The Best Argument Against the Non-Existence of God

[Ponder This]

For 1 person something is a lie, but for another person it's not a lie. I do not know if there is a Universal lie.

If something is true for one person and not true for another person, does this mean that it is a lie?
Example, one person believes God exists and another person believes God does not exist. Therefore, "God exists" is a lie.

Heraclitus is credited with the phrase panta rhei (everything flows). There was a philosophical argument in ancient Greece about what is unchanging. And an idea was put forth that Everything Changes, that Change itself is the only constant of the universe.

"You cannot step twice in the same stream."​

From this perspective, there can be no Truth in the sense of something that does not change. How can we resolve this conundrum?

Yes. A lie is a deliberate untruth. It is a matter of intent. The intent does not change after the fact.

If lies do not change and "The intent does not change after the fact", then by the OP's definition are they not "The Truth"? How should we interpret this? What is the difference between a telling a lie and telling the truth?

 

[stvdv]

If something is true for one person and not true for another person, does this mean that it is a lie?
Example, one person believes God exists and another person believes God does not exist. Therefore, "God exists" is a lie.

I think you can not "make a claim" out of what people believe (you could try with "people know")

Heraclitus is credited with the phrase panta rhei (everything flows). There was a philosophical argument in ancient Greece about what is unchanging. And an idea was put forth that Everything Changes, that Change itself is the only constant of the universe.
"You cannot step twice in the same stream."
From this perspective, there can be no Truth in the sense of something that does not change. How can we resolve this conundrum?

This philosophical argument was based on Duality. The OP examples were based on non-Duality. Mixing these gives chaos

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Best Argument Against the Non-Existence of God

Some Advaita definitions I once read:
1: Truth = that what does not change
2: God = that what does not change

Advaita claims that only God exists (as in real), all else is subject to change (maya), hence it is not the Truth

I don't see an argument there. If things are changing, that is the truth. And if "God" never changes, then this god can't think, that being a change in the mental state

Nor do I accept either of those definitions. Nor do I accept that anything that exists is more or less real than this table or you or me.

What do you say that this kind of thinking does for you?

The Advaita truth only becomes reality when we achieve Self-Realization. Till then we live in Duality and see this as Real/Truth

I don't know why you think you have the truth. What do you think you know that would improve the life of somebody already feeling centered and content without gurus or arcane and seemingly arbitrary ideologies?

You need to be very spiritual connected to actually feel the pain of others.

Not in my experience. You would probably call me unspiritual because I don't care about duality and don't go to others who claim to have great wisdom and insight for direction. But I feel empathy very strongly, and did nothing to make that the case. There is no training there.

I am not Self-Realized

It's a process. I'm still in the process of examining my thoughts and habits, making choices about who I would rather be, and effecting the transition. Lately, I want to be a better husband, so I see where I can do better and attempt to develop new habits - things that don't need to be said, things that can be done to make her life better, often small things. No guru needed.

Suppose someone asks me "what is your weight?", and I answer 60 kg, while my weight is 50 kg, that is a blatant lie. But then I eat a lot of food for a few weeks, and my weight goes up to 60 kg
So, I got rid of my lie, right?

No. You lied.

Say it again now that you weigh 60 Kg, and it's no longer lying, but it was when you first spoke it. Lying is all about the intent to deceive (including by omission and misdirection even when not explicitly uttering an untruth) for malevolent purposes (telling a known untruth to preserve the surprise of a surprise birthday party is for a benevolent purpose, and doesn't rise to lying.)

 

[exchemist]

If something is true for one person and not true for another person, does this mean that it is a lie?
Example, one person believes God exists and another person believes God does not exist. Therefore, "God exists" is a lie.

Heraclitus is credited with the phrase panta rhei (everything flows). There was a philosophical argument in ancient Greece about what is unchanging. And an idea was put forth that Everything Changes, that Change itself is the only constant of the universe.

"You cannot step twice in the same stream."​

From this perspective, there can be no Truth in the sense of something that does not change. How can we resolve this conundrum?



