A good case against God

[Whateverist]

Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of God that can stand up to scrutiny?

No, and neither can anyone else. There is no case to make against the existence of gods.

I've seen no evidence and no argument for or against the existence of gods that is at all conclusive. As you say this is sufficient to support a position of agnosticism and like most people on this site, I am.

Now unless you take the position that evidence is a necessary condition for holding beliefs, one can go right on believing what he likes about gods. You may go right on feeling the presence of God if you do and I can go on noticing no such thing. As personal truths regarding our experience, we owe no one a convincing argument for the beliefs we discover operative in our lives.

More controversially, I don't think it is necessarily irrational to hold such beliefs. At most, like so much of who we are, it is merely non-rational.

To make an argument that either one of us should believe what the other does we must leave the arena of passive, personal truths and look for objective reasons. But as we both seem to think, that search will be in vain.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't care what you call yourself or me… I believe, like many many other Christians based on the personal experience of God. Yet personal experience is by definition unsharable, so I cannot communicate to you that experience, I can only testify to you based on my experience. Why am I obligated to prove God in this case?

You're not. Your personal faith is your own. If you are aware of this, why do you think we need to make a case against your personal faith?

I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment.

Lots of things that aren't true were taken for granted for a long time. What makes the existence of God an extraordinary claim is not just that you're positing the supernatural with no objective way of demonstrating it, but it's something you can't know based on subjective, unsharable experience. If you think about it, even if you are in contact with an extraordinary or supernatural being, it wouldn't have to be omnipotent to convince you that it's God, only powerful enough to make you feel like you're in touch with what you think is God. That's not even bringing in natural explanations for your experience. I believe that if we try hard enough we can convince ourselves of pretty much anything, which makes 'believe first, then you get evidence' claims pretty shallow. If I believed Voudoun first, I'm sure I'll get 'evidence' too, thanks to altered mental states and confirmation bias. To get past reasonable skepticism, theistic religions have to get us to change our standards of evidence. That's a big red alert sign to me.

[Thor]

I don't care what you call yourself or me… I believe, like many many other Christians based on the personal experience of God.

Oh, so you've had "a personal experience of God"? Great! But people have also reported "personal experiences" of being abducted by aliens, riding on comets and having conversations with invisible beings. You're in some mighty fine company.

Yet personal experience is by definition unsharable, so I cannot communicate to you that experience, I can only testify to you based on my experience.

So what exactly was this "experience"? Because I'll bet we could provide some plausible explanations beyond "God".

Why am I obligated to prove God in this case?

Only if you want to convince us your imaginary friend is real are you obligated to "prove god". Otherwise, you can live in your little delusion and we don't care.

I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

The existence of an invisible, all knowing and all powerful being who supposedly created the entire universe isn't an extraordinary claim? I can't really think of anything that would be more extraordinary.

God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment.

Yes, as soon as people started to gain real knowledge about the natural world belief in your god began to wane. See a connection there?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

The time has come for everyone here to unanimously demand a full description of this supposed experience this twat keeps waving at us and hiding behind his back. This is complete and utter bullshit.

The last cunt who tried to pull this on a forum I was on, when he came out with it all it was,was "I had this FEELING'.

I have no doubt it will be the same with this cunt.

[Thor]

The last cunt who tried to pull this on a forum I was on, when he came out with it all it was,was "I had this FEELING'.

I was on another forum when some dingbat posted their "personal experience". The dope told of how he was in church where everyone was chanting and singing. People were praising god and asking for the "Holy Spirit" to touch them. This idiot then "had a feeling" and proclaimed "The Holy Spirit just touched me!" Of course, all the other brainwashed loons were thrilled to hear about this!

Actually, I don't doubt this guy "felt something". But isn't it much more likely that he was caught up in the emotion of the moment (particularly with a large group of like minded people) and misinterpreted a visceral reaction as "the Holy Spirit"?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

The last cunt who tried to pull this on a forum I was on, when he came out with it all it was,was "I had this FEELING'.

I was on another forum when some dingbat posted their "personal experience". The dope told of how he was in church where everyone was chanting and singing. People were praising god and asking for the "Holy Spirit" to touch them. This idiot then "had a feeling" and proclaimed "The Holy Spirit just touched me!" Of course, all the other brainwashed loons were thrilled to hear about this!

Actually, I don't doubt this guy "felt something". But isn't it much more likely that he was caught up in the emotion of the moment (particularly with a large group of like minded people) and misinterpreted a visceral reaction as "the Holy Spirit"?

And there is a discussion going on another forum in which the OP, a former"faith healer " in training, illustrates the theory and techniques of inducing exactly that sort of experience in the credulous and gullible. Quite illuminating.


Oh, and I want a shiny hat, too, dammit.

[KnockEmOuttt]

The last cunt who tried to pull this on a forum I was on, when he came out with it all it was,was "I had this FEELING'.

I was on another forum when some dingbat posted their "personal experience". The dope told of how he was in church where everyone was chanting and singing. People were praising god and asking for the "Holy Spirit" to touch them. This idiot then "had a feeling" and proclaimed "The Holy Spirit just touched me!" Of course, all the other brainwashed loons were thrilled to hear about this!

Actually, I don't doubt this guy "felt something". But isn't it much more likely that he was caught up in the emotion of the moment (particularly with a large group of like minded people) and misinterpreted a visceral reaction as "the Holy Spirit"?

Glossolalia, anyone?

[Jeffonthenet]

The last cunt who tried to pull this on a forum I was on, when he came out with it all it was,was "I had this FEELING'.

I have no doubt it will be the same with this cunt.

Just for future reference, this is why I don't respond to you…. actually it is far more your misrepresenting of my arguments or ignoring them, and then triumphing over your dead straw men.

[jonb]

Oh, and I want a shiny hat, too, dammit.

It is not my intention to become a milliner for the Athiest comunity, but here you go

[KnockEmOuttt]

Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of God that can stand up to scrutiny?

I'd like to take this moment to talk to you about something very real. It's called the null hypothesis. More or less, it's the default position of the scientific method (you may not like it, but it's the reason you've got a computer to sit in front of.) As wikipedia states:

It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it.

That stated, if your hypothesis is "God exists, all things in the universe are a result of him" then the null hypothesis by default is "God does not exist, all things in the universe are a result of chance."

In this argument, the atheists are on the side of the null hypothesis. Remembering that the null can not be proven, only rejected or accepted, it is up to you to provide the proof that the null is false.

That is why not only can we not give you a good case against the existence of God that can stand up to scrutiny, it is not our job.

I hope that is good enough for you.