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: 1013

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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:

Omniscience

Psalm 147:4-5
“He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. “

Taking the scriptures into account, consider the following statements:

1) If god is Omnipotent, can he make an object so heavy he cannot lift it himself?

2) Free will: If god is Omniscient, than he knows your future. If he knows your future, than it is already set in stone (if your future changed, god would cease to be omniscient). Therefore Free will cannot exist... Which can't be true, since the Bible is the infallible word of god, and says we are created free.

3) If god is all knowing, and all powerful, and the creator of all, than he must know who is doomed to hell before they are born. Knowing who is destined for hell, how can he offer a free pass to heaven by believing in Jesus? Surely he knew what you would decide before you were given the option. Therefore, choosing to believe or not to believe is not your choice, but is predestined before you were born.
I do not believe Science has proven the non-existence nor the existence of "God". I like Stephen Hawking's approach:

Excerpt from http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/stephen_hawking_god_religi...

In October 2001 an article appeared in the London-based Telegraph newspaper wherein Prof. Hawking was represented as being interviewed "about life, the universe and everything".
In this article the Prof. was asked the following:-

You use God as a metaphor for the laws of nature but, from what I remember, you are not religious in any way. Is this still the case?

And Prof. Hawkings reply was:- "If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence."

I have no arguments for the non-existence of God. I do, on the other hand, have arguments for the existence of religion.

As a somewhat scientific person, I am of the opinion that if you study the origins of religion and its purpose then, and compare it to the many iterations over the 100+ millennia, I think there will come to light the common purpose and methods of religion. By understanding the true purpose of religion and its methods of executing its purpose, it becomes possible to defeat religion.

In science, by understanding the purpose and methods of something usually leads to information that can be used to improve the condition or function of that something. In pathology, the understanding of the purpose and methods of a pathogen helps the researches come up with ways to use or destroy the pathogen.

I am in favor of a systematic study of the purpose and methods of religion. Because it is an explosive subject, many scientists are reluctant to do such a study. The study would be labeled as an anti-religion study and many obstacles would prevent a successful conclusion of the study. There are in fact many definitions of what is a successful conclusion. The purely scientific definition is just the gathering and categorizing information that describes religion in the real world, and publishing it so that the scientific colleagues can review the information gathered and validate the study or not.

I end this commentary with this: Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego?

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.

Draygomb's paradox

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.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

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:

* Wiki Entry: The Omniscient Creating Knowledge Problem

Also found here:

* Omniscience: The Conscious Logical Fallacy

My article on Causation is here:

* Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation

 

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!

If I were still christian, my answer would have been that god exists outside of this plane of existence so it is entirely possible that the laws of physics do not apply there. Or that god invented time in this universe from the universe he lives in which would still make the statement that god has always existed true as it relates to this universe. I wasn't of the opinion at the time that god was floating around in space on our plane, but I hesitate to assume that's the opinion of any number of christians now.

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.

  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral

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.

http://wfcmchicago.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/26/6131959-platos-key...

Abstract:

Energy has three properties:

  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral

Ethics, Morals, emotion, love, feeling, hate, anger, happiness all have have three fundamental properties of energy:

  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

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[1]

 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service