An argument that disproves God possibly existing?

[Darkstar]

It also shows that eternal unchanging beings cannot be worshipped, since limited praise that is earned is always greater then their praise.

This doesn't mean there can't be gods, it also doesn't disprove a soul and metaphysical reality or after life.

Perhaps what is still proven by the moral argument is that there is an objective perceiver that is absolute and correct perceiver to all possible levels of greatness/praise, but it shows it's not "God" or ultimately great.

I personally think that god exiting is statistically impossible, however, there might be a pseudo-god (which I still consider extremely unlikely) that is not perfect, but appears perfect from the viewpoint of humans. I cannot imagine a perfect being existing, but maybe a very powerful one could. It really depends on how you define god.

AS for the soul, what is it, and where does it originate? Is the soul linked to any particular religion, or set of religions, and if so how do they know it is real if their doctrine is false? Life after death and the soul can't really be disproven in the way they are defined. The soul has long been seen as the 'spark' of life, so to speak. Whether or not this is true is another story. As for life after death, I do not see how this could exist in the absense of a soul, and am still unsure of it even if the soul is assumed.

Perhaps you mean something a little less specific than heaven, such as perhaps simply the disembodiment of the soul. But that brings up another question, where does the soul come from? You have no memories of events prior to your birth, so the soul either doesn't store memories, or it was created at birth. Does it dissipate at death? (assuming that it exists) In some ways, a non-religious theism can be as problematic as a religious one in that you have no reference material to provide answers to these questions, albiet unreliable ones, which actually goes to show how many of the 'truths' in holy books are in fact not self-evident as they sometimes declare.

---

Hmm...you bring a good point.

God is defined to be unchanging. If you define him that he did change and earned his God-hood, then this argument fails.

But this means it was possible for him to be evil. And also means there should've been a significant struggle between evil and good.

In this sense, how do we know for sure God made the right decision?

Well, we don't Religious theists often defend the obviously immoral actions of their particular god by citing the assumption of moral perfection as though it were a fact. (Truth be told, I do not think the bible even claims Yahweh is omnibenevolent, or even hints at it, as it is abviously untrue). Is the fact that we are not currently enslaved by god proof that he has at least some good? If we assume all religions are incorrect (not exactly a leap of faith) then the manipulative gods that created said religions are suddenly out of the picture.