|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Or, one can accept the bible fully yet still not believe in the god you describe in the OP. There are logical problems with the concept of a pagan-style God. They always presuppose another God behind them, or else they arose from nature. Here we have a god that is truly unnecessay, even more so than Mr. Jack claimed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
For example are you excluding Spinoza? What did Spinoza say? Was he an atheist? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But I was not speaking of some pagan god but rather of what I see as the Christian GOD. Could you give us the attributes of this God and how He differs from the God as described in the OP? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Okay. *looks around* *sees nothing* That hardly seems satisfactory. There's lots of things that we can't see that are real. You must have some better reason for dismissing the idea with contempt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
While we're on the subject, though, do you have a case against the existence of Green Lantern? I've heard this type of reasoning before, and it won't do. Green Lantern is a different type of entity than God (if we think of God as the creator of the universe). Green Lantern is by definition a totally extraneous entity, having arisen from nature. The concept of God is quite different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Contempt? I don't have contempt for God I didn't mean you had a contempt for God, but rather for the concept and, by implication, for those who would believe such a thing. But I was just going by your tone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Maybe its OT - sorry if this is the case - but I want to plug my earlier post once more. I think the problem with your opener is your attempt to minimise the difficulties posed to any one religion by the heaps and heaps of other religions. To me, that's one of the central foundations of my tentative atheism. So the fact that there are many different religions suggests that none are true? How so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So in conclusion, this line of enquiry proves useless as a means to develop a case for the non-existence of the God you have described. I had already decided, for other reasons, that we could not prove that a supposed God could not be all-good. But I was thinking of an argument we might use called the argument from the "lack of design in the universe." Just thinking about it. Not sure yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
However, that said, it is nonetheless possible to give meaning to your life on a subjective level by defining to yourself a set of criteria to which you will adhere. The tricky part of living life is to realize that other people do not necessarily hold the same criteria as you do regarding morality and this is perfectly consistent in a world where there are no set boundaries to the actions you may produce. You are free to always do whatever you wish bounded only by the fact that your actions can affect other people and their actions toward you.So the interplay between people and each other,people and the world, cumultively produce the world you see before you. Translation: For practical reasons, let's pretend that life has meaning and let's pretend that our morals are real. In the short time we have on this earth, there's not a lot else we CAN do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So what? There's still nothing to suggest either one. Regardless, you're wrong. While Hal Jordan, Green Lantern of Earth, did not create the universe, the story itself covers it. A renegade Guardian named Krona performed forbidden experiments to peer back to the dawn of time, whereupon his violation of That Which Man Was Not Mean to Know resulted in a time paradox, in which a portion of creation was responsible for creating the multiverse as we know it, through the release of antimatter into the infinite void. So there you go. Do you have a case against the existence of Green Lantern? I didn't get all that sci-fi stuff, but if you are saying that Green Lantern created the universe, then "Green Lantern" is just another name for God. Your argument is trivial. What difference does it make about the name? This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-06-2006 11:31 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Ahh gotcha, something along the lines of "Why has God created a universe which the majority of is not going to be seen by anybody alive because the majority of it is massively lethal to life, or at least prohibitively distant." I wasn't thinking along those lines, but that would be a good point. I was thinking of the accidental nature of life: Lack of design, lack of order. Existence is like a haphazard junkyard.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024