|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Case Against the Existence of God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If one is an atheist, then one must logically have a case against the existence of God. It would not do merely to show that the arguments put forth FOR the existence of God are flawed. That would work for an agnostic but not an atheist. An atheist, by definition, would, I think, have to have some reason for not believing in God in addition to flaws he has noticed in arguments for the existence of God.
I would, for the purposes of this argument, like to concentrate on one concept of God only. This God we can call the "God of Western Tradition." This God is all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing. He is an ideal Being, the answer to everything. This God's thoughts are always objective, never subjective. This God's thoughts about morality, for example, are as objective as His thoughts about mathematics. Now, if one wanted to build a case against the existence of such a God, what sort of argument could one put forth? Though this topic is about disbelief, I imagine it fits into the "faith and belief" forum. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-05-2006 07:20 AM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-05-2006 09:37 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4139 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
What about the arguments when accounting for the old testiment? do they not show a god who is not all-good?
if you do not mean what the bible says as you pointed out before, then what is your basis for this god you came up with? because the only western god like that is in the bible where do you get the idea that morality is not subjective? it is not meaningless if it is
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
I'm not sure what you are excluding and what you are looking for. For example are you excluding Spinoza? Or would you accept his philosophy as an acceptable rebuttal of God as a omniscient omnipowerful person with thoughts, feelings, etc. like humans?
lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I think yout premise is flawed:
I do not start with the conclusion that god is real and then logically challenge that position. I have encountered no evidence from which I could infer that the reality of god is a valid point to start from. I did not 'become an atheist' any more than I became somebody who does not believe in Father Christmas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
What about the arguments when accounting for the old testiment? do they not show a god who is not all-good? Isn't this arguements for God that are flawed? Define good, according to God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I did not 'become an atheist' any more than I became somebody who does not believe in Father Christmas. Well since you seem to know about the existance of God, do you ever wonder?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: For me, this is a case where I think where it is justified to view the absense of evidence as evidence of absence. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 129 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I am of the opinion that the Abrahamic God (like Thor, Ra and Hera) probably doesn't exist. I'm not SURE he doesn't exist. He might. But I find the sheer number of different deities that have been proposed through recorded history (and almost certainly prehistory too) to be a major stumbling block to any burgeoning flutterings of belief.
Because I haven't seen evidence to suggest that any specific deity exists any more than any other, the chance that any one proposed creator deity actually exists seems vanishingly small. Does that make me more than an agnostic? I think so, because I don't think an agnostic would say that they thought that all proposed gods appear fictitious. Does that make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
If one is an atheist, then one must logically have a case against the existence of God. Okay. *looks around* *sees nothing* So, what's for lunch? "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
What about the arguments when accounting for the old testiment? One can dismiss the Bible entirely and still believe in such a God as described in the OP.
do they not show a god who is not all-good? Even if we ignore the Bible and just look at the nature of life generally, as containing suffering, there is a logical problem with this argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
One can dismiss the Bible entirely and still believe in such a God as described in the OP. Or, one can accept the bible fully yet still not believe in the god you describe in the OP. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I too think your premise is flawed. I am an atheist because I think a naturalistic model explains the universe very well and see no need to posit supernaturalistic wotsits of any kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Here's the problem with arguing against an all-Good God, on the basis of suffering in the world.
If God does not exist, then presumably our morality is subjective. And if our morality is subjective, my judgment that life involves innocent suffering and is therefore immoral on God's part would also be subjective and therefore meaningless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I too think your premise is flawed. I am an atheist because I think a naturalistic model explains the universe very well and see no need to posit supernaturalistic wotsits of any kind. OK, it's flawed. But can we come up with an argument against the existence of God other than saying He's not necessary? "It is very unhappy, but too late to be helped, the discovery we have made, that we exist. That discovery is called the Fall of Man."--Emerson
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024