Simplest, Yet Most Powerful Argument Against the Existence of God

[Baroodi]

How much are the things we don't see but we believe they exist?

 

[Akivah]

Why should we believe that some entity is here...{snip}...when we have no evidence to believe such a thing? If there were a god, wouldn't he be visible, or at least detectable? But, of course he isn't visible or detectable, which is functionally equivalent to non-existence.

The Hebrew bible doesn't describe any physical characteristics for G-d because He doesn't have any. So using G-d's non-physicality as a proof is a non-starter.

{snip}...God is supposed to be an actual, sentient being who exists in an objective sense, and should be detectable in some way, yet last time I checked, there haven't been any god-sightings lately.

Of course God, if he existed, would be capable of hiding himself and making the universe appear as if he did not exist.But why believe in such a convoluted, deceiving entity?

This is a kindness on G-d's part. If G-d was actually visible and provable, then no human would have any freewill. G-d's method of letting us decide for ourselves is far better.

 

[Milton Platt]

I remember watching a video on YouTube a few years ago of a Christian apologist discussing various topics with an atheist. At one point in the video, the apologist asked the atheist "Why don't you believe in God?" He replied casually (as if it were the most obvious reason) something to the effect of "Because I don't see him!" This really struck a chord with me. Why should we believe that some entity is here, hiding in some other mystical dimension, when we have no evidence to believe such a thing? If there were a god, wouldn't he be visible, or at least detectable? But, of course he isn't visible or detectable, which is functionally equivalent to non-existence.

Now, I anticipate many counter-arguments stating things to the effect of "You can't see 'love' yet it exists, etc." The problem with this type of argument is that love is a concept, one could argue, an emotion experienced by humans and animals, while God is supposed to be an actual, sentient being who exists in an objective sense, and should be detectable in some way, yet last time I checked, there haven't been any god-sightings lately.

Of course God, if he existed, would be capable of hiding himself and making the universe appear as if he did not exist.But why believe in such a convoluted, deceiving entity? Believing in such an absurd notion as a god who created the universe, yet hides himself from people in the universe while simultaneously wanting them to believe in him seems about as absurd as believing that you've only been alive for five minutes and all of your memories and knowledge have been entered into you via an invisible hard drive from a magical alien being from the future. Unfalsifiable, but nonsensical. Occam's Razor is a good way of dealing with such absurdities.

That isn't a good argument for not believing in an invisible god. I would never use it. You'll get blown out of the water most every time.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That isn't a good argument for not believing in an invisible god. I would never use it. You'll get blown out of the water most every time.

Maybe from their perspective I'll get blown out of the water. From my perspective I always win.

 

[Milton Platt]

Maybe from their perspective I'll get blown out of the water. From my perspective I always win.

LOL Fair 'nuff

 

[Etritonakin]

So what is the simplest explanation for the origin of the initial overall intelligence?

We, as individual identities, did not develop. We were developed (even if one does not believe it was by decision) and become aware as extremely complex selves we do not understand at all.
We are essentially mass-produced.
Is it logical to think that we are the most capable intelligence in existence -had no input into our own configuration, yet were developed solely by a non-intelligence?

An original, initial, creative intelligence, identity, self-awareness, etc., would necessarily self-develop, become increasingly aware, increasingly capable -and be involved in its own development every step of the way -increasing in self-awareness as it became more of a self of which to be aware, increasing in self-determination.

Some things must precede intellligence, self-awareness, creativity, etc., and some things must be preceded by intelligence, self-awareness, creativity, etc.

 

[blü 2]

Occam's Razor is a good way of dealing with such absurdities.

Yes, it is.

But for me, the simplest argument against the existence of God, is that the concept of God as a real being, a being with objective existence, is incoherent.

(Imaginary gods, no problem ─ they're whatever you'd like them to be, and they're indistinguishable from the present product.)

If God has objective existence then [he] exists in reality, outside of your head. Therefore [he] has real qualities, perhaps resembling those of a tree, or an animal, or a neutrino ─ but real. And therefore God is definable in real terms.

But the history of God is a flight from that concept, the rise and rise of apophatic theology, which prohibits ascribing positive qualities to God and leaves only statements of what God is not.

Not that the other schools of theology do any better. None of them that I'm aware of have a definition of God that would allow us to seek such a being out there in the real world.

(There's an argument that God is real but 'spiritual' and 'immaterial'. That might be given some credence when someone can tell us the objective test that will distinguish the 'spiritual' from the imaginary, and the 'immaterial' from the imaginary and from the non-existent.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you ever read His Word and done what He has said needs to be done in order to come to know Him?

These are criticisms from ignorance.

What's "His Word?"

 

[blü 2]

How much are the things we don't see but we believe they exist?

There are two kinds of such things: those whose existence we might reasonably suspect because we have examinable evidence that points that way. And those whose existence we have no good reason to suspect.

