Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[ThePainefulTruth]

God allowed the Holocaust. So either God didn't care, or God was powerless to intervene, and in either case, what USE is He? The third option is that God doesn't exist.

And the 4th option is the God has the power to intervene but must/will not in order to maintain our free will.

Given the complete lack of objective evidence for God, and the human tendency to grasp at metaphysical straws because they fear death, the third option seems most likely.

The 4th is just as likely as the third because there's no evidence for or against either, yet the universe stills begs the question of whenceforth it came.

So endeth the lesson.

And you're welcome.

God is only one being.

Yes, but of all the different gods, which, if any, is the real one? The only reasonable propositions are no God, or a laissez faire deist God.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And the 4th option is the God has the power to intervene but must/will not in order to maintain our free will.

1. Why? Why is free-will such a big deal? So God gave us the capacity for nastiness, and then He sends us to Hell when we act nasty and cause suffering? Cruel and perverse.

2. Why did God give humans the capacity for nastiness in the first place? Cruel and perverse. God could easily have given us the choice between nice and very nice, as opposed to the choice between nice and nasty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is only one being.

Let me re-phrase: which religion's (or person's) claim of God are we talking about? What are this God's attributes?

People slap the label "God" on all sorts of different claims, so unless we get specific about which God we're talking about, we'll end up just talking past each other.

 

[Blastcat]

God is only one being.

You might believe that God is only one being, and that's fine.
But there are LOTS of gods people believe in.

Which god do you believe in?

Quetzalcoatl?
Zeus?
Vishnu?
Jehovah?
Allah?

I can't GUESS, Trichakra

 

[paarsurrey]

The topic of the thread is:

"Your best argument that G-d does not exist"

So please inform us the best argument that "G-d does not exist".
If none could give the best positive argument, then one could give the second (best) argument. Please

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The topic of the thread is:

"Your best argument that G-d does not exist"

So please inform us the best argument that "G-d does not exist".
If none could give the best positive argument, then one could give the second (best) argument. Please

Regards

Again: which God?

The arguments against God are different depending which version of God we're talking about.

 

[viole]

The topic of the thread is:

"Your best argument that G-d does not exist"

So please inform us the best argument that "G-d does not exist".

You can anwer that for us. The best argument that God does not exist is the same argument you would use to refute all other gods and extend that to the god you believe in, whatever god it is. Please.

If none could give the best positive argument, then one could give the second (best) argument. Please

If that was the case, there would not be a best second argument. By definition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again: which God?

The arguments against God are different depending which version of God we're talking about.

@paarsurrey - here are some examples. If you tell me if any of these are the God you're talking about:

- the God who has foreknowledge of all events and punishes humanity for free will decisions.

- the God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good.

- the God who is the "first cause".

- the God who caused some specific miraculous event (where you give me the specific miracle)?

- the God who is the father of a being that has also existed eternally.

- the God who is both "outside of time" and a "creator".

- the God described in a literal interpretation of the Qur'an.

- the God described in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

- God the "Intelligent Designer" of Intelligent Design.

I have arguments against all of these Gods as well as others. Is the God you're talking about one of them?

You tell me what sort of God you want an argument against and I'll give you the argument.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

1. Why? Why is free-will such a big deal?

So that (if God exists) both we and God know what we really think without God looking over our shoulder. In fact, if God is omnipotent etc., that would be the only reason for creating the rational, natural universe, to have the Big Bang, Planck gaps in spacetime and the universe expanding beyond light speed in all directions, as firewalls between us and God, IF GOD EXIST. An omnipotent God could do anything besides creating creatures with free will, instantly!

So God gave us the capacity for nastiness, and then He sends us to Hell when we act nasty and cause suffering? Cruel and perverse.

(Is the sarcasm really necessary?) Free will is the ability to make moral choices between good and evil--evil being violating the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense. The rest of your comment is targeted against revealed gods which are always easy to refute, and easy to use as straw men. I'd have thought such tactics were beneath the atheist and nihilist intelligentsia.

2. Why did God give humans the capacity for nastiness in the first place? Cruel and perverse. God could easily have given us the choice between nice and very nice, as opposed to the choice between nice and nasty.

There's no middle ground to honoring the rights of others. You can be as nasty as you want but if you don't violate those rights you're still moral. There's only one immoral act, declaring your ego to be worth more than others' and thus "validating" your violation of their rights. All immorality stems from a moral/legal double standard. (Virtues are another story.)

The best argument that God does not exist is the same argument you would use to refute all other gods and extend that to the god you believe in, whatever god it is. Please.

Not so. There is the deist, laissez-faire God which is the only response to atheism, beause all the "revealed" rest are easy to refute in the court of non-blind faith reason.

If that was the case, there would not be a best second argument. By definition.

Funny you should mention that.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

@paarsurrey - here are some examples. If you tell me if any of these are the God you're talking about:

- the God who has foreknowledge of all events and punishes humanity for free will decisions.

- the God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good.

- the God who is the "first cause".

- the God who caused some specific miraculous event (where you give me the specific miracle)?

- the God who is the father of a being that has also existed eternally.

- the God who is both "outside of time" and a "creator".

