The 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

But they do have something to suggest their existence. Contempt? I don't have contempt for God, just like I have no contempt for Green Lantern, Rhett Butler, or any number of people who aren't real.While we're on the subject, though, do you have a case against the existence of Green Lantern?

---

"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

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? *scratches head*You know the internet is all monotone, right?Regardless, I have no contempt for those who believe in God. I think it's kind of silly, but whatever makes them happy, long as they don't hurt anyone.

---

"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

Well no, I'm not. You see... Green Lantern is a comic book character.I find the idea of believing in Green Lantern to be fairly silly, just like I find the idea of believing in the God you defined in the OP to be fairly silly. But it meets your criteria for demanding a serious counter-argument: it contains a creation myth.

---

"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

If this is the reason why God qualifies for special treatment, then your case against the existance of Green Lantern must also logically explain the validity and common sense approach of a universe without Green Lantern that is only explained to us by our own human wisdom.Get crackin'.

---

"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

I've also got an issue of Green Lantern in my messenger bag.

---

"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

Actually, the example I gave both created the universe, and is a product of the universe. I refer you to the seminal theological tract, Crisis on Infinite Earths. (As well as post 31.)Now while Green Lantern is, and has always been intended as, a silly example, it still shows the false dilemna you're setting up. There is no need for a monolithic choice between "God" and "Eternal Universe."If nothing else, "I don't know" is always an acceptable third option. Please. If I was actually making fun of belief, I'd be whipping out much funnier material than this.

---

"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

I'm aware. "I don't know how it happened" is not the same as "I don't know if God did it."

---

"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

He doesn't say, one way or the other. So they definitely could be!What do the claims matter, though? I have a text, which shows us a neat character. Show me the case against his existence. Yeah, show me the case against Zeus' existence, too.

---

"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

Please, please, please read this. It's from a guide to logical fallacies.

---

"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

The universe arose on its own through natural means. Well, this is a fun game. I'll play too! You can't have a being outside the natural universe.Nothing like a rollicking good round of "I said it; therefore it's true."

---

"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

Nope. The basic actions of cause and effect can easily exist before the universe comes into being. Even if they didn't, nothing would stop them from applying the very second the process starts.But your response suggests that you're just defining your terms incredibly loosely... ie, "the universe" is everything that does not involve the supernatural, and "God" is anything supernatural, outside nature.That would be a fun little semantic game, if you weren't trying to then shoehorn incredibly specific definitions onto the terms, and insist that you can still slot every possible answer into one of the two. Then it just becomes silly. The fact that I hope you have a box of tissues nearby for when you finish your posts.

---

"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

A being is a kind of thing.Maybe I should have started simpler than a logical fallacy. Try this.

---

"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

"All-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, ideal, the answer to everything, always objective, never subjective" doesn't sound specific to you? Actually, the portion you're quoting is a fairly straightforward joke about masturbation. I spout those out too.

---

"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

If you make your definition that specific, you stop being able to slot everything outside the universe into it. It stops being general enough to do so. Yeah, read the definition, guy. In fact, read the first two words next to "1."

---

"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