2 Arguments against God

[steamer]

shunyadragon,
If something is "beyond" logic and reason, then I question its existence.
anon

This is interesting to me because the only reason I'm agnostic and not atheist is because I don't think logic can extend beyond space/time either. To me this means that all assumptions we make about a creator/beggining are equally valid or invalid. There is simply no way to know, so I take the view that it's entirely possible that the universe was created by something like god. On the other hand, universes might be what happens when gods die. My thinking tends towards the mundane so a natural explanation is what I tend to give most credence to.

[anontheist]

steamer,

The question is, how do we come to "know" something?

Should we hold off on whether or not Santa Claus exists, since we can neither prove his existence nor disprove it?

(Even though, we know the source of this myth?)

If someone makes a suggestion that something exists, but you cannot see it, hear it, smell it, or touch it, can we assume that what is being talked about is not simply in someone's mind?

In other words, if someone makes a claim, do we accept it, reject it, or hold off on our beliefs?

I think you are right in this respect, that we hold off until evidence is given, but if no evidence is given or the evidence is either weak or contradictory, I think it would be reasonable to simply reject the claim.

Otherwise, we might find ourselves believing in some rather strange things, with little or no evidence at all.

Should we hold off on whether to believe something indefinitely?

A contradiction is evidence that something is false.

The concept of God is contradictory. (Well, the Judeo-Christian concept is.)

The Biblical evidence is, also, contradictory.

Personal experiences also contradict each other.

So, should we hold off on whether to believe in God or not? Why?

anon

[steamer]

<snip> for brevity

So, should we hold off on whether to believe in God or not? Why?

anon

Rejecting the claim of the existence of god is just as reaonable as suspending disbelief. If more evidence becomes available then you can change your mind. I think a god-like being is possible, just very improbable. I find it entertaining to think if there were a god, what would it be like? Like Santa, god seems to exist purely as a mental entity. I’ve not seen hide nor hair of him anywhere but in my thoughts.


We have two kinds of ideas, perceived and imaginary. There is a boundary between the two and it is not too dificult to imagine that an imperceptable being can cross that boundary. Since he is imperceptable, it’s pretty much the same thing, god exists in peoples minds. Yes people do start to believe in strange things like angels, demons, giants, talking animals and imaginary floods, but observing that they do just fascinates me for some reason.


People continue to believe that their imaginary god is real, so I guess the best the rest of us can do is try to convince them that this being, if he exists, would not have the contradictory attributes they imagine such as the impossibility of a loving yet genocidal god. I think imagining a perfect being and imbueing it with our highest ideals may actually help us to learn of our highest ideals. It’d be great if we could abandon Yahweh as a starting point though because he’s a pretty poor example of an ideal being IMO.

[anontheist]

Here is another problem, from another board.

I wish I had thought of this, but I cannot take any credit for this issue.

What do you think?

If God is perfect, then God cannot change.

But, if that is the case, how does one explain the birth of Jesus, (assuming you are a trinitarian)? The change from pure spirit, to something physical.

If God changes, then he is not perfect.

A dilemma.

If God changed to become a man, then he is not perfect.

Was Jesus God?

Did Jesus ever get a cold, was his body perfect?

The problems seem to multiply.

Assuming you agree with the claim, "If God is perfect, then God cannot change."

anon

[anontheist]

It seems important to me, to clarify my position and argument, again, given some of the responses I have received.

Theists believe in God. Christian theologians and apologists have suggested, God is defined in a certain way and has certain attributes.

I have given one of these theologians’ and apologists’ definition above. I used Norman L. Geisler’s definition of God from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. There are other theologians and apologists who have suggested similar definitions and attributes of God as well. Such as J. P. Moreland and Willaim Lane Craig, (if those names mean anything to you) which you can check out in Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity and Philosophy or Religion: A Reader and Guide respectively.

It has been suggest that God is perfect. Perfect was defined by Norman L. Geisler. Perfect entails not changing. It has also been suggested that God created the universe.