- the God described in a literal interpretation of the Qur'an.

- the God described in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

- God the "Intelligent Designer" of Intelligent Design.

I have arguments against all of these Gods as well as others. Is the God you're talking about one of them?

You tell me what sort of God you want an argument against and I'll give you the argument.

- the God who is the "first cause" being equally probable/improbable with there being no God (because there's no evidence either way). The rest are shooting fish in a barrel, but you're never going to get through to more than 1% of their blind-faithers.

 

[jeager106]

Evidently the O.P. feels God exists else why post G-D if not superstitious about G-D?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

- the God who is the "first cause" being equally probable/improbable with there being no God (because there's no evidence either way).

Is the God you describe a necessary being?

 

[Blastcat]

The topic of the thread is:

"Your best argument that G-d does not exist"

So please inform us the best argument that "G-d does not exist".
If none could give the best positive argument, then one could give the second (best) argument. Please

Regards

As an outsider to faith, I would say the best reason that I abandoned a belief in any gods is because I wasn't ever given OBJECTIVE evidence for one. The only evidence I have been ever given are invalid or unsound arguments, or subjective evidences. Both kinds of "evidence" are quite unacceptable to me.

So, I stopped believing.
Now, when a theist wants to convince me that their god belief is true, I ask them to prove that it is.
If they ask me to prove to them that their beliefs are UNTRUE.. I usually allow them to believe whatever it is that they want to believe.

But lately, I've been hearing a lot of atheists say that the number one reason why they cannot believe in a god of any sort is because of the lack of evidence. I agree with them on that.

Unfortunately, there is a problem with attempting to shift the burden of the proof the way this question does. It's OK if you believe in god X, Y or Z or none at all.. it's YOUR business.

I cannot prove that there IS a god of any kind, and I sure can't prove that there ISN'T. But I would say the same about Santa Clause.
So, that's not saying a lot.

 

[Blastcat]

Is the God you describe a necessary being?

I bet it's necessary to him subjectively.
True for HIM.. ( or her ) the way a favorite beverage is the best beverage.
It's like Trump is the best debater.

FOR HIM.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

(Is the sarcasm really necessary?) Free will is the ability to make moral choices between good and evil--evil being violating the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense. The rest of your comment is targeted against revealed gods which are always easy to refute, and easy to use as straw men. I'd have thought such tactics were beneath the atheist and nihilist intelligentsia.
There's no middle ground to honoring the rights of others. You can be as nasty as you want but if you don't violate those rights you're still moral. There's only one immoral act, declaring your ego to be worth more than others' and thus "validating" your violation of their rights. All immorality stems from a moral/legal double standard. (Virtues are another story.)

You don't seem to be responding to the questions I actually asked here.

 

[jeager106]

Objective evidence for God?
How can faith ever be objective?
I can have faith that the Cleveland Browns will win the Super Bowl but that is very unlikely.
Faith: That which can not be proven nor disproved.
So prove God does not exist.
The Bible (Christian) says in "the end times" and after Armageddon, Jesus will reign over
the earth.
That is a matter of faith is it not?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And the 4th option is the God has the power to intervene but must/will not in order to maintain our free will.

Is protecting the innocent from harm a violation of free will? If so, why believe God has ever or will ever offer any sort of protection? How is that different from an impotent God which may as well not be there?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is the God you describe a necessary being?

You just moved the goal posts. If you wanna discuss that, start another thread.

You don't seem to be responding to the questions I actually asked here.

What, God creating the universe for the sole purpose of spawning creatures with free will is no indication of being a big deal. It's not just a big deal, it's the only deal.

Objective evidence for God?
How can faith ever be objective?

You're talking about religious blind faith. Faith is a necessary match for reason. It is our motivation, the source of our emotional drive. Without reason guiding faith the ship runs off course and eventually aground, and without motivation, we're dead in the water.

I can have faith that the Cleveland Browns will win the Super Bowl but that is very unlikely.
Faith: That which can not be proven nor disproved.
So prove God does not exist.
The Bible (Christian) says in "the end times" and after Armageddon, Jesus will reign over
the earth.

All dismissable examples of hearsay.
That is a matter of faith is it not?

Is protecting the innocent from harm a violation of free will?

God not protecting the innocent from harm is the hardest example. but yes. It shows us the incredible value and importance of free will, if God exists. If God doesn't exist, it's a moot point. The only alternatives are us being programmed and thus being God's finger puppets singing in the choir for all eternity, never having a thought of our own, or never being created at all.

If so, why believe God has ever or will ever offer any sort of protection? How is that different from an impotent God which may as well not be there?

The idea of a protective God(s) came from priests and witch doctors manipulating their flocks to do their bidding, not God's--with nobody even knowing if It exists in the first place. For all intents and purposes, in this life, there is no difference between atheism and deism, except for hope.

 

[jeager106]

@Blastcat

It's a pretty good bet that Santa and the Easter bunny don't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You just moved the goal posts.

No, I didn't. I asked for specifics on a God you're describing.

BTW: when I'm open to you saying either "yes" or "no" to my yes/no question, there's no goalpost-moving.