Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[Left Coast]

I disagree.

I don't say that I or the universe must exist.
Only that we do.
And this disproves this claim you proffered....
"It means it's possible it couldn't exist."

Our disagreement might be
about mere use of language.

Yes, it might be the way I phrased it. No one thinks it's impossible for the universe to exist - that's obviously wrong. A necessary thing (as opposed to a contingent thing) is something that must exist. Things that are contingent don't have to exist...it's possible for them not to.

 

[Zwing]

I go with: infinite, eternal, solitary before creation, and tri-omni.

I assume because “eternal” (temporally infinite) is the next word, that by “infinite”, you mean spatially?

 

[Nakosis]

View attachment 78063

It seems like very few people understand let alone take the "mind body problem" seriously. If you could aim cameras on your head while you open up your skull to do brain surgery on yourself, would you then see yourself on the screen attached to the camera? Or would "you" merely be looking at the physical machinery serving the meontological you?

When the nerves send a signal to the brain to register pain, someone, or thing, must "experience" the pain. The central nervous system can send signals and register electrical phenomena but they can't do the heavy lifting of "experiencing" the pain or "seeing" (in a tactile, sensory sense) what the brain paints with the electromagnetic wavelengths of light transferred by the nervous system into electrical signals:

The nerve fibers that enter the brain from the eyes, ears, and skin look the same. Not only do they look identical, they transmit information using identical-looking [electrical] spikes. If you look at the inputs to the brain, you can't discern what they represent. Yet, vision feels like one thing and hearing feels like something different, and neither feels like spikes. When you look at a pastoral scene you don't sense the tat-tat-tat of electrical spikes entering your brain; you see hills and color and shadows.​

​

"Qualia" is the name for how sensory inputs are perceived, how they feel. Qualia are puzzling. Given that all sensations are created by identical spikes, why does seeing feel different than touching? And why do some input spikes result in the sensation of pain and others don't? These may seem like silly questions, but if you imagine that the brain is sitting in the skull and its inputs are just spikes, then you can get a sense of the mystery. Where do our perceived sensations come from? The origin of qualia is considered one of the mysteries of consciousness.​

​

Jeff Hawkins, A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence, p. 138-139.​

John

Ok, so how does this non-corporeal entity you believe is the self perceive/experience pain.
You claim it is not possible for the brain to experience pain but then how is it possible for this non-corporeal self to have the physical experience of pain?

Qualia is the name people give to something which they can't understand how the physical process works so decide it must work through magic.

 

[dybmh]

I assume because “eternal” (temporally infinite) is the next word, that by “infinite”, you mean spatially?

Yes, eternal regarding time. Infinite covers ever-expansive in every conceiveable way and more. Not just spatial, but conceptually. Anything I can imagine, and more. Everything that I can observe, and more. Always "this", whatever "this" is, and more...

 

[shunyadragon]

I’m not suggesting an alternative model. I’m saying that a purely physical explanation of the mind is by definition incomplete.

This is a weak statement concerning an illogical 'arguing from ignorance' to justify unknown. Yes, it would have to be an alternate? explanation

You cannot reduce that which is mental entirely to the physical, without losing something vital - the experience of being aware, of looking out from within, at a world we perceive in our minds.

This further demands an alternative explanation, because you are making an assertion as to what science cannot explain. 'what cannot be reduced.'

The reverse is also true btw. While we cannot even conceive of the existence of the brain and it’s functions independently of the mind (because it is in the mind, and only in the mind, that conceptions are manifested), to reduce the physical to the mental, as idealists do, is to completely abandon external, mind-independent reality. Thus we slip into the intolerable despair of solipsism.

So we arrive at the point where mind and body, consciousness and objective physical reality, are interdependent. But these two cannot ever be entirely reconciled, nor can the thinking person ever be at ease in the material world, without developing a conscious awareness of the spirit.

This even moe confusing as to what science is presently capable pf concerning the relationship between the brain and the mind.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, eternal regarding time. Infinite covers ever-expansive in every conceiveable way and more. Not just spatial, but conceptually. Anything I can imagine, and more. Everything that I can observe, and more. Always "this", whatever "this" is, and more...

I prefer the explanation offered by Stephan Hawking as describing our physical existence in terms of a 'no boundary' existence taking into consideration the nature of Quantum Mechanics where concepts like infinite and eternal just do not work. The concept of spaciality cannot explain Quantum Mechanics beyon the macro scale 3 o 4D universe..

 

[Heyo]

View attachment 78063

It seems like very few people understand let alone take the "mind body problem" seriously. If you could aim cameras on your head while you open up your skull to do brain surgery on yourself, would you then see yourself on the screen attached to the camera? Or would "you" merely be looking at the physical machinery serving the meontological you?

