please him, not because they're the right things to do, but because we desperately want the salvation of our souls. And why do we have to believe in Him anyway? Why can't we just do the right things without believing in him? Why is it very important to Him? Why is it that if we don't believe in Him, we most likely end up in Hell for all eternity? Other arguments among others that prove God's nonexistence are the Allegory of the Cave, The Invisible Gardener, and Socrate's The Apology.

Did it make a difference?

But why do we need to pay the price because "we're not perfect"? Well, this argument has to be traced back to the story of Adam and Eve, since God did not succeed in granting them perfection. But why God condemned them to a life of misery and denied them paradise? What kind of God would do this to His children? Adam and Eve were given the choice of free will. They were given each other a partner, abundance of food and beauty, but they were also given a limitation or a rule. God asked them to eat from the fruits of every tree but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they should die. They ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and they were banned from Paradise and were punished, even the serpent that seduced them into eating the fruit was punished. For the first time Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness. But don't you think small children do that? Don't you think small children disobey their parents? The whole Adam and Eve story seems like a metaphor, children who disobey their parents and get punished about it. Nevertheless, why did God lie to them about eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, telling them that they would die if they ate from it? Adam and Eve ate from the tree and didn't die, but they were thrown out of Paradise. The story depicts God as a selfish parent who didn't want to see His children grow up; He wanted them to remain children forever, innocent. It seems like they were part of some sort of celestial experimentation, in which God failed to obtain a much desired result. But you might say that we shouldn't take the words of the Bible literally. But how should we interpret the words of the bible if not literally? Wasn't Jesus son to Mary? Didn't Moses free his people? Didn't Satan betray God? Didn't Kane kill Abel? But don't you think that if God had the ability to create good in this world also created evil, since He created every thing in the physical world?

About the example I gave previously about the little girl who died in the fire, if she is an innocent girl and is free of sin (she's is innocent because the Bible says that a child under seven years of age is innocent. It's at seven when he or she begins to know what's good and evil) why God allowed her to die such a brutal death? If the fire was an accident or product of someone's evilness, it was a high price to pay, don't you think? If God lives outside time, differently than we live here in the physical world, then He would be wise enough to make us understand what he truly wants- articulate his purpose which includes us, without any contradictions:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
About the Ten Commandments, how can it be that if a man lusted for a woman (thought about having her) is the same as raping her, which leads to burning in Hell for all eternity? Don't you think that's too extreme? Just by thinking about wanting a woman carnally, the punishment is the same as if he raped her.
Don't you think that logically a man would choose the second one if he had nothing to lose, if he couldn't stop thinking about a woman in such way? If he's going to Hell and burn for all eternity anyways, he might as well take the second choice. But what would stop him from doing so? But just having such sinful thought will guarantee him a spot in Hell? But he can always repent himself and he would be saved. But what if he dies before he repented himself? He would go to Hell as the Bible states it. And what stop a lot of atheists from taking the second choice? (That's a question for another topic).

If you understood the bible, you would realize that the entire human race is in a position similar to Job's. The reason for human suffering is found in the first three chapters of Genesis. The fault is not God's.

BTW, I reviewed your additional arguments. The invisible gardener, for example, is simply an allegorical statement of the law of parsimony. See Setanta's signature: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda."


I think you will find it as difficult to prove the nonexistence of God as it has been to prove his existence. One's belief or disbelief should come after careful examination of facts. It should be subject to modification or change based on new evidence. And, above all, it should not come from one's desire either for moral license or for some reward based on credulity.

Is it possible to believe in or disbelieve in something if you don't know what the thing is?

Re: The arguments of God's nonexistence


Logic and reasoning are constructs that may be useful in people's everyday lives. However, when it comes to describing/explaining God they are utterly useless. God transcends all. A limited human being can know absolutely nothing about what omnipotence actually entails.



Option 4: God delivers her from this valley of tears (Earth) and brings her to a much better place (Heaven).



Sadism is about as far from God as you can get. The reason for our trials here on Earth has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's about being shaped in His likeness. By patiently enduring all our tribulations we become more and more like Him, and the benefits which we reap from it are eternal (unlike the sufferings which are temporary).



On the contrary. "Good" that is merely a result of hope for a reward is in fact no good at all. The reason for doing good is not that, but rather love for God and one's neighbour.



