Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[Ouroboros]

Which God?

I'd be interested in seeing the best argument against the pantheist God. I'm just curious how you would argue against it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Atheists to give their proofs and evidences to convince the Theists
Regards

Which God? I believe God exists but the God I am thinking of may be completely different than the one you are. I have what they call a pantheistic view of God. Everything is God; we are a part of "Him" and He is a part of us. It's a fancy language for describing natural life on earth and the process of it by using cause (example the creation of) and effect (the creation itself). The sun gives us heat and life; she is God. The moon orients us so we wont float away,she is God. They exist because you can see them even if the moon is on the other side of the earth, we know it exists because of the rotation of the earth and so forth.

If you're talking about external God(s), I don't believe they exist. I believe it is man's nature to find ways to help them define their purpose in life outside their everyday routine. Many people look for someone they can trust. Connecting with literature, scripture, Eucharist, etc (something tangible) that helps a person personalize and make physical their spiritual and psychological attachment to the need for trust and love.

For example, I remember going to therapy years ago, and my therapist said "the government will not feel a need to intervene unless you are in threat to yourself, to others, or you cannot properly take care of yourself." He adds "many people who have severe hallucinations go through their daily live, to work, school and so forth and lead healthy lives. They acknowledge what they have are hallucinations and as long as they don't harm others, themselves, and can take care of themselves, they feel everything is fine just like others.

I believe that is how some religions are in regards to God existing. It's a healthy way to believe in someone and let your mind (knowingly or not) create an image of a God (similar creating a character in a book we fall in love with when we write) so they can survive and lead everyday life.

To prove an external God does not exist, someone would have to show me how what they believe is a fact. It should exist independent of their subjective experiences. As long as it is a belief based on personal experiences that half the world cannot prove that that experience can be experienced by All, God still remains a psychological concept--and, to me, it's hard to prove a hallucination just the results of it good or bad.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Say the spaghetti monster is a character in a book. It exists in the mind of the author and on paper. It does not exist in reality, outside of what is written and what is in the authors head. So, if we're talking about Gods of mythology, Holy Scriptures, and Sutras, they only exist like characters in a book and in the minds of believers. Can you say they exist independent of these things? If so, how?

In all fairness, all gods exists, as a concept simply because they are claimed to exist.
For comparison, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because we claim it exists. Any arguments that theists can make for their god (namely that he exists beyond the realm of quantifiable data) I can make for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I challenge anyone on this board to prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
Similarly, theists challenge atheists to prove that their god of choice doesn't exist.

It's impossible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Theists will never be convinced because they have a strong emotional need to believe.

That wraps up my reply in a sentence.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Say the spaghetti monster is a character in a book. It exists in the mind of the author and on paper. It does not exist in reality, outside of what is written and what is in the authors head. So, if we're talking about Gods of mythology, Holy Scriptures, and Sutras, they only exist like characters in a book and in the minds of believers. Can you say they exist independent of these things? If so, how?

No. No one can tenably make the argument that they exist anywhere other than through their preferred media... And that was the whole point.

They exist as characters in a book, or as characters in a story, or as characters in mythology- because that's exactly what they are. They are literary creations for the purpose of giving meaning or richness or depth to character and to story-telling. They aren't anymore "real" in the physical realm than Superman.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'd be interested in seeing the best argument against the pantheist God. I'm just curious how you would argue against it.

I'll take that one since it's often avoided by my people...

The pantheistic god is a notion founded on presupposition just like all the other gods. It's no more a worthy argument for deity than anything else. It's entirely based on interpretation through theological preconceptions.

Evidence of this is quite simple. All we have to do is change the word "god" to "soup".
Instead of saying "Everything is God and God is everything" We simply say "Everything is Soup and Soup is everything."

All evidences in the natural world point to Soup because Soup is the natural world. Water flows because Soup flows. Clouds have their properties because Soup has similar properties when it's hot enough. Solids exist, similarly because Soup can become a solid. All iterations of existence that we see in the natural world are that way because of Soup...

