Arguments Against the Existence of God

Lots of folks like to assert that you cannot prove a negative, but this is a completely and obviously self-defeating position. We can prove that there are no cows in my apartment right now and that I cannot fly upwards at will or that there are no square circles. We might also point out that some of the most basic principles of logic are stated as negatives like the law of non-contradiction - No proposition can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. So, this leads me to a question: which argument for the non-existence of God do you think is the best? Does gratuitous evil mean that God's existence is improbable or the best explanation of experience? Does the apparent incompatibility of divine properties like all-loving vs. immutable, immutable vs. personal or non-physical and personal mean that God cannot exist? Any thoughts on this topic?

Views: 4

Tags: god, logic, philsophy, religion

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on March 21, 2009 at 3:18pm
In spite of Saul/Paul's assertion that the "spirit will lead you into all truth", Christians have been fighting since the very inception of the religion over who has been lead correctly to the one and only god-inspired Truth. Many of the "truths" are quite incompatible. Many of them change over centuries and generations. Many of them distinguish between nations, states, communities, households and individuals.

The logical conclusion is that Saul/Paul was led by the spirit to write nonsense about the implications of being led by the divine spirit or, alternatively, was not led by the divine spirit in this instance, or at all.

No matter which way this contradiction is interpreted something sacred suffers. If Saul/Paul wrote nonsense then there is no reason to accept that his writings are inerrant, or that any of the other writings in the biblical canon are similarly inerrant. If he is correct, then the Holy Spirit has one or more of a number of ungodly characteristics: laziness, incompetence, limited power, don't care attitude, stupidity, ignorance and so on.

The only rational conclusion which accounts for all the known and obvious facts is that there is no supernatural entity at work here at all.
Comment by Mike Haynes on March 21, 2009 at 1:48pm
My favorite argument comes from Epicurius (341-270 BC).

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?"

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

It doesn't necessarily prove the non-existence of god, but it certainly diminishes the importance of whether god exists or not.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service