Why do you not believe in God?

[Mystic]

Here is a good argument against God:

If there was a benevolent Creator, there would not exist unnecessary suffering or suffering that would not bring about a greater good.
There exists suffering that is unnecessary and doesn't bring about a greater good.
Therefore a benevolent Creator does not exist.

Here is an argument for God:

1. Objective Greatness Exists.
2. For Objective Greatness to exist, all possible levels and instances of Greatness must be known.
3. Only Ultimate Greatness can know Ultimate Greatness and infinite potential levels and instances of greatness.
4. Therefore God exists.

As for 2, I've argued elaborately why in another thread. I think it was called "Justice, morality, greatness, do these things prove God".

That is speculation. That is not evidence.

What premise is speculation?

[Colanth]

Here is an argument for God:

1. Objective Greatness Exists.

Baseless assertion.

2. For Objective Greatness to exist, all possible levels and instances of Greatness must be known.

Another baseless assertion.

3. Only Ultimate Greatness can know Ultimate Greatness and infinite potential levels and instances of greatness.

Word salad.

4. Therefore God exists.

Complete argument - "some nonsense, therefore God exists".

Here are a few (over 600) you didn't list http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

[KnockEmOuttt]

That is speculation. That is not evidence.

What premise is speculation?

You haven't provided any testable, verifiable evidence. You contemplated greatness and the existence of good and evil and presented them as evidence. That is not sufficient evidence.

[Mystic]

What premise is speculation?

You haven't provided any testable, verifiable evidence. You contemplated greatness and the existence of good and evil and presented them as evidence. That is not sufficient evidence.

Can you tell me which premise you have any issue with, so we can dispute the truth of it.

[KnockEmOuttt]

Here is an argument for God:

1. Objective Greatness Exists.

Baseless assertion.

2. For Objective Greatness to exist, all possible levels and instances of Greatness must be known.

Another baseless assertion.

3. Only Ultimate Greatness can know Ultimate Greatness and infinite potential levels and instances of greatness.

Word salad.

4. Therefore God exists.

Complete argument - "some nonsense, therefore God exists".

Here are a few (over 600) you didn't list http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

It's all basically religious and philosophical doublespeak. It ignores the scientific method and substitutes a formula for simply making things up. Therefore it is inadmissible is evidence. Next caller please!

[Mystic]

It ignores the scientific method and substitutes a formula for simply making things up.

Scientific method is a circular argument method, but it's useful and pragmatic, but really the method can only prove things to be wrong, but not true. It can show observation fits well with hypothesis, but then later data can show that hypothesis is not true. It's practical and should be used, but it cannot prove God for sure.

Therefore it is inadmissible is evidence. Next caller please!

You still haven't told me what premise you dispute?

[KnockEmOuttt]

It ignores the scientific method and substitutes a formula for simply making things up.

Scientific method is a circular argument method, but it's useful and pragmatic, but really the method can only prove things to be wrong, but not true. It can observation fits well with hypothesis, but then later data can show that hypothesis is not true. It's practical and should be used, but it cannot prove God for sure.

Therefore it is inadmissible is evidence. Next caller please!

You still haven't told me what premise you dispute?

I dispute your use of reasoning on both counts. Perhaps your argument against the existence of god not as much, although I find that argument to be a bit weak to say the least. And besides that they are both arguments. Not evidence.

As for your statement on the scientific method (which is still a bit doublespeak but I think I can make out your point), you've explained the very reason why it is the best approach. It allows for us to change our understanding when we get things wrong (and yes, we get things wrong sometimes). More importantly, it provides us with strong, testable, and verifiable evidence. On the same token, religion doesn't change with new information. I'm told to take it at face value, despite its inconsistencies. As for your argument in favor of god, it's just a bunch of clever wordplay. It's not evidence for anything, it's just a way to make it sound like you've got some.

[Ryantology]

Even if objective greatness existed (and it does not), how can you objectively measure the greatness of a being who is, by all accounts, beyond our capacity to measure in any way?

Isn't this what Dawkins talked about when he mentioned a being of perfect smelliness?

[KnockEmOuttt]

If you wanted evidence of evolution, the big bang, or abiogenesis, I could provide you with testable, measurable evidence. Not some fancy wordplay which only creates god for argument's sake. Tangible evidence. I want you to provide that in support of god. Otherwise, it is not scientifically admissible evidence.

[Mystic]

Even if objective greatness existed (and it does not), how can you objectively measure the greatness of a being who is, by all accounts, beyond our capacity to measure in any way?

Well we know anything that would make it less great he cannot be. So for example, if he lacks compassion, and that would make him less great, then he cannot lack that. Therefore whatever what make him greater, he must have, because he doesn't lack greatness, and whatever would make him less great, he doesn't have, because he doesn't lack greatness. Ofcourse, we can't fully fathom ultimate compassion or ultimate love or ultimate goodness or ultimate power, but by virtue of knowledge that he is ultimately great, we know these attributes are a must.

A proof of premise 2, is that we know there is potential of greatness and there is no limit towards that. This we can see when we imagine super heroes in shows and anime, we make people greater then people we know of in real life. When coming across to imaginary super individuals, if objective greatness is true, one would surely be greater. But we can't imagine all levels of greatness, but we know potential is there. But as humans, we often have faulty logic of what is greater or not. There seems to be a need of knowledge that would be the basis to our knowledge of greatness, for whatever level of greatness we can perceive and whatever possible great beings can perceive.

So from this thought process, from what we know of greatness, there seems to be a need of source that contains knowledge of all greatness.

In short, if objective greatness were to exist, all possible greatness must have a basis, and if all possible greatness has a basis, so does the ultimate level of it have a basis.

It doesn't seem to make much sense, that we say objective greatness exists, but only to the extent of our limited perception and anything beyond that is not greatness.