The argument for the pantheistic god is little more than the attribution of supernaturalism to the natural world. Everything being God is just as legitimate as everything being Soup. Like the argument for all gods, it's nothing but theological arguments of interpretation based on a presupposition.

 

[Willamena]

The Atheists to give their proofs and evidences to convince the Theists

Regards

Here I am.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd be interested in seeing the best argument against the pantheist God. I'm just curious how you would argue against it.

What are the criteria for godhood, and how does the universe fulfill them?

 

[HonestJoe]

Why are they more important? Only in your paradigm.

I think (and hope) you misunderstand me. My point is that whether an individual believes in a god or not alone doesn't impact anyone else. If they believe in pre-emptive nuclear strikes, death camps for homosexuals or banning the teaching of evolution, I'm much more interested.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That makes sense. How can you say "In all fairness, all gods exists, as a concept simply because they are claimed to exist." (#23) if the gods do not exist in reality just in the media used to present them?

Also, only "strong-atheists" believe that God does not exist. Most atheists, (weak-atheists, agnostics) merely lack a belief in the existence of God.

I have a question on this. If an weak-atheist or agnostic just merely lack belief in the existence of God, they would have to believe God exists in the first place. They can't be any type of atheist if they believe God exists (similar to my not believing

No. No one can tenably make the argument that they exist anywhere other than through their preferred media... And that was the whole point.

They exist as characters in a book, or as characters in a story, or as characters in mythology- because that's exactly what they are. They are literary creations for the purpose of giving meaning or richness or depth to character and to story-telling. They aren't anymore "real" in the physical realm than Superman.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I have a question on this. If an weak-atheist or agnostic just merely lack belief in the existence of God, they would have to believe God exists in the first place. They can't be any type of atheist if they believe God exists (similar to my not believing

The only reason that the term atheism is even used is because theists claim that there is a god.
If there was no claim, then there would be no "atheists". It's simply a title which exists because of the claim. No one has to explain that they are Acyclopists, or Aunicornists, because most people don't make the ridiculous claim that either of those things are real. If people didn't make the claim that there was a god, then there wouldn't have to be a label for the rational people who reject that unsubstantiated claim.

We don't believe that there is a non-existent god in which to disbelieve. We simply acknowledge that some people believe is such things and we reject those belief in those things because they are unsubstantiated.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'll take that one since it's often avoided by my people...

The pantheistic god is a notion founded on presupposition just like all the other gods. It's no more a worthy argument for deity than anything else. It's entirely based on interpretation through theological preconceptions.

Evidence of this is quite simple. All we have to do is change the word "god" to "soup".
Instead of saying "Everything is God and God is everything" We simply say "Everything is Soup and Soup is everything."

All evidences in the natural world point to Soup because Soup is the natural world. Water flows because Soup flows. Clouds have their properties because Soup has similar properties when it's hot enough. Solids exist, similarly because Soup can become a solid. All iterations of existence that we see in the natural world are that way because of Soup...

The argument for the pantheistic god is little more than the attribution of supernaturalism to the natural world. Everything being God is just as legitimate as everything being Soup. Like the argument for all gods, it's nothing but theological arguments of interpretation based on a presupposition.

I don't see this as an argument about the pantheistic God, but rather an argument against the use of the word God itself. You're rejecting the use of the term. You're rejecting the definition.

If the question is "which God to argue against" then it should be that the response to "which God" is rejected before even getting to the argument against the concept.

It's a subjective stance of a person to choose what to call God. The question "which" suggests, "please tell me what you consider God" or "how do you define God?" And if you get that answer, then the answer isn't "well, I don't like how you define God."

Also, the question in this thread isn't "the argument for pantheistic god" but the argument against God, and the follow up question was, "which one." Now. how do you disprove the pantheistic God?