If lies do not change and "The intent does not change after the fact", then by the OP's definition are they not "The Truth"? How should we interpret this? What is the difference between a telling a lie and telling the truth?

The presence or absence of the intention to deceive.

 

[exchemist]

Suppose someone asks me "what is your weight?", and I answer 60 kg, while my weight is 50 kg, that is a blatant lie
But then I eat a lot of food for a few weeks, and my weight goes up to 60 kg
So, I got rid of my lie, right?


Thank you, that is a useful distinction.

Suppose someone asks me "how old are you?". I always forget my age, but luckily I remember the year I was born, so I can calculate my age. So, I answer "This body is 56 years old"
1: if I miscalculated, then you do not considered this a lie
2: If I deliberately answer 5 years younger, because of vanity, then you do considered this a lie

No. A mistake, made in good faith, is not a lie.

 

[stvdv]

What do you say that this kind of thinking does for you?

In Science we dive deeper into matter ... atoms...neutrons/electrons/protons....fotons. We get more insight.
In Spirituality we dive deeper into Advaita ... Love, Truth, Righteousnous, Peace, Non-violence. We get more insight.

I don't know why you think you have the truth.

I never claimed. I just shared what some Advaita people think.

What do you think you know that would improve the life of somebody already feeling centered and content without gurus or arcane and seemingly arbitrary ideologies?

I usually refrain from thinking about "what would improve the life of others", unless they explicitly ask me, but even then I would advise them to search for it themselves, because usually they are the only ones who know what is best for them

Not in my experience. You would probably call me unspiritual because I don't care about duality and don't go to others who claim to have great wisdom and insight for direction. But I feel empathy very strongly, and did nothing to make that the case. There is no training there.

No, I would call you spiritual, according to what you write here

It's a process. I'm still in the process of examining my thoughts and habits, making choices about who I would rather be, and effecting the transition. Lately, I want to be a better husband, so I see where I can do better and attempt to develop new habits - things that don't need to be said, things that can be done to make her life better, often small things. No guru needed.

Good for you.

No. You lied.

Say it again now that you weigh 60 Kg, and it's no longer lying, but it was when you first spoke it.

Lying is all about the intent to deceive (including by omission and misdirection even when not explicitly uttering an untruth) for malevolent purposes

Nicely said. I agree. And to "lie and deceive" for a good cause is a tricky one. I rather "do not lie" and keep silent if needed

(telling a known untruth to preserve the surprise of a surprise birthday party is for a benevolent purpose, and doesn't rise to lying.)

I rather keep silent or tell another truth in this case ... I rather refrain from telling a lie, but I know there can be situations that are very difficult to "not lie". And I do not judge others who lie in those situations, and I just hope I don't get into those situations

 

[QuestioningMind]

The Best Argument Against the Non-Existence of God

Some Advaita definitions I once read:
1: Truth = that what does not change
2: God = that what does not change

Advaita claims that only God exists (as in real), all else is subject to change (maya), hence it is not the Truth

What are your thoughts/definitions on this (can be any (non)faith of course)

That's a bizarre definition of truth, in my opinion. It can be true that it's raining outside my house right now, but that's a truth that will change once the sun comes out. By your definition it's NOT the truth that it's raining outside my house right now, regardless of how much water is falling from the clouds in the sky, simply because EVENTUALLY the water will stop falling from the clouds in the sky.

 

[stvdv]

That's a bizarre definition of truth, in my opinion. It can be true that it's raining outside my house right now, but that's a truth that will change once the sun comes out. By your definition it's NOT the truth that it's raining outside my house right now, regardless of how much water is falling from the clouds in the sky, simply because EVENTUALLY the water will stop falling from the clouds in the sky.