Examples of the first kind are the lumeniferous ether, which when we looked wasn't in fact there; and the Higgs boson, which we ultimately found when we got the right tools. Right now we're looking for the unknown causes of known phenomena, under the labels 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.

Examples of the second kind are positive energy perpetual motion machines, magic wands and supernatural beings.

 

[Prestor John]

What's "His Word?"

The doctrines of the Kingdom contained in the holy scriptures.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The doctrines of the Kingdom contained in the holy scriptures.

Which scriptures are "holy?"

 

[blü 2]

The doctrines of the Kingdom contained in the holy scriptures.

But no one can agree what those doctrines are. There's no agreement on why it was necessary for Jesus to die, for instance, though death was his mission from the start (Mark 2:20). And should we refrain from washing our hands before meals (Mark 7)?

 

[Etritonakin]

So what is the simplest explanation for the origin of the initial overall intelligence?

I meant to say this before.....

"We readily accept that the development of self-awareness, intelligence and creativity are inherent in "nature" -and there is no reason to believe this has not always been the case."

Anyway... There is much indication (though not direct evidence) that the universe and ourselves are so complex and ordered (even DNA-based evolution itself is already extremely complex before producing complex life forms) that intelligence and intent were required, but that still leaves the question of the origin of that intelligence.

Ironically, unless it is possible for a complex self-aware, creative intelligence to simply exist as such, without having developed into such from that "stuff" which has always existed, the most logical explanation for the existence God is "evolution" in its broadest possible sense.
God could well have been the sum of that original dynamic "stuff" which "always" existed -becoming that which now is -and that would actually adequately explain every aspect of "God" -omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

God says he is both the beginning and the end -and that very much indicates development.

Whereas we have no say in our initial development, the original would have had an increasing say in its own development and configuration as it developed.
Though it (developing to the point of saying "I AM") may not have been able to be responsible for deciding to exist -or for its own most basic nature, it would have been increasingly responsible as it developed step by step in the ability to be responsible for all else.
Every complex thing is based on simple things -and the most simple thing possible.
Interaction is the basis for awareness, feedback is the basis for self-awareness, etc., etc,.

Anyway -I'm just a newb -I'm not saying I know -but this seems most logical to me at this point.

 

[aMirage]

It's stupid and illogical, that's why

 

[syo]

At one point in the video, the apologist asked the atheist "Why don't you believe in God?" He replied casually (as if it were the most obvious reason) something to the effect of "Because I don't see him!

We see God in our dreams.

 

[Remté]

I have always felt the existence of God.

 

[McBell]

Yes faith backed up with MANY good reasons grounded in FACTS. Don't mean to shout at you, just wishing to make it clear to the 'unbelievers' on here

Interesting how your "facts" are not actually "facts"

FACTS:

We will see....

This Universe came from something, it is perfectly balanced for life.

Bold empty claim

This Planet is finely tuned for life to sustain itself, everything in the Natural World around us has a part to play.

Bold empty claim

We are all born with certain knowledge. Even animals know about GOD.

Bold empty claim

Our DNA has been programmed by someone/thing of incredible intelligence.

Bold empty claim

This Creator has identified Himself, (He is used out of respect, GOD has no gender) and sent Prophets and Messengers.

Bold empty claim

These Prophets and Messengers were accompanied with signs to convince the people.

Bold empty claim

Some were given Scriptures containing clear prophecies of future events.

Bold empty claim

Science points to a afterlife, where the energy within us lives on, perhaps returning to the Universe.

Bold empty claim

Many people have reported NDE's supporting the notion of energy/soul living on.

Finally, a fact.

For these reasons and many many more, the majority of the World's population accepts the existence of a Creator and happily worships Him in the way revealed to them.

Well, two out of ten isn't all that great....

 

[Joshua Pryce]

Of course God, if he existed, would be capable of hiding himself and making the universe appear as if he did not exist.But why believe in such a convoluted, deceiving entity? Believing in such an absurd notion as a god who created the universe, yet hides himself from people in the universe while simultaneously wanting them to believe in him seems about as absurd as believing that you've only been alive for five minutes and all of your memories and knowledge have been entered into you via an invisible hard drive from a magical alien being from the future. Unfalsifiable, but nonsensical. Occam's Razor is a good way of dealing with such absurdities.

God doesnt hide Himself from His creation. He lets Himself be known to whoever looks out for Him. Relationships are based on good interpretation and communicative intimacy. I cannot expect Donald trump to come to my house and sup with me without reaching out to him first. I can know him through others, i can see him on TV, but to know him takes personal advancements and learning and recognition. God is seen in TV by people who have visions of God,. or heaven, and miracles performed by God. Communication is spiritual growth and development. Interpretation is biblical understanding.