When the nerves send a signal to the brain to register pain, someone, or thing, must "experience" the pain. The central nervous system can send signals and register electrical phenomena but they can't do the heavy lifting of "experiencing" the pain or "seeing" (in a tactile, sensory sense) what the brain paints with the electromagnetic wavelengths of light transferred by the nervous system into electrical signals:

The nerve fibers that enter the brain from the eyes, ears, and skin look the same. Not only do they look identical, they transmit information using identical-looking [electrical] spikes. If you look at the inputs to the brain, you can't discern what they represent. Yet, vision feels like one thing and hearing feels like something different, and neither feels like spikes. When you look at a pastoral scene you don't sense the tat-tat-tat of electrical spikes entering your brain; you see hills and color and shadows.​

​

"Qualia" is the name for how sensory inputs are perceived, how they feel. Qualia are puzzling. Given that all sensations are created by identical spikes, why does seeing feel different than touching? And why do some input spikes result in the sensation of pain and others don't? These may seem like silly questions, but if you imagine that the brain is sitting in the skull and its inputs are just spikes, then you can get a sense of the mystery. Where do our perceived sensations come from? The origin of qualia is considered one of the mysteries of consciousness.​

​

Jeff Hawkins, A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence, p. 138-139.​

John

For me, I consider the problem of Qualia solved.

There are two main concept one has to understand to follow my reasoning.
The first is "emergence". Systems of elementary things like neurons have an inherent potential which only manifests at a certain level of complexity. Consciousness (by whatever definition) is an emergent property of a complex brain.
The second is grammar. The English language (and all others I know of) allows us to substantivise verbs. This leads to some errors in thinking. E.g. "love" is not a thing but the language allows us to it as such. The same goes for "mind". The mind is not a subject, it's a verb. Mind is what the (complex) brain does.
I don't know whether this favors the monist or the dualist view more. I see it as monist as there is only one "thing" and one function. But a dualist may still insist that brain and mind are different entities. What he can't do is project an external source into it as the emergent property is inherent.

 

[Nakosis]

I've also heard them argue that omnipotent gods are above logic.
But all this hypothetical wrangling aside, the real problem with
gods is the lack of any convincing evidence & explanatory power.
In short, gods are unnecessary.

I suppose that would be my main argument against God, the lack of necessity.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I suppose that would be my main argument against God, the lack of necessity.

And the beauty of this is, that when you do need Him, you need only seek and He will be there.

 

[Heyo]

I m saying that omnipotence requires the capability to limit its omnipotence temporarily. Otherwise, that is a potency which is lacking. It's like the silly video I posted from the 90s movie "Revenge of the Nerds 2". Infinite includes big and small. Omnipotent includes all capabilites, including limiting itself, or even destroying itself.

Your position is so easily defeated. Just to clarify the paradox, I'll reword it slightly:
"Can an entity create a stone that it can never lift it?"
Where's your temporal impotence now?

 

[Nakosis]

And the beauty of this is, that when you do need Him, you need only seek and He will be there.

Ok, until then I guess I'm doing good.

 

[Nimos]

My vote? God doesn't listen. I think that's the single best argument against God.

• No evidence? It's not really an argument against.
• Harsh / evil actions in the bible? The NT and Christian theology explains most of that stuff.
• The bible is unrealistic / fake? It doesn't bother me.
• Suffering / Starvation / Disease / Pests / Pestilence? It's a really good argument, my 2nd choice.
• No intervention against tyrants and the worst of the worst criminals. This is my 3rd choice.

Thank you in advance for your response.

Personally, I chose "no evidence" since that covers the wider scope of the claim.

Also, all the other options are more subjective in nature and not decisive arguments against God's existence and can somewhat easily be refuted.

Harsh / Evil - If God is the creator of everything, including what is good and evil, while at the same time claimed to be all good, then everything God does must per definition be good, and therefore anything God does in the bible that we as humans believe to be evil, must be false. The blame is on human's lack of ability to understand God and therefore won't work as an argument against the existence of God. The furthest we can go with this is to admit that God is not especially likeable.

The bible is unrealistic / fake - If the bible is considered fake, then there is no foundation for God and therefore nothing to be discussed in the first place. God clearly doesn't exist and therefore we are dealing with a conclusion rather than an argument. Which kind of makes this option invalid.

God doesn't listen - This again is not really an argument against God, first of all, God might very well be listening, but simply choose not to intervene every time. He might also only intervene with certain people or certain prayers. This will quickly end up being very subjective and impossible to even remotely demonstrate.

Suffering / Starvation / Disease / Pests / Pestilence - This follows along the line of Harsh / Evil. God must have good intentions of why he would allow this to occur, despite we as humans might not understand why, meaning that the only valid answer, is that our understanding of good and evil is wrong. Obviously one could claim that God is not all good as the bible claim, but in that case, we are entering the territory of whether the bible is to be trusted or not, which could quickly make it invalid and therefore using it as part of an argument is pointless.

No intervention against tyrants and the worst of the worst criminals - Similar to some of the others, God might simply not see this as being wrong and that it plays a part in the overall scheme of things that is ultimately good.

Therefore I find "no evidence" to be the best answer. However all of the above could be valid, if clear definitions were given of what would render God invalid, for instance, if the suffering of a child is simply not considered possible with a good God as we understand it, then any child that suffers would be a good argument against an all-good God and we ought to be able to reach the conclusion that at least such God does not exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose that would be my main argument against God, the lack of necessity.