Now all I have suggested and argued for, is that given these specific attributes and definitions of God, (attributes and definitions that I did not create nor argue for), that either God is not perfect, or he is not the creator of the universe, or he does not exist. These are not my definitions nor have I given these attributes to God. They were given by Christian theologians and apologists. All I have suggested is you cannot have these specific attributes together or you will run into problems, which I have spelled out in my argument. Because, if these are the attributes and this is how God is defined, we will run into contradictions. And a contradiction means that a concept or argument is false.

I have used Christian definitions and attributes. Not my own. So, I do not feel that I should argue for the definitions or attributes that I have been given, since I am not the one who presented them.

The two arguments that I have set up are logically valid. Meaning the forms in which they were stated can be shown to be valid forms. You can suggest that my arguments are not sound (meaning the premises are not true), because the particular definitions or attributes, are not appropriate, but that aspect of the argument should not be directed towards me, but to other Christians that hold to these definitions and attributes of God.

If you think these Christians are wrong, that is great. Then, you can suggest how they are wrong. If you have a problem with the definitions, then the problem is not with me, but with those theologians and apologists listed above. If I am wrong for using their definition, please explain how or why. If you think that I am mistaken, I would be willing to consider it, if you can show me where my problem lies. But in doing so, please remember what I have stated above.

anon

[CuriousBob]

If "God" is that in which we live and move and have our being, the ultimate origin and source of all that exists, or the ultimately indestructible uncaused cause of all destructible things (i.e., planets and their inhabitants), then I can't see how any logical mind could come to any conclusion that excludes God from its perception of reality and still remain logical at the same time.

[Metacrock]

I've already answered these so many times:

Argument 1

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

what does that mean? why should we think that? how do we know that?

how can we know what perfection is? We are not prefect, our only example of perfection would be God and we don't know God directly
how can we know?

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

fair enough

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

assumption not in evidence. how do we know this? we would have to be perfect to know what perfect beings feel.

(Otherwise, he would not be perfect.)

If we go by the man made concept, holy irony Batman. this atheist argument is a man made concept!

4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

maybe, unless of course perfect being can do things even if they don't need to. Saying that perfection would have no wants is misleading. Perfection would lack for nothing but is that the same not desiring?

suppose we assume for the same of argument God created the universe for the same reason an artist creates art. He doesn't have to he doesn't need to in a psychosocial sense. Yet he is an artist, he's driven by his own creative nature to crate.

is that the same as "need?" how could the source of creativity not create? how could the ground of being not produce more being? In that sense the perfection is actually supported by the desire and its' not a contradiction. It would in fact be a contradiction for perfection not to create.

(Unless one can suggest that this was done without a motive or some desire.)

you must show that motives and desires are synonymous with needing.

5. Hence, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

But all of this assumes assertions not in evidence. It all assumes we understand perfection yet if the argument is right then we can't understand perfection becasue w are not it, so the argument is self defeating.

Or God is not perfect.

so what? what if God is not perfect but still exists and is best that anything could be? why would that prevent God from existing? Another problem with this argument is the person who made it has no concept of what Christian God is about.

God is not a perfect existing man in the say.

[Metacrock]

Argument 2

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

Assumption not in evidence

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

fair enough

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at another time not have that intention.

(Because, that would be a change.)

(1) This is equivocation over the meaning of "change." one can change physically without changing in character. So why can't one changing one's mind without changing psychically or in character? Atheists are always making stupid straight jacket assumptions about God.

(2) why define "immutable" in terms of mental attitudes or plans? The argument is just set up to arrive at a conclusion the premise is based upon. That's circular reasoning

4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at another time, (after the creation), no longer have the intention to create it.

Self contradiction in the argument. Why would you have the same intention to create something you already created? It already exists. it would have to be destroyed to create it again. That's irrational.

5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).

That doesn't follow from the premises. 4 is self contradiction.