 

[Ouroboros]

What are the criteria for godhood, and how does the universe fulfill them?

The criteria that I consider is eternal, infinite, contains all things that ever could be known, give lives, is the source of our existence, will exist after we're gone, and it has all the power that ever exists. Most of the attributes of the judeo-christian God, except the sentient and external. But also, it is what produced consciousness and mind (or 'created" in a non-anthropomorphic sense).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We don't believe that there is a non-existent god in which to disbelieve. We simply acknowledge that some people believe is such things and we reject those belief in those things because they are unsubstantiated.

Thats an agnostic view?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don't see this as an argument about the pantheistic God, but rather an argument against the use of the word God itself. You're rejecting the use of the term. You're rejecting the definition.

If the question is "which God to argue against" then it should be that the response to "which God" is rejected before even getting to the argument against the concept.

It's a subjective stance of a person to choose what to call God. The question "which" suggests, "please tell me what you consider God" or "how do you define God?" And if you get that answer, then the answer isn't "well, I don't like how you define God."

Also, the question in this thread isn't "the argument for pantheistic god" but the argument against God, and the follow up question was, "which one." Now. how do you disprove the pantheistic God?

That's why I tried to explain that the Pantheistic god is little more than a literary construct attributing supernaturalism to the natural. It's nothing BUT a word game.

People can venerate anything at all. They can really deeply appreciate the beauty of a sunrise and call it "god", but it's nothing more than their terminology which makes it so.
And, as I've said in other posts, there is nothing substantiated in these types of arguments which can be disproved, in the same way that you cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Thats an agnostic view?

I call it atheism.

Do you believe in Baal? If not, you're an atheist towards Baal.
Do you believe in Flying Purple Monkey from Venus? If not, you're atheist towards FPMfromV.
You don't need evidence for these things to assure your position that they aren't real. You don't even have to question them because they're lunacy, right?
That's how the atheist sees most/all of these claims of deity and supernatural hoopla.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's why I tried to explain that the Pantheistic god is little more than a literary construct attributing supernaturalism to the natural. It's nothing BUT a word game.

That's not an argument against it. Pantheism has existed for 2,500 years or more. Of course the literal word "God" hasn't been used for more than a few hundred years, but the concept is the same. To say that it's a word game only to you is not an argument against the existence of that God, neither is it an argument against answering the question "which god".

Or perhaps the question "which God" always should be answered with "the God that doesn't exist." That's simpler, since any definition of God that would exist, is rejected as a "word game."

People can venerate anything at all. They can really deeply appreciate the beauty of a sunrise and call it "god", but it's nothing more than their terminology which makes it so.

Tell that to Baruch Spinoza and to the Stoics.

And, as I've said in other posts, there is nothing substantiated in these types of arguments which can be disproved, in the same way that you cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The problem is that right now the definition of "God" is owned by the atheists. Theists can't change the definition. Pantheists can't use it the way it was used 300 years ago, only because today, the atheists say "no, you can't!" It is not a new word game invented by some gooks in our new world. This is a very old concept. The Universe as God is older than Christianity. Of course the exact word "God" wasn't used since it's only a couple of hundred years old, but the concept has been the same.

The only argument against pantheistic God is: "I don't like the definition. The word "God" should only be applied to the non-existence Judeo-Christian God." Which to me, isn't an argument. It's an opinion only.

 

[Ouroboros]

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.[2] Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphicgod.[3] Some Asian religions are considered to be pantheistically inclined.

Pantheism was popularised in the West as both a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza,[4].7 whose book Ethics was an answer to Descartes' famous dualist theory that the body and spirit are separate.[5] Spinoza held the monist view that the two are the same, and monism is a fundamental part of his philosophy. He was described as a "God-intoxicated man," and used the word God to describe the unity of all substance.[5]Although the term pantheism was not coined until after his death, Spinoza is regarded as its most celebrated advocate.[6]

Wikipedia: Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, argue against its existence (according to the question of the OP), instead of arguing against the use of the word.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's not an argument against it. Pantheism has existed for 2,500 years or more. Of course the literal word "God" hasn't been used for more than a few hundred years, but the concept is the same. To say that it's a word game only to you is not an argument against the existence of that God, neither is it an argument against answering the question "which god".

