Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 7:04 PM
30 online now:
dwise1, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,921 Year: 4,958/19,786 Month: 1,080/873 Week: 436/376 Day: 67/46 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   The Case Against the Existence of God
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 301 (301046)
04-05-2006 8:19 AM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ReverendDG, posted 04-06-2006 3:53 AM robinrohan has responded
 Message 4 by lfen, posted 04-06-2006 4:07 AM robinrohan has responded
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 04-06-2006 4:48 AM robinrohan has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 04-06-2006 8:04 AM robinrohan has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Tusko, posted 04-06-2006 8:17 AM robinrohan has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-06-2006 9:53 AM robinrohan has responded
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 04-06-2006 11:20 AM robinrohan has responded
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2006 11:54 AM robinrohan has responded
 Message 43 by docpotato, posted 04-06-2006 2:06 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 67 by Chronos, posted 04-06-2006 11:23 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 11:10 AM robinrohan has responded
 Message 120 by JavaMan, posted 04-07-2006 11:27 AM robinrohan has not yet responded
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 04-07-2006 12:20 PM robinrohan has not yet responded
 Message 293 by lfen, posted 04-09-2006 8:49 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 301 (301403)
04-05-2006 11:14 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 3 of 301 (301429)
04-06-2006 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
04-05-2006 8:19 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 04-05-2006 8:19 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 04-06-2006 7:44 AM ReverendDG has responded
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 11:13 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 4 of 301 (301430)
04-06-2006 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
04-05-2006 8:19 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 04-05-2006 8:19 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 11:32 AM lfen has responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 5 of 301 (301434)
04-06-2006 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
04-05-2006 8:19 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 04-05-2006 8:19 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 04-06-2006 7:46 AM Larni has responded
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 04-06-2006 1:32 PM Larni has responded
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 04-06-2006 1:45 PM Larni has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 6 of 301 (301459)
04-06-2006 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ReverendDG
04-06-2006 3:53 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ReverendDG, posted 04-06-2006 3:53 AM ReverendDG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ReverendDG, posted 04-06-2006 8:53 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 7 of 301 (301460)
04-06-2006 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Larni
04-06-2006 4:48 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 04-06-2006 4:48 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Larni, posted 04-07-2006 4:11 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 8 of 301 (301462)
04-06-2006 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
04-05-2006 8:19 AM


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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 04-05-2006 8:19 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Tusko
Member
Posts: 605
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 9 of 301 (301464)
04-06-2006 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
04-05-2006 8:19 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 04-05-2006 8:19 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Larni, posted 04-07-2006 4:12 AM Tusko has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 301 (301483)
04-06-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
04-05-2006 8:19 AM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 04-05-2006 8:19 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 11:44 AM Dan Carroll has responded
 Message 53 by riVeRraT, posted 04-06-2006 3:02 PM Dan Carroll has responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 301 (301505)
04-06-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ReverendDG
04-06-2006 3:53 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ReverendDG, posted 04-06-2006 3:53 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 04-06-2006 11:18 AM robinrohan has responded
 Message 14 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 11:25 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 301 (301513)
04-06-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by robinrohan
04-06-2006 11:13 AM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 11:13 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 11:30 AM jar has responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 13 of 301 (301514)
04-06-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
04-05-2006 8:19 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 04-05-2006 8:19 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 11:27 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 301 (301519)
04-06-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by robinrohan
04-06-2006 11:13 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 11:13 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by sidelined, posted 04-06-2006 12:13 PM robinrohan has responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 301 (301520)
04-06-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
04-06-2006 11:20 AM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 04-06-2006 11:20 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019