That particular god (ie, God) has many
specific problems over & above gods
in general. Not just unnecessary, but
but also much evil attributed to him.

 

[wellwisher]

If you had to choose one, and only one, argument against the God of Abraham as described in the Bible ( both Hebrew and Christian ), what would it be?

Please vote in the poll. I tried to cover all the major objections, and I'm interested to know if I missed anything.

My vote? God doesn't listen. I think that's the single best argument against God.

• No evidence? It's not really an argument against.
• Harsh / evil actions in the bible? The NT and Christian theology explains most of that stuff.
• The bible is unrealistic / fake? It doesn't bother me.
• Suffering / Starvation / Disease / Pests / Pestilence? It's a really good argument, my 2nd choice.
• No intervention against tyrants and the worst of the worst criminals. This is my 3rd choice.

Thank you in advance for your response.

...God never listens ... to what I say... and you don't get a refund ... if you over-pray...

Spoiler: lyrics

Swinging on the lifeline
Fraying bits of twine
Entangled in the remnants of the
Knot I left behind
And asking you to help me make it
Finally unwind

But God never listens to what I say
God never listens to what I say
And you don't get a refund
If you overpray

And when the line is breaking
And when I'm near the end
When all the time spent leading
I've been following instead
When all my thoughts and memories are
Left hanging by a thread

God never listens...

Stranded on this slender string
The minutes seem to last a lifetime
Dangling here between the light above
And blue below that drags me down

But God never listens to what I say
God never listens to what I say
And you don't get a refund
If you overpray

The best argument for no God is that this would make it easier for the ego to become self delusional and unnatural. God offers a checks and balance, for the ego, that makes you think before following fads. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

If you compare religious freedom countries like the US, to Atheist centric countries like the old Soviet Union, which went on to proposer and which collapsed and then reintegrated religion to become free?

It is much easier to deceive the godless, which is why the political Left, as a group, lacks sense. Their leader know this, which is why they trick their base into making it easier to become lock step pawns.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That particular god (ie, God) has many
specific problems over & above gods
in general. Not just unnecessary, but
but also much evil attributed to him.

Well, all words in themselves are signs, for which they also have a meaning and a referent.
The problem is that for words that cover everything in some sense, they are weird because they become self-referential for everything.
Here is a simple version of it. If everything is defined as being one in toto, what happens when somebody answers 2?
The problem is effect the same for God as everything. Or that everything is physical. And the list goes on for all cases of everything is X, for which I as skeptic check if I can do non-X.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, all words in themselves are signs, for which they also have a meaning and a referent.
The problem is that for words that cover everything in some sense, they are weird because they become self-referential for everything.
Here is a simple version of it. If everything is defined as being one in toto, what happens when somebody answers 2?
The problem is effect the same for God as everything. Or that everything is physical. And the list goes on for all cases of everything is X, for which I as skeptic check if I can do non-X.

You're arguing that words have meaning?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The best argument for no God is that this would make it easier for the ego to become self delusional and unnatural. God offers a checks and balance, for the ego, that makes you think before following fads. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

If you compare religious freedom countries like the US, to Atheist centric countries like the old Soviet Union, which went on to proposer and which collapsed and then reintegrated religion to become free?

It is much easier to deceive the godless, which is why the political Left, as a group, lacks sense. Their leader know this, which is why they trick their base into making it easier to become lock step pawns.

Yeah, I have a different God and a different culture than you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're arguing that words have meaning?

No, that they are more than just meaning, Words are 3 factors and no just one.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The best argument for no God is that this would make it easier for the ego to become self delusional and unnatural. God offers a checks and balance, for the ego, that makes you think before following fads. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

If you compare religious freedom countries like the US, to Atheist centric countries like the old Soviet Union, which went on to proposer and which collapsed and then reintegrated religion to become free?

It is much easier to deceive the godless, which is why the political Left, as a group, lacks sense. Their leader know this, which is why they trick their base into making it easier to become lock step pawns.

Sorry for the laughter frubal but you do talk a load of ****. Whatever is the reason as to why humans are what they are just might conceivably be because they evolved from a long history of being rather more animal like than present day humans, so just deal with that rather than inventing stuff to explain how you perceive the world based on some reading of old textual nonsense.

 

[Ostronomos]

Well, all words in themselves are signs, for which they also have a meaning and a referent.
The problem is that for words that cover everything in some sense, they are weird because they become self-referential for everything.
Here is a simple version of it. If everything is defined as being one in toto, what happens when somebody answers 2?
The problem is effect the same for God as everything. Or that everything is physical. And the list goes on for all cases of everything is X, for which I as skeptic check if I can do non-X.

The strongest argument for God is a supertautology laid out by Christopher Langan and I back in 2018: Reality contains all and only that which exists.

This supertautology proves that materialism is ultimately false. Owing to the fact that a necessary definition of a simulation is that it has boundaries separating it from an external reality, in this case ultimate reality.