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

the premises are illogical so the argument is illogical.

Or perhaps God changes.

so what if he does? process theology says he does. open theology says he does. This is so typical this guy knowing only of the fudnie version. it's so unthinkable to them and yet it's the theological fashion of the day.

[Metacrock]

atheists arguments that seek to disprove God are always a disaster. These guys don't understand the Christian concept of God because they don't study theology. They only listen to the fundies. They have the wrong concept of God in the first palce. They don't understand God arguments so they try to make half backed little arguments based upon bad understanding.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Hi Meta

Dunno if you've noticed, but this is a very old thread. You make some good points above though...

[Metacrock]

Hi Meta

Dunno if you've noticed, but this is a very old thread. You make some good points above though...

thanks. I know it's old but someone brought it up (not me).

[Griggsy]

Geisler should know the Star Trekk argument that should He be perfect, then He'd produce perfection and as Hume's dysteological argument notes, imperfections abound so that He cannot be Himself and so He canot exist per lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham challenge1 Anontheist, please post at my arguments about God thread: there you'd star as you do here! Thanks fellow ignostic!
You might get a kick out of Seer there!

[shunyadragon]

This is interesting to me because the only reason I'm agnostic and not atheist is because I don't think logic can extend beyond space/time either. To me this means that all assumptions we make about a creator/beggining are equally valid or invalid. There is simply no way to know, so I take the view that it's entirely possible that the universe was created by something like god. On the other hand, universes might be what happens when gods die. My thinking tends towards the mundane so a natural explanation is what I tend to give most credence to.

I thought I would give my complete quote and explain. 2004 was a long time ago.

When even the existence of God is beyond human logic and reasoning, I do not think this logic works in a highly hypothetical situation.

In the traditional Christian view God is infinite and eternal. God existed before the universe was created.

In the Baha'i view existence is infinite, inseperable and eternally a creation of God. It is like you looking in the mirror, your reflection is always there, unless your a vampire.

Logic is human construct of our natural reasoning abilities that evolved over time. Elements of logic can be found in the writings of ancient Egypt and Babylonia. It came to fruition in the 'Golden Age of Greek Philosophers' and has evolved since as a very human set of 'thinking tools' to help us understand ourselves and the world we live in. Many Christians give more weight to logic particularly in their arguments for God, but unfortunately virtually all these arguments are seriously flawed from an ancient perspective, and apriori assumptions that God exists. In final evaluation they are simply humans trying to reason a justification that God(s) exist. The existence or non-existence of God(s) is simply beyond human efforts at using logic to justify either the existence or non-existence of God(s).

I was a bit off in 2004 on the explanation concerning the Baha'i view. The Baha'i view is that God is separate from the physical Creation of all possible universes and the matrix of our physical existence that contains them. God, and the infinite and eternal nature of the attributes of time and space are eternal and infinite. Our physical existence is a reflection of the attributes of God, and the ultimate nature of God is beyond human reason to justify or reject the existence of God.

[OU812]

Geisler should know the Star Trek argument

[shunyadragon]

This is interesting to me because the only reason I'm agnostic and not atheist is because I don't think logic can extend beyond space/time either. To me this means that all assumptions we make about a creator/beggining are equally valid or invalid. There is simply no way to know, so I take the view that it's entirely possible that the universe was created by something like god. On the other hand, universes might be what happens when gods die. My thinking tends towards the mundane so a natural explanation is what I tend to give most credence to.

As a scientist, the mundane natural way things happen in our physical existence, such as the origin, life and death of all possible universe is the foundation of our knowledge through science. IF there is a God, than Creation is a very natural process.

I am a Baha'i and believe in a'Source' some call God(s) in many different human perspectives. Revelation is an evolving spiritual process of revealing knowledge throughout the history of humanity mirroring the natural process of the evolution of our physical existence.

I seriously question ALL the logical arguments for the existence of God, because they are essentially begging the question based on the original assumptions.