The Case Against the Existence of God

There's a logical problem with this argument. See message #14.

Your God appears to be female. What are the metaphysical implications of that? Is that why you say HER views on morality are subjective? Is that a comment about femininity?

Oh, sure, I'm interested. By "necessary" I take it you mean logically necessary? Exactly.ps.: Spinoza's ideas are interesting: I don't know what I think of them yet.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-06-2006 03:01 PM

True, but if it's subjective it can't serve as evidence for anything.Say I prefer red to blue. That cannnot serve as evidence that red is in fact superior to blue. Now, subjective preferences are ultimately arbitrary. There is no reason to select one preference over another. I prefer red to blue, but I might as well prefer blue to red. There's no basis for preferring either. If there were a basis, then my preference would not be merely subjective.If our morality is subjective, then our judgments cannot serve as evidence for anything.

This God created the universe. Now if Green Lantern created the universe, then Green Lantern is another name for God.If Green Lantern did not create the universe, but rather is a product of the universe, then he is a different type of entity, an extraneous entity. In that case, the concept of "Green Lantern" is not the same kind of concept as the concept of "God." All these entities are either different names for God or are totally unnecessary, by definition, since they derive from nature.The concept of "God" is different. God does not derive from nature but rather created nature.There are only two choices:1. An eternal Being (eternal by definition) created nature.
2. nature has always existed (in some form).All other choices can be reduced down to these two. All other beings, except this Being who created nature, are extraneous.There is no logical reason to choose either 1 or 2--if we don't consider the nature of this universe but only the fact of creation.Dan's reference to Green Lantern or whatever is no argument at all. What it appears to be is a sarcastic slur on belief. That might work fine as rhetorical pathos; but good logos it's not.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-06-2006 03:14 PM

We were talking about atheism not agnosticism. Look at the OP.

Yes, it makes sense to me.

---

"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

If these pixies are the creators of the universe, then they are just another name for God. Otherwise, they are a different kind of entity altogether and cannot be compared to the concept of God. They are extraneous.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 03:23 AM

The God I "concocted" was one I thought was commonly believed in. I wanted to restrict the discussion to that concept for the purposes of this thread. That way we could concentrate on whether a case could be built against such a concept of God.As far as the origin of the universe, the choices I presented were not "concocted." These are the only 2 choices.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 03:31 AM

Gravity.

What is this supposed to mean? It's true, of course, but what's your point?

I thought you were asking about what we could see.

The burden of proof is even--50/50.

We can not see gravity. We cannot see space-time,we cannot see "energy"--whatever that is. We cannot see "curved space" (another word for gravity, I hear). We cannot see thoughts.

What I've been thinking of is an argument we could call the Argument From Lack of Design against the existence of God, but I suppose it has lots of problems.Suppose there was an alien who came to Earth and looked at a building and then looked at a junkyard where items had been tossed haphazardly.This alien has never seen a building or a junkyard. What he recognize the building as designed and the junkyard as undesigned?