This definition of Truth came from Advaita not from Dvaita in Hinduism

In Hinduism they have scriptures/teachings for everyone ... Atheist to Theist to Advaita and beyond
If one Teaching does not work for you, then just let it go. Hinduism is quite flexible in this

Hence my last line in the OP: "What are your thoughts/definitions on this (can be any (non)faith of course)"
Just all can give their view on Truth/God from their (non) religious background. I just gave Advaita as example

Personally I do like the Advaita Teaching, but to be honest, this Teaching is still a bit too advanced for me
But I like challenges, so I do keep my Advaita focus, and keep learning

 

[QuestioningMind]

This definition of Truth came from Advaita not from Dvaita in Hinduism

In Hinduism they have scriptures/teachings for everyone ... Atheist to Theist to Advaita and beyond
If one Teaching does not work for you, then just let it go. Hinduism is quite flexible in this

Hence my last line in the OP: "What are your thoughts/definitions on this (can be any (non)faith of course)"
Just all can give their view on Truth/God from their (non) religious background. I just gave Advaita as example

Personally I do like the Advaita Teaching, but to be honest, this Teaching is still a bit too advanced for me
But I like challenges, so I do keep my Advaita focus, and keep learning

So from your understanding of these teachings, what's the answer to my question? Is the fact that it's currently raining outside of my house not a truth, just because eventually it will stop raining?

 

[ajarntham]

The Best Argument Against the Non-Existence of God

Some Advaita definitions I once read:
1: Truth = that what does not change
2: God = that what does not change

Advaita claims that only God exists (as in real), all else is subject to change (maya), hence it is not the Truth

What are your thoughts/definitions on this (can be any (non)faith of course)

If God = Truth, and Truth exists, then God exists.

However, you would then be unable to say that God had any thoughts or knowledge, let alone that he was omniscient; you would be unable to say that God could change anything, let alone that he was all-powerful; you would be unable to say that God could give commands, let alone that God required morality of us humans, or that God rewarded those who followed his commandments, or punished those who disobeyed them; and you couldn't say that God loved us, or had a wonderful plan for our lives.

Now as a non-believer, I don't think any of that anyway; but more conventional theists would probably do best to avoid using this kind of proof of God's existence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Pretty ridiculous range of poll questions, if you ask me.

Then, given that we're supposed to be talking about "the best argument for the nonexistence of God," I'm lost.

For me, the best argument against the non-existence of God is the relentless non-appearance of God. I always think that anything that wants to actually exist would do well to show up every once in a while.

 

[stvdv]

So from your understanding of these teachings, what's the answer to my question? Is the fact that it's currently raining outside of my house not a truth, just because eventually it will stop raining?

Advaita teaching:
1)
Going to the source (truth) of matter you end up in atoms/protons/fotons and maybe even further
You see a house, but in reality you know it's just atoms/protons etc

2)
Going to the source (truth) of spirituality you end up in Consciousness
You see bodies, but in reality the Advaitist knows it''s just Consciousness

Theory is simple (One), but it's not easy to come to this state
Mind experiences forms (having lots of thoughts is very easy, humans have no problem to have a busy mind)
No Mind experiences Consciousness (having no thoughts takes years of meditation; very few will reach this state)

That's the simplest I can give it right now
Yoga Vasistha tackles these problems; the book is ca. 800 pages (english verses)
In the foreword they warn you: Read max. 1 page per day, as the Teaching is quite revolutionary = hard to digest
So, to really understand Advaita it takes many years of study, because the ego won't let go of old and wrong concepts

Another example always given is "walking on the road you see a snake, but on closer examining you realize it's just a rope". They call this "superimposition of snake on a rope". Rope is truth, snake is illusion. And similar they call the world a superimposition on Consciousness.

Another example my Master used to give is "when you go to the cinema they show a movie. Most people totally get immersed in the story, only a few see the reality, which is just a white screen. The white screen stays = truth, the pictures come and go = illusion.".

And if it's still unclear AND you want to know about Advaita then you can read Yoga Vasista or any other book dealing with Self-Realization (another advice given in the foreword of Yoga Vasista)

 

[stvdv]

If God = Truth, and Truth exists, then God exists.