He who loves God is he who does His will, i.e. he who acts from love rather than self-interest etc. Hell is certainly not for these.

You will help yourselves immensely if you explain what you mean when you refer to "God". People have wildy different ideas, you know?

It is for each of us to choose what we believe when we do not know, and especially when it is not possible to prove 'Truth' or 'Falsity'.

I have concluded that God is to adults as Father Christmas is to children (by principle - not givings, though similar).

Each serves a purpose that no-one should shatter.
As a child gains reasoning powers within their capability (and eventually to avoid criticism) he/she retains Father Christmas for their own children or those of others.
Similarly for adults with God.

It is for the individual to seek new knowledge or interpretations depending on their capability and comprehension. This is not to say that we do not all have a right to state our own beliefs.

Since there is no tangible, clear evidence for God's existence, atheists don't accept the accounts of the Bible as convincing proof. There is quite a dilemma concerning the credibility of God's existence using the Bible as the only source to prove that God truly exists. Since philosophers and theologies need concrete confirmation (more than one source) to prove that certain historical statements are true, they have to rely on comparison of evidence between distinctive sources. For example: how do we know that Christopher Columbus made an expedition to the Americas? Better yet, how do we know that Columbus really existed? It's simple; we don't know. However, there is evidence that supports Columbus really existed: Christopher Columbus kept with him log books that were used to record his entire voyage to the new world. The entries from those log books were compared with letters Columbus wrote to Queen Isabella (which were confirmed to be his handwriting), and many other documents found in Spain that state Columbus's accounts are true, and therefore, proving the great possibility of his existence. On the other hand, how do we confirm the existence of Jesus Christ (or any other account of the Bible for that matter)? What are the physical indications that prove Jesus existed? Again, we don't know. The only physical evidence that can prove that Jesus Christ was real is through the Bible.

Since the Bible doesn't have any other documentation that supports its historical accounts, its content fails as a reliable source.


And how do we know that dinosaurs existed? Or better yet, how do we know evolution exists? How do we know that everything is in constant change, that everything that we see here won't stay the same forever? (See the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, which explains how everything is changing). The bones and fossils of ancient animals have been discovered through out the world, within sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks provide us with successive layers of changes in the environment that tell the account of life being originated in water, from simple organisms that resemble fish, to complex organism that walk on land, like dinosaurs. And how religion takes the physical evidence of dinosaurs into account? What do religious people say about the existence of dinosaurs?



And while natural phenomena can easily be explained through science, religion doesn't explain them but associates them to God's work. Science has proven (and still proves) the mysteries of the world through scientific experimentations. To make God more relevant to the Biblical accounts, religious people deem scientific discoveries applicable to the existence of God, which seems more irrelevant than logical. The majority of people don't associate bad weather and diseases to curses, mental disease to possession by devils, earthquakes, storms, and eclipses to angry gods. Atheists believe that the same principle that has discovered those inconsistencies in the majority of the world's ancient religions must continually be implemented today to prove that the existence of God is irrelevant. It must be proven the same way, through science.

Atheists think that religious miracles, just like the majority of events in the Bible, are the product of empirical knowledge. Scientists think that levitation is not possible because it would be a violation of the physical laws of the universe. Since the physical laws of nature are the basic rules about how thins happen, it had led scientist to experiment upon religious events that are regarded as impossible, such as walking on water, levitation, and resurrection.


Religions believe that life here on Earth originated approximately five thousand years ago, but scientists have proven that opposite, that life has been here for millions and millions of years. This brings us to Darwin's theory of evolution. As many of us know Darwin's Theory of Evolution is more logical than the hypothesis stated by many religions that suggest that the intervention of God was what started life on this planet. To illustrate Darwin's theory of evolution, first it most be understood properly.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution suggests that life originated here on Earth thanks to the chemical compounds that were very abundant: Carbon dioxide, water, ammonia, and Methane. These elements fused with other elements and formed new compounds. This process, according to Darwin, took a very long time to happen (millions of years). Since the chemical elements motioned above were very common, very distinct forms of amino acids were formed, and therefore, Hemoglobin, the building block for simple cell organisms came into existence.

