The Best Argument Against the Non-Existence of God

[stvdv]

Btw, how can it be "best" if there are multiple choices selected?

Poll just asks to select the ones you agree with (not about "best arguments")

 

[stvdv]

In short, you cannot know that something does not exist. You'd have to look for it everywhere

YES

most atheists are afraid to leave their armchair to investigate even the North Pole to figure out whether it's unicorns or narwhals.

YES I GUESS

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

YES

 

[Yerda]

I'm Advaita.

The Best Argument Against the Non-Existence of God are the teachings of the Vedic seers and rishis and other mystics who I objectively believed have plumbed the deepest into the ultimate nature of reality.

And the best teachers of that tradition tell us to not even take their word for it but to experience it for ourselves and we will experience Truth. Of course that level of insight is not likely to come right away in my novice meditation efforts so I hold the existence of God to be the strongest theory out there,.

Hi, George. Could you give us some detail or even some flavour of these teachings and how they constitute good arguments against the non-existence of God?

Disclosure: I'm an atheist. Do find Advaita Vedanta interesting and though I'm not sure I understand non-dualism I'm drawn to the idea in a secular kind of way.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

And if you keep eating you get rid of your truth too!

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

From this it would seem that lie is independent of fact. Now what if someone think he's 60, but says he's 56 (and... he is actually 56)? Can he lie and tell the truth at the same time?

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

Sure, There are people who "know" God exists and there are people who "know" God doesn't exist... or at least they claim to know. But are you saying that people cannot claim to know anything at all (or, more specifically, claim to know anything about God)?

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

Can you explain what it means to have a philosophical argument based on Duality or based on non-Duality or not based on Duality or Non-Duality?
Because you seem to indicate that the argument itself is predicated on the assumption that individual souls exist as independent realities from God and I didn't notice that as being assumed in this argument.

The presence or absence of the intention to deceive.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean. How does your idea relate to the OP?

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

Is the definition of God also coming from Advaita Vedanta?
So the path to Truth comes from the experience and/or meditation. Truth is experienced?

 

[QuestioningMind]

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)

Oh, yeah it's still unclear. You wrote quite a bit, but I'm STILL wondering if the rain falling outside my window is truly there, since it won't last forever. Apparently you don't know either.

 

[George-ananda]

Hi, George. Could you give us some detail or even some flavour of these teachings and how they constitute good arguments against the non-existence of God?

Disclosure: I'm an atheist. Do find Advaita Vedanta interesting and though I'm not sure I understand non-dualism I'm drawn to the idea in a secular kind of way.

Well, Advaita (which is also called non-dualism) means not-two in Sanskrit. Not two = Brahman and creation are not-two.

Brahman is not perfectly translated to God in English but there is no perfect English word. God in English normally means the dualistic creator God of the Abrahamic religions.

Brahman is the ground of all reality perhaps Cosmic Consciousness is the better term than God. The seers and sages of the Vedic (Hindu) and the mystics of many traditions have quieted their minds and experienced this One Universal Cosmic Consciousness. All creation including us is seen as the play/drama of source Brahman.

It took me years to understand so I doubt what I can say in a reply post will suffice.

Atheism is the western world is often associated with materialism which is really the opposite of Advaita.

Advaita: Consciousness is fundamental and the material is a derivative of Consciousness.

Materialism: The material is fundamental and consciousness is a derivative of the material

So when asked to discuss the God versus Atheism question I feel the God side closer approximates my beliefs.

As to the OP question of 'The Best Argument Against the Non-Existence of God' I went with the direct experiences of the teachings of the Vedic seers and rishis and other mystics who I objectively believed have plumbed the deepest into the ultimate nature of reality.

My personal journey started with acceptance of the so-called paranormal which leaves the materialist view of reality untenable. From there I explored the question so what is this 'more' than materialism.

