An argument against God

[bennyboy]

Go for the masters, the 4 year will get you a job as a tech support guy at a bank, that's about it. Does the program you're in have a Nand2tetris module?

(if not, I highly recommend you check it out http://www.nand2tetris.org/ , a programmer that understands how his programs are implemented is worth ten of his "purer" peers)

Rhythm, you should right away start a thread for the best resources for learning about computer architecture and programming.

I would like to add the importance of finding an Apple iie emulator and playing through Robot Odyssey.

[The Grand Nudger]

RO is flat out -the shit-. You don't need an emulator though, you can run a clone in Java.

https://github.com/ThomasFooteDQ/DroidQuest

I'll get on that thread, btw, been awhile since I actually put any content up myself (sorry for the slight derail mystic..lol)

[Madness20]

(1)If God exists, it would be a favor if humanity knew he existed beyond doubt.

Would it? I highly doubt this.

[Ben Davis]

(1)If God exists, it would be a favor if humanity knew he existed beyond doubt.

Would it? I highly doubt this.

I was about to offer the same objection. The get-out clause here (assuming the Abrahamic god/s) is The Ineffable Plan (TIP). Would God want to give humanity direct knowledge of his existence? Who knows! It could be part of TIP to withhold that knowledge from us. And since the Plan is ineffable, we'll never know! Therefore the base premise can be rejected.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking. People want a miracle or ask for a sign and then if by chance it happens they find a way to explain it away. That is the problem with relying on miracles.

Fortunately, there are two other routes by which one can come to knowledge of God: reasoning from common experience (think Aquinas) and personal revelation (gnosis).

If there's a God; he, she, or it is welcome to revelate me. Welcome to compel my belief. And I set my bar for evidence pretty low: the right words from the right person would suffice to get me back in church, trying to believe.

[John V]

(1)If God exists, it would be a favor if humanity knew he existed beyond doubt.

Not necessarily true. Depends on the god. For a deist god, what difference would it make?

Regarding Christianity, James says that the demons believe in God - and shudder. Plenty of atheists say that they wouldn't worship God even if convinced of his existence. So this doesn't apply to the God of the Bible.

(2) God can prove his existence beyond doubt.

Some atheists would argue against this, but I'm with you on this one. I believe God will eventually prove his existence beyond a doubt.

(3) God being all benevolent

This should be its own point. you've really limited the application of the argument with this one. For example, it doesn't apply to the God of the Bible, as things like the flood or the plagues don't seem benevolent.

would want to be bestow the favor of being knowing beyond doubt by all of humanity.

Since this follows from 1 and 1 isn't generally applicable, neither is this point. It might be applicable for some gods.

(4) He is not known beyond doubt by all of humanity.

OK.

(5) Therefore God doesn't exist.

Since 1, 3a and 3b are very restricted in applicability, so is the conclusion. I suppose you've ruled out gods who are all benevolent and for whom knowledge of the god is beneficial to humankind. Is there a particular god you had in mind? It doesn't fit any that are coming to my mind.

[Zidneya]

(1)If God exists, it would be a favor if humanity knew he existed beyond doubt.

Not necessarily true. Depends on the god. For a deist god, what difference would it make?

Regarding Christianity, James says that the demons believe in God - and shudder. Plenty of atheists say that they wouldn't worship God even if convinced of his existence. So this doesn't apply to the God of the Bible.

(2) God can prove his existence beyond doubt.

Some atheists would argue against this, but I'm with you on this one. I believe God will eventually prove his existence beyond a doubt.

(3) God being all benevolent

This should be its own point. you've really limited the application of the argument with this one. For example, it doesn't apply to the God of the Bible, as things like the flood or the plagues don't seem benevolent.

would want to be bestow the favor of being knowing beyond doubt by all of humanity.

Since this follows from 1 and 1 isn't generally applicable, neither is this point. It might be applicable for some gods.

(4) He is not known beyond doubt by all of humanity.

OK.

(5) Therefore God doesn't exist.

Since 1, 3a and 3b are very restricted in applicability, so is the conclusion. I suppose you've ruled out gods who are all benevolent and for whom knowledge of the god is beneficial to humankind. Is there a particular god you had in mind? It doesn't fit any that are coming to my mind.

If god would want to spread a message, that message would need to have the next qualities.

God would make sure that the message reach all humanity. And no!, people spreading their own religion doesn't count. Because those are people(not God) that spread a message. And let's be honest that opens a hole can of worms. What if they decide they don't spread the message?(either because they don't want to, because they can get to that place, because they can't know the language or can't communicate) What if they distort the message? What if they die and the message didn't got delivered? When people transmit a message they transmit a system of beliefs.

That message would have to be destined for a multicultural view of life that promotes respect to other people. While in reality the core of all the nonsenses it's always the same: God(or Gods in some cases) choose this tribe, region or culture to be his children an convert everyone else to be the same as them, to think the same as them and to worship him the same as they.

I't would be a message of knowledge and understanding. While let's be realistic every stablished religious system worries too much and dedicate time of their lives to make it very clear the horrible things that what will happen to you if you question or disobey their dogmas.

It's main focus will be the message not the messenger. Tell me if this sounds familiar: The message is god and he is unique and powerful and…… what you want to know what his goals are? How the hell should I know he's motives are a mystery, what do you mean that you wan't to know? you worry too much don't think about what to do, think how to worship him.

This message will encourage the to grow. While many religious systems encourage you to conform with what you have and don't try anything new.

The main focus of the message will be the individual not the system. How many religious systems stables their objectives the same as the civilization where they live. The message wouldn't care about abortion, adultery, homosexuality, interracial nor cruelty.

The message will have to promote equality not superiority trough faith, race, gender, species or age.

It will leave some kind of scientific evidence that proofs that this message comes from god.

That message would explain our existence. While every religion claims the same. The explanation from our origins comes from this inexplicable holy form of creation.

I don't know if theres a god BUT I SURE AS HELL KNOW THAT THE MESSAGE THAT EVERY OTHER RELIGION PROMOTES AIN'T COME FROM GOD.

[TreeSapNest]

Experience on AF has taught me that Premise 2 is false. There seems to be nothing at all that could persuade an ideological atheist.

To prove God is to know all that is and he is the one: the none other or before, the that from which all else eminates. A state of mind rather than fact, for how could even God know there is not another or before of which he can not perceive?

Ideology or curiosity?