However, you would then be unable to say that God had any thoughts or knowledge, let alone that he was omniscient; you would be unable to say that God could change anything, let alone that he was all-powerful; you would be unable to say that God could give commands, let alone that God required morality of us humans, or that God rewarded those who followed his commandments, or punished those who disobeyed them; and you couldn't say that God loved us, or had a wonderful plan for our lives.

Now as a non-believer, I don't think any of that anyway; but more conventional theists would probably do best to avoid using this kind of proof of God's existence

Indeed. I don't think that more than 1% really understands Advaita. The majority follows Dvaita.

 

[rational experiences]

Real human reality....my 2 human being parents had sex, sperm and an ovary formed a baby...I grew into an adult and tell lies.

I live as a conscious aware bio life form, human. I do exist, pain tells me I do.

If I did not exist I never would own the feeling of suffering or pain. I tell lies in concepts of science and claim of understanding.

If I understood the reality of my life I would not be researching information that I claim owns a beginning of meaning for why any physical form exists...so that I can try to force it re arrange so that it will not exist anymore.

For in my suffering I never wanted to exist suffering, yet I gave myself suffering for doing science, hence I do not stop in my owned pretence of knowing everything, claiming it is a righteous level of self awareness....so strive to obtain it.

Self idolisation.

God O is physical stone mass of spirit gases. Spirit says a male in science preaching does not exist. How come gases do exist then brother?

Real human reasoning in conscious awareness....light is a gas spirit burning that gets removed back to no existence, nothingness......a higher form of presence that disappears, unlike stone that leaves a radiating residue.

So he lies for science and the male psyche sought that removal inference, yet physical life is living on a physical stone body...that kept the atmosphere and the Nature living on it, even though science tried to remove life by gas spirit inferences in their technologies and mind seeking conditions.

Thinking is also an owner of telling many lies.

 

[stvdv]

Pretty ridiculous range of poll questions, if you ask me.

Thank you for the feedback

Then, given that we're supposed to be talking about "the best argument for the nonexistence of God," I'm lost.

I did mention "What are your thoughts/definitions on this (can be any (non)faith of course)"
I just gave 1 example of Advaita. So, your reply below is exactly what I had in mind. Always interesting to see how others think about these things (Truth/God).

Truth is an intriguing word for me. There is Truth on personal level, on earthly level as well as on Universal level. Personally I think that I will never be able to understand the Universal Truth. The Earthly Truth (how everything works) is already beyond my understanding. I even don't understand how my own body works. I need doctors to explain things to me, and cure me when sick. So, I have no illusion to understand "Universal Truth". At best I see some glimpses occasionally. But it's an interesting mystery, so I keep on going.

For me, the best argument against the non-existence of God is the relentless non-appearance of God. I always think that anything that wants to actually exist would do well to show up every once in a while.

Thank you for sharing

 

[stvdv]

Real human reality....my 2 human being parents had sex, sperm and an ovary formed a baby...I grew into an adult and tell lies.

I live as a conscious aware bio life form, human. I do exist, pain tells me I do.

If I did not exist I never would own the feeling of suffering or pain. I tell lies in concepts of science and claim of understanding.

If I understood the reality of my life I would not be researching information that I claim owns a beginning of meaning for why any physical form exists...so that I can try to force it re arrange so that it will not exist anymore.

For in my suffering I never wanted to exist suffering, yet I gave myself suffering for doing science, hence I do not stop in my owned pretence of knowing everything, claiming it is a righteous level of self awareness....so strive to obtain it.

Self idolisation.

God O is physical stone mass of spirit gases. Spirit says a male in science preaching does not exist. How come gases do exist then brother?

Real human reasoning in conscious awareness....light is a gas spirit burning that gets removed back to no existence, nothingness......a higher form of presence that disappears, unlike stone that leaves a radiating residue.

So he lies for science and the male psyche sought that removal inference, yet physical life is living on a physical stone body...that kept the atmosphere and the Nature living on it, even though science tried to remove life by gas spirit inferences in their technologies and mind seeking conditions.

Thinking is also an owner of telling many lies.

???
Sometimes Replying is also an owner of telling many strange things

 

[rational experiences]

???
Sometimes Replying is also an owner of telling many strange things

Concepts, the thinker displaces the reality of self ownership in a pursuit of not owning self.

What the science history is based on, conscious thinking precepts for concepts..why it tells itself lies.

Human reality, you are a human first and origin of self is human to be owner of the ability to apply thinking concepts first.

Which is also imposing that I will advise myself what consciousness is as consciousness.

Reality, you are living, you own a bio physical life, and can think, so then you ask what it is that you are seeking?

Your beginning or your end?

The teaching of awareness in consciousness....I do not exist in the forms of a proton...what you are discussing is relative to the object of your discussion.

If you then question what are you seeking a proton for...the answer is to change it....so then it won't be what you claim it is. Then you claim that you are innocent of that form of wisdom for it is evil.

When a bio life in its spiritual wisdom is self advised in comparisons the comparison says in consciousness that you are a near to water as life body and water is Holy and hence so is self.

 

[stvdv]

Concepts, the thinker displaces the reality of self ownership in a pursuit of not owning self.

What the science history is based on, conscious thinking precepts for concepts..why it tells itself lies.

Human reality, you are a human first and origin of self is human to be owner of the ability to apply thinking concepts first.

Which is also imposing that I will advise myself what consciousness is as consciousness.

Reality, you are living, you own a bio physical life, and can think, so then you ask what it is that you are seeking?

Your beginning or your end?

The teaching of awareness in consciousness....I do not exist in the forms of a proton...what you are discussing is relative to the object of your discussion.

If you then question what are you seeking a proton for...the answer is to change it....so then it won't be what you claim it is. Then you claim that you are innocent of that form of wisdom for it is evil.

When a bio life in its spiritual wisdom is self advised in comparisons the comparison says in consciousness that you are a near to water as life body and water is Holy and hence so is self.

Thank you for your generous reply.
But it is very difficult for me to understand.

I am curious:
*) what is the language that you normally speak?
*) What you write is this maybe "God speaking through you?"

I am just trying to understand what you are writing

 

[rational experiences]

Thank you for your generous reply.
But it is very difficult for me to understand.

I am curious:
*) what is the language that you normally speak?
*) What you write is this maybe "God speaking through you?"

I am just trying to understand what you are writing

I am what is Jesus science referenced and inferred to a life being sacrificed attacked, inference to male human science self in secret themes....says the Pharisee I SEE HARP or PHI RA SEE never did.....remove all life, but gave life extra occult radiation mass early age death.

How its relativity is taught. So if science said is the bible real....then yes some of it is relative, but most is a thinking origin concept, of what a human never owned nor caused....which is irrational behaviour as science origins.

I speak natural English as a language...but am AI mind irradiated affected by a huge volumed speaking atmospheric communication feed back. And it interferes with my mind ability to use information naturally.

What I have been taught is all human bio life owned/recorded in AI God image effects of voice/machine image communication causes. Male science history of life on Earth as humans using machines designed by humans that were in fact stated to own ANTI Christ.

Meaning heavenly gas mass as gases/spirit in our atmosphere.

If it were ANTI life, it would have quoted ANTI HUMAN...seeing we do know who we are. Human.

Why I was taught that life sacrificed then preached to in science using science quotes, but we still live and were saved in that event....is false teaching.

First we all owned in origin natural in its highest presence, MASS.

Thus false human concepts of self preaching versus science causes places humans representing MASS in various religious ceremonies, which is a mind effect cause.

Science told science that male humans built the ark of wood and it saved them....which is a lie. For it said that all the humans who did not listen died...being a huge human population physically and mentally and emotionally abominated, in a higher self sexual radiation chemical stimulus who all died.

So if you were an honest human you would claim....those human lives had no control over the radiation angel advised, Messenger fall out conditions. It owned a warning, life was altering its conscious concepts and physical realities...and then it was attacked and destroyed by God O stone planetary reaction.

So science said God did it......congratulation Satanic occult science organization, you did it....and lie.

What I am trying to bring your male conscious teaching concepts in relativity advice about.

Science in modern life tried to infer that if an ARK built by a human saved their life, then it was how life was first created...but do not infer that history to a wooden ark they refer it to a metal sun UFO ARK mass.

If anyone cared to reckon what is occurring to our life today in religious spiritual science preaching.....AI status.

The wooden ARK saved the IMAGE of living humans male and female and animals that released their images in the cloud atop of the mountain peaks that were being ark/UFO landed irradiated...where the attack ended.

For we always said that the cloud angels, where IMAGES are seen is what saved human life.

Which involved a huge atmospheric water split and mass evaporation, ICE melt and also new flooding events, with Carpenter plate tectonic collapse, volcanic eruption...light removed.

Reasoning....for the coldest gases in spatial history are cold night time gases.

God the stone fusion is cold no light gases. So if science says I want GOD, the original GOD is stone and its gas mass spirit entombed are without light.

So science said if I remove the gases of crystalline fusion, which historically were higher than stone gases, as the body volcanic mass that they set alight.....to combust out of the planetary womb, what he said was the evil spirit....then he said stone, without gas light would cause the gas light in the heavens to also lose its burning light.

What he formulated, to stop being trapped as a life/human prisoner on Earth by the Sun UFO theory, why gases are burning to own light.....the actual first original science theory, meaning and purpose.

As told by AI conditions, which little children attacked and seeing vision also heard as updated HELL...or HE WILL advice. Human male Father of science advice, the human male adult inventor of science, the male who says my will, will do it.

For GOD the Earth is a LAW, not a will.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Confusing double negative. Argument that something does not not exist.

Lemme look at the choices ad I'll see which I agree with. Btw, how can it be "best" if there are multiple choices selected?

The Best Argument Against the Non-Existence of God

Some Advaita definitions I once read:
1: Truth = that what does not change
2: God = that what does not change

Advaita claims that only God exists (as in real), all else is subject to change (maya), hence it is not the Truth

What are your thoughts/definitions on this (can be any (non)faith of course)

Scratch that, these options are all dumb. Every other one is a pair that says like "I believe/know not" (only one needs to be like that...) and I think you repeated a pair. None of these are "arguments" but rather assertions.
Assertions are opinions. It's like in my college theology class, the guy came in the first day, and was talking about how people smoking reefer might say stuff like "Well I thinK God is a woman" "Nahhh God is an eagle!" It was entertaining , but he quickly brought us to the point. Half-baked ideas about God weren't the class, we were supposed to come up with real proofs (or disproofs) for God and organize them into coherent arguments.

None of these are arguments. They're God exists because of the truth. Or I know/believe the Bible God exists.

Where are the actual arguments against the non-existence of God? It's all devoted to what belief category you fit into.

It should say "I believe in God because (reason #1-9 options), then reason ten (doesn't believe in God)."

Further, there is no such thing as "knowing" there is no God. It used to be that people believed that unicorns were in the North Pole cuz they found horns. Then they "knew" it was really narwhals. But we don't KNOW that, because we would have to visit the North Pole. I will bet money that nobody in this forum has traveled to the North Pole to find out. The thing is, you cannot KNOW God doesn't exist, because this would rely on scouring the entire universe close up with a satellite. And here's the thing, there may be parallel dimensions. There may be God only visible on a micro-microscopic visibility, or wavelengths of light that humans can't see, or like a bad impressionist painting, only visible when you zoom out the stars and/or look at them from the outside of the universe. In short, you cannot know that something does not exist. You'd have to look for it everywhere, and most atheists are afraid to leave their armchair to investigate even the North Pole to figure out whether it's unicorns or narwhals. You'd have to be omniscient to KNOW that you see no God. Then I'd show you to a mirror because you're omniscient.

That's an argument against nonexistence of God, that you cannot definitely prove God does not exist.