Arguments against existence of God.

[Jeffonthenet]

I hate getting bogged down by definitions. My point was that if there is an absence of evidence of God it doesn't mean you are necessarily justified in believing that there is no God. If you are, please explain why.

I don't believe that there are no gods. I lack belief in any of them, a subtle but important difference.

Just to be clear, is it not true that you believe there is no God?

[Jackalope]

I don't believe that there are no gods. I lack belief in any of them, a subtle but important difference.

Just to be clear, is it not true that you believe there is no God?

I do not believe in any deities. I would not assert that none exist, however.

[Jeffonthenet]

Just to be clear, is it not true that you believe there is no God?

I do not believe in any deities. I would not assert that none exist, however.

I asked you a yes or no question. Are you unable to answer because it would mean your logic is flawed? I not, please answer with a yes or no.

[Jackalope]

I do not believe in any deities. I would not assert that none exist, however.

I asked you a yes or no question. Are you unable to answer because it would mean your logic is flawed? I not, please answer with a yes or no.

Yes or no is insufficient to fully answer your question. If my honest answer doesn't meet with your approval, that's your problem.

[Jeffonthenet]

I asked you a yes or no question. Are you unable to answer because it would mean your logic is flawed? I not, please answer with a yes or no.

Yes or no is insufficient to fully answer your question. If my honest answer doesn't meet with your approval, that's your problem.

It is by definition a yes or no question. It is either true or false that you believe that there is no God, (if you refuse to answer, then you must disagree, if so, why?) and it is quite obvious to me that it is true that you believe that there is no God. You have every right to say "yes," and clarify why you say yes, or the other way around, but if you cannot answer this question it should be obvious to all that you are just dodging because you cannot admit defeat.

Please, give me a break, you really don't believe that there is no God?

[KnockEmOuttt]

This is what I can say. I believe that there are no gods in the sense of classical belief. The judeo-christian God, Allah, Zeus, Thor et al. are man made characters from man made mythologies. Whether or not there is sentience in the design of the universe or some kind of being(s) that started the whole thing going is largely irrelevant. I see no reason to worship it, especially since I have no idea what it is or if it even exists. But if it does exist, it certainly goes beyond my and for that matter everyone else's understanding, and it certainly is the farthest thing removed from the false gods invented by man.

And if you really need a solid foundation for why this would be true, I pose this question. If God created man and has been involved in his trials and tribulations since day one, why is it that God only came into the picture 3000 years ago? And if you start explaining the creation story to me, know that it will instantly be dismissed.

[Jackalope]

Yes or no is insufficient to fully answer your question. If my