But many religious people argue that the process of life on Earth is very unlikely, that it must have been made by a more intelligent, wiser, artistic mind: God. They also believe that the chances for life to be abundant here on Earth must have not taken place all by random events of the cosmos, but the work of God was involved. It is said that the probability for life to thrive on this planet is one in a trillion. If Earth was a little bit closer to the sun, life here could've not taken place. If Earth were a little farther from the sun, life could've never existed. This planet is just in the right place for life to exist. Since probability is pretty much involved in all this, a hypothetical scenario of probability must be taken in consideration:

The probability scenario is this: a person is placed in a room (lets assume that this person has been granted immortality. He can't die for all we know). The room is filled with one hundred billion dollars in pennies (that would amount to a trillion pennies). The name of this person is written on the back of one penny. The penny (with the name of the person written on the back) is thrown with the rest of the pennies (The objective of this person is to find the penny that has his name written on it, using the probability application. Since the chance to find the coin is one in one trillion, that person must take one coin from the pile, one at the time, must take a look at it, and then put back in the bunch.). How long do you think will take that person to pick from the pile of coins the only coin with his name written on it? This process could take a pretty long, long time, perhaps millions of years, perhaps more. But the only thing is that he has all the time in the world to find that coin. The same probability principle of this hypothetical example applies to the random event that created this planet in its actual shape and distance from the sun, the water that happened to form our seas, and the elements necessary for life to thrive.

And what is the probability of me existing here today? Since DNA is what makes me (us) who I am (we are), then the chances of me existing here today is pretty slim. What if my mother didn't marry my father? Do you think I would still exist here to day if DNA is what makes me the person I am, my hair, the color of my eyes and skin? Even if my mom still conceived a child before I was born, that doesn't mean I would still exist. I have a brother and a sister, and I'm neither one of them. The right sperm and egg had to be fertilized form my exact DNA, which made me the person who I am today. I don't think that if my sister didn't marry her husband, my niece could still exist in the body of another person with different DNA. How could it be the other way? How could she be someone else, with different DNA? And how could I be someone else if my mom didn't marry my dad, the right sperm and the right egg didn't fertilize to form my DNA? Even if I died and part of me was taken to clone an exact duplicate of me, that new being wouldn't be me, either.


The argument about the existence of God is a major debate between religious institutions and atheists. But while future new events in this universe continue to be explained through science, the credibility surrounding today's religions will most likely shrivel like ancient Romans' religious principles. Yet, that prediction is far too distant in the future. In order for such predictions to occur, we must first lose the reigns that attach us to the absurdity of historical events that make us believe in mythological accounts filled with contradictions. When we are freed from those beliefs and acquired *a priori knowledge*, we will see the world from different perspectives. Understanding the world in which we live in and teaching our own children the natural laws of the universe, the propagation of ignorance in our society would diminish, or probably will be eradicated. And understanding the entities that created us will assist future generations to understand who we are, where we came from and where we going, and we would not worry about doing the right thing just to please an invisible God for the salvation of our souls, but we will do the right thing because we will have reach another state in our human evolution, the state of total awareness.

Re: The arguments of God's nonexistence


As God is not a logical entity, it is thus beyond the rules of logic, since it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God. In fact, this sort of thinking (one that is set to either prove or disprove God) assumes that belief systems can be reduced to logically constructed systems of thoughts. Interestingly enough those who claim that "scientific" thinking somehow disproves the idea of a God, usually ignore that even the mathematical system cannot be logically constructed or validated thanks to the illuminating work of Godel, himself a mathematician.

Jason you make the same mistake as many of your ilk have before you. You claim that if the Bible is wrong, then there is no God. The Bible isn't the only say on God, ya know.

Can you give me proof, John? I'm here to learn, too. What is the other "say on God"?

I have no tangible proof no. I just have the experiences of myself and others that lead me to believe there is a God. Many people have had religious/spiritual experiences. People of all religions and beliefs. There is no one book that has the patent on God.

When something extraordinary happens to believers of God, they right away attribute it to God's doing, without any logical explanation. Extraordinary things have happened to me, but I don't connect them to God's doing. I don't do the right thing because I want to go to Heave (I don't believe in such thing), but because it is in our nature. The meaning of life is to find our happiness. And I like to treat people the way I'd like to be treated. That makes me happy.

If I grew up believing that Mickey Mouse exists and has powers (because I've been taught since childhood of his existence by people who I trust and love), and the only way to see him is through television, then I would refute any argument against it. And any thing extraordinary that would happen to me, I would attribute it to such cartoon character.

link

You make these claims without substantiation. Folks who have read the bible will be familiar with this: