Arguments against existence of God.

[Whateverist]

The human imagination is formidable if not limitless.

The what-if scenarios for schema that are by definition undetectable is limitless.

Life is brief and the actual is entirely sufficient.

Therefore, why spend the valuable, limited resource of time which we do have on worrying about which of a multitude of hypothetical undetectable realities might also exist?  


Addendum: I will smack the first person who says "because if we don't figure it out correctly we might lose a limitless treasure and receive a horrendous disincentive".  Screw that.

Love doesn't require an explanation, it is the why. If that won't lead you to search for him, nothing will.

Love requires no search.

[Angrboda]

What are you going to do with these arguments, Mystic? Make a rosary of all the reasons you shouldn't believe what you do so that you can magic them away?

Love doesn't require an explanation, it is the why. If that won't lead you to search for him, nothing will.

Bullshit, this flies right in the face of the Principle Of Sufficient Reason. Now you're just saying stupid shit because you think it sounds clever.

[Mystic]

Love doesn't require an explanation, it is the why. If that won't lead you to search for him, nothing will.

Love requires no search.

You lucked out then cause your wife came to you, my 1st date, I had to go find her!

[The Inquisition]

1. Evil/Suffering
2. Bad design in nature, and in some features of humans.
3. Arguments against free-will.
4. God not showing himself in obvious undeniable fashion.
5. No guidance (only applicable if you don't believe guidance has been sent) [this argument is made by people whom believe in guidance, "if there was God, he would send us a form of guidance/communication", and it has some strong persuasion, see thread about "leadership" for example]
6. Imperfect World (similar to 1, but slightly different).

Please add some if you know more.

I haven't posted here in a while, so why not on an old post?

I would say that most arguments made by apologists for the existence of god invariable deny or conveniently forget the alleged god's omni-qualities.

They can't maintain their superhero's abilities in a consistent fashion which only highlights the contrived nature of their god concept.

[Mystic]

10. Paradox by definition.

[GrandizerII]

IMO, the best argument against the Creator type of God (the one with typically omni-max attributes) is that it's logically contradictory in terms of nature and attributes and, by definition, has done logically problematic stuff (like create things without material cause, or exist and act "beyond time").

The second best is the silence/hiddenness of God.

[Belacqua]

IMO, the best argument against the Creator type of God (the one with typically omni-max attributes) is that it's logically contradictory in terms of nature and attributes and, by definition, has done logically problematic stuff (like create things without material cause, or exist and act "beyond time").

The frustrating thing about a lot of these discussions is that people end up conflating very different views of God. 

For example, creator-type God is logically consistent within a self-contained argument, like the Neoplatonic one, the God of Aquinas, or the God of Spinoza. But so often on these forums we end up running different things together. So if Simone Weil discusses the God of the philosophers, who doesn't "care" about people in the way that our mommies care about us, or doesn't intervene in history the way Ken Ham's cartoon-God does, people will reply, "Oh, yeah, then why did he massacre the Moabites?" As if we have to reconcile one view of God with another unrelated view. 

Granted, Christians often conflate the types as it's convenient for them. But if we specify what we're talking about we should be able to eliminate many of the irrelevant objections. 

So what you say here, about a God who acts "beyond time" strikes me as a conflation. People who see God as "beyond time" generally say that God doesn't act. He causes things to happen through his nature, but not by taking actions. That would require change and motion, and a God beyond time has neither of these things. 

The logical contradictions sometimes go away if we stick to one version.

[GrandizerII]

So what you say here, about a God who acts "beyond time" strikes me as a conflation. People who see God as "beyond time" generally say that God doesn't act. He causes things to happen through his nature, but not by taking actions. That would require change and motion, and a God beyond time has neither of these things.

Causing things to happen, whether through its nature or not, is an act.

The logical contradictions sometimes go away if we stick to one version.

I'm talking about the "everything out of nothing" Creator God, the God of WLC and the likes. To create (in this context here) is to form out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo).

[Deesse23]

I am a prophet!
Proof: within the next page this thread will morph into a discussion about Aquinas.

[Belacqua]

Causing things to happen, whether through its nature or not, is an act.

Well, in both the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions, God is the Good, the Ideal, and the end point of all potentialities. God does nothing but exist as such, and the world moves because it aims to be nearer to, or more like, God. Action requires change, and change is something God doesn't do. The world changes because it is "motivated" by God. 

I don't know what percentage of modern Christians hold to this, but it is clear in Simone Weil and other philosophically-inclined believers. 

I'm talking about the "everything out of nothing" Creator God, the God of WLC and the likes. To create (in this context here) is to form out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo).

What is WLC? Is it widespread?