Arguments against existence of God.

[Cherub786]

This quote from Richard Dawkins is from his Fixed-Point debate with John Lennox at the University of Alabama in 2007

And your point in quoting it? To inform us that even atheists experience the numinous? Well, no shit! We know that. They also remain atheists and don't happen to believe in your holy book.

Again, your point?

The point can be found in the context from the post in which I originally cited Dawkins

[Crossless2.0]

And your point in quoting it? To inform us that even atheists experience the numinous? Well, no shit! We know that. They also remain atheists and don't happen to believe in your holy book.

Again, your point?

The point can be found in the context from the post in which I originally cited Dawkins

Right, so my point stands. Atheists can also have a sense of the numinous without buying the whole theist package.

But you guys think that talking to figments of your imagination is a deeper response. It's laughable.

[Angrboda]

I don't know where you are getting your information; even if true, the majority to most scientists are atheistic:


Wikipedia -- Demographics of atheism: Geographic distribution

Ditto for most philosophers:

The Largest-Ever Survey of Philosophers: What Do They Believe?

It's immaterial whether majority of scientists are atheists or not. The point is that majority of cosmologists and physicists acknowledge the truth that the universe is not eternal, and they generally agree that they have no solid explanation for how and why the universe came about.

They say that the beginning of the universe is a "singularity". Now it is all theoretical, based on mathematical formulas and so many assumptions.

Even these atheist scientists are forced to admit that the questions about the nature of the cosmos and how it came into being naturally lead to belief in God, as Dawkins said:

I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmedwith a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it's tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator.

Looking at a pencil partially in water naturally leads me to belief that the pencil is bent when in fact it is not. Belief in God is likewise.

[Deesse23]

I don't know where you are getting your information; even if true, the majority to most scientists are atheistic:


Wikipedia -- Demographics of atheism: Geographic distribution

Ditto for most philosophers:

The Largest-Ever Survey of Philosophers: What Do They Believe?

It's immaterial whether majority of scientists are atheists or not. The point is that majority of cosmologists and physicists acknowledge the truth that the universe is not eternal, and they generally agree that they have no solid explanation for how and why the universe came about.

They say that the beginning of the universe is a "singularity". Now it is all theoretical, based on mathematical formulas and so many assumptions.

Even these atheist scientists are forced to admit that the questions about the nature of the cosmos and how it came into being naturally lead to belief in God, as Dawkins said:

I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmedwith a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it's tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator.

Nice setup man, i just cant decide if its intentional or if you just read what you WANTED to read.

So, please allow me to help you in correctly reading his quote:

#1 they generally agree that they have no solid explanation for how and why the universe came about
And what does a scientist and every other intellectual honest human being say when they have no explanation: "I dont know"
What does somebody like you say in this case?: "cosmologists and physicists acknowledge the truth that the universe is not eternal"
Well if you knew it was "true" beforehand, before scientists investigated and found no evidence, then you should call one of em and present your evidence. Just out of curiosity: What was your evidence that let you "know" the truth?

#2 you almost feel a desire
Please, can you translate "almost" for me. I am not native english speaker. It is like in "almost pregnant"?


#3 And it's tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire
While you are at it, please xplain what "tempting" in such a context means. Is it like "I like to do it but it seems wrong to me"?

#4 You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator
Almost sounds to me as if, considering his prior statment following the work "almost" (see #2) as if he wanted to point out that all of what he explained is tempting to almost attribute all of it to a creator, but knowing better, respectively knowing ultimately nothing, he withholds his belief. Sounds to me like someones rational mind stayed in control of his emotions. What do you think is the desirable thing to do for a scientist (or anyone else) in this situation, in lack of a solid explanation (see #1)?


Pro tip: argument from ignorance

[T0 Th3 M4X]

What is existence?

I'm not an atheist because I choose not to form that opinion. When you say "arguments against the existence of God (or gods)" they're pretty much irrelevant, because none of them can ever be both exhaustive and conclusive to disprove any god whatsoever. You can't ever prove any "god" or "gods" doesn't exist, you can't obtain the knowledge necessary to rule out any "god" existing anywhere, and if one god is found anywhere at any point, it instantly negates all arguments for atheism. So I can't be "atheist" because it's an investment that can never be fully supported, and has no return in that investment. That doesn't mean atheists can't be scientific, productive, moral in behavioral choices, or geniuses who can change the world for the better, but it doesn't require the said opinion.

There is no value for atheism. You must prove a value of 0 and the theist must prove a value of at least 1. If there's nothing, it can't be relative to anything because there is nothing else to be relative to.

I don't have a problem with people being atheists, theists, or whatever they choose to claim to be. It's their choice, just the same as it is for anybody else.

[Angrboda]

I can't prove there's not a tiny teapot in orbit around the sun, somewhere, either. I suppose you find believing in mysterious teapots a worthy investment as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

  You must prove a value of 0

Wrong.

and the theist must prove a value of  at least 1.

Yup.

 It's their choice, just the same as it is for anybody else.

Wrong again. 

In this case..two out of three is pretty bad.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

  You must prove a value of 0

Wrong.

and the theist must prove a value of  at least 1.

Yup.

 It's their choice, just the same as it is for anybody else.

Wrong again. 

In this case..two out of three is pretty bad.

Uh huh. Wrong because you "said so" doesn't make me wrong.   If so, then you are 1 of 3 for saying I'm right once, and wrong twice.  See, I can do that too.  E-Z Peazy.

[Angrboda]

Wrong.

Yup.

Wrong again. 

In this case..two out of three is pretty bad.

Uh huh. Wrong because you "said so" doesn't make me wrong.   If so, then you are 1 of 3 for saying I'm right once, and wrong twice.  See, I can do that too.  E-Z Peazy.

I don't believe he said you were wrong just because he said so. I guess that makes you wrong again.

You've got quite the habit there. Do you get the DTs if you're not wrong for an extended period of time?

[Cherub786]

A common argument from atheists against the existence of God, specifically directed against monotheistic religions, is that why does the cosmological argument point to your specific God and not the gods of pagan religions like Hinduism, Norse mythology, Greek mythology, etc.

Firstly, most of those "gods" as conceived by those pagan religions are not believed to be the creator of the universe, but demigods that are not eternal, not omnipotent, not omniscient, and not possessing creative abilities to create something from nothing. In Hindu philosophy for example, it is believe the cosmos is eternal and that matter is eternal, which is perpetually reorganized and reshaped but never creatio ex nihilo. None of their gods has the ability to create ex nihilo.

Other religions like Mormonism hold the doctrine of "exaltation" that all the "gods" were once mortal and they became divine.

Furthermore, our monotheistic belief is that God has no physical limited form or image. It is reasonable to believe that if there is a God Who created the universe ex nihilo is a God that transcends anthropomorphic qualities and limited forms. The images of the pagan gods as conceived by their respective pagan religions are derived from human imagination. It is an example of man creating god in his image.

So if you look at Thor, Ram, Zeus, Krisna, Siva, Ganesh, and even Jesus, these are example of pagan "gods" that have human forms, bodies, and limitations which rule them out as being the One God that created the universe ex nihilo, and Who is unlimited, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.