The Case Against the Existence of God

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 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-05-2006 09:37 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

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 biblewhere do you get the idea that morality is not subjective? it is not meaningless if it is

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

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.

Isn't this arguements for God that are flawed?Define good, according to God.

Well since you seem to know about the existance of God, do you ever wonder?

quote:

---

Now, if one wanted to build a case against the existence of such a God, what sort of argument could one put forth?

---

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)

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?

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

One can dismiss the Bible entirely and still believe in such a God as described in the OP. 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.

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

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.

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.

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