Well it's certainly not an argument for it...
It doesn't matter which title you use, or which language you use it in. The symbolism of the meaning for the word for God is still nothing more than an attributed title to something which is attempting to be theologically elevated for something more than what it is physically is.

I'm not saying that the word and the concept don't exist. I'm arguing that there is nothing outside of the claim to substantiate the claim.
If the Pantheist says the Universe is God, I cannot deny that the Universe exists. But I can deny the deity of the Universe, right?
So, again, you pick the word. The pantheist calls everything "God." Obviously everything exists - but does that mean that there is anything supernatural about it? Anything at all?

"This penny is God. Show me how it's not"

The penny obviously exists, but it's an impossibility to prove that it's not god because there is no physical evidence which can discredit your theological assertion that the penny is indeed god.

Or perhaps the question "which God" always should be answered with "the God that doesn't exist." That's simpler, since any definition of God that would exist, is rejected as a "word game."

If you said, Baal, for example, I'd ask your help to refresh me on the supposed attributes and qualities attributed to Baal and then address each of those.
If, like some pagans, you said "the Sun", I'd explain how there is very much known about the sun and no part of that knowledge outside of your theology claiming otherwise shows any signs of deitic resonance.

Obviouly the historical worship and concept of Baal exists. And obviously the Sun exists.... But I can directly address those claims of supernatural divinity because I have something to address.

...So the question of which god is very pertinent to this conversation for that very same reason.

If you say "everything is god" what can I do but accept that everything exists and then address each specific point of veneration that you have within that broad concept of everything?

Tell that to Baruch Spinoza and to the Stoics.

I'd relish the chance to have had that conversation.

The problem is that right now the definition of "God" is owned by the atheists. Theists can't change the definition. Pantheists can't use it the way it was used 300 years ago, only because today, the atheists say "no, you can't!" It is not a new word game invented by some gooks in our new world. This is a very old concept. The Universe as God is older than Christianity. Of course the exact word "God" wasn't used since it's only a couple of hundred years old, but the concept has been the same.

Give me reason to believe that it's anything more than semantics and we can talk. I'm not rejecting you that ability. I'm guessing by nature of this exchange that you're a pantheist. I need to know what that means to you, and for you, before I can pick apart the pieces of it. If the Universe is God, what is god? Is your view of the Universe is God simply a summation of all of it's parts, or is there something more to it? If it's just a summation, then why even bother with calling it god? If it's more than the sum of it's parts, why?

If I say that the Universe is...And you say that the Universe is god... What's the difference?

 

[leibowde84]

That makes sense. How can you say "In all fairness, all gods exists, as a concept simply because they are claimed to exist." (#23) if the gods do not exist in reality just in the media used to present them?


I have a question on this. If an weak-atheist or agnostic just merely lack belief in the existence of God, they would have to believe God exists in the first place. They can't be any type of atheist if they believe God exists (similar to my not believing

Hmmm ... where to begin. Why do you think that in order to "lack a belief in the existence of God" would one would have to believe that God exists. That is simply not true. I think you were trying to claim that in order to "lack a belief in the existence of God, God must exist in the first place (very different than belief), but this is not true either.

Since we are discussing "belief in existence" and not "existence" itself, there is no issue. Anyone who does not believe that God exists "lacks a belief in the existence of God" by definition. "Lack" in this context in no way signifies some kind of negative aspect or insufficiency. It is simply saying that one is "without a belief in the existence of God". There is no need for God to exist or for the subject to actually believe in the exitence of God. There is not even a requirement for the understanding of what God is, as only an absence of a BELIEF in the exitence of God is required to be classified as an atheist.