 

[sayak83]

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)

This will cause confusion.
The statement "It is night at this time" is true now and will be false in the morning. So truth value of statements IS subject to change.
Truth is a property of statements ( or knowledge claims) and it's is a property that can and does change. More example
"The price of mango is $10"... True in USA and not in India. Etc.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean. How does your idea relate to the OP?

My hope was that it would be fairly self-explanatory. As for how it relates to the OP I have no idea. It was you that introduced the idea of lies, for some reason. I am merely responding to a question you asked about lies.

It seems to me you were writing as if you did not understand the difference between something that is false and something that is a lie. So I was trying to make that more clear, by explaining that a lie is a deliberate untruth, told by someone in order to deceive. Whereas a false statement can be made for a number of reasons, of which telling a lie is only one.

 

[viole]

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)

I agree that it is the best argument against the non-existence of God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[stvdv]

Oh, yeah it's still unclear. You wrote quite a bit, but I'm STILL wondering if the rain falling outside my window is truly there, since it won't last forever. Apparently you don't know either.

For me the difference is clear. But as I said before, it takes many years to grasp Advaita; in Silence/Meditation it is revealed
I can only give you some pointers. Next you need to study it yourself and put in the effort and time.

 

[stvdv]

This will cause confusion.

Advaita is not the easiest to grasp. One needs to study it; a teacher explaining or worse Googling is insufficient for most people
Hence I said in the OP "What are your thoughts/definitions on this (can be any (non)faith of course)", indicating no need to use my example of Advaita. Just what is your personal idea about Truth and God (from Atheism/Humanism/Theism etc)

I have seen that most on RF view spirituality from Bible POV. And their view is mostly Duality. To switch to non-Duality takes time and effort. Better to keep non-Duality in Hindu DIR I have seen now.

The statement "It is night at this time" is true now and will be false in the morning. So truth value of statements IS subject to change.

Thank you for your example

 

[QuestioningMind]

For me the difference is clear. But as I said before, it takes many years to grasp Advaita; in Silence/Meditation it is revealed
I can only give you some pointers. Next you need to study it yourself and put in the effort and time.[/QUOTE

The difference is clear to you, yet for some reason you can't tell me if the rain outside my window truly exists? If that's the case, I'm not sure that anyone really grasps Advaita. I can't imagine spending years studying a concept that no one can demonstrate that they actually understand.

 

[stvdv]

For me the difference is clear. But as I said before, it takes many years to grasp Advaita; in Silence/Meditation it is revealed
I can only give you some pointers. Next you need to study it yourself and put in the effort and time.

The difference is clear to you, yet for some reason you can't tell me if the rain outside my window truly exists? If that's the case, I'm not sure that anyone really grasps Advaita. I can't imagine spending years studying a concept that no one can demonstrate that they actually understand.

Advaita teaches: Truth does not change

Rain when cooled down becomes ice; so rain changes, so it is not the Truth

 

[syo]

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

I agree.

By the way, I love the Gods and I love maya too. Aren't we maya nice or what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 the best argument against the non-existence of God?

IOW, if I don't find this argument compelling (or coherent), I don't have to worry about any other arguments for God?

Good to know. Thank you.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Advaita teaches: Truth does not change

Rain when cooled down becomes ice; so rain changes, so it is not the Truth

Interesting... that sounds like the claim is that absolutely nothing is truth, since all things change. I suppose that if you could first verified that some god exists there MIGHT be a way to verify that this god is unchanging... but until this god's existence can first be established, trying to determine if it's unchanging is a pretty useless endeavor.

 

[stvdv]

Interesting... that sounds like the claim is that absolutely nothing is truth, since all things change

Is that true? I have not been able to check "all things" whether or not they change. So, I do not know.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is that true? I have not been able to check "all things" whether or not they change. So, I do not know.

Well I have and they do.

 

[Willamena]

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)

Time assures us that all is subject to change.

 

[stvdv]

Is that true? I have not been able to check "all things" whether or not they change. So, I do not know.

Well I have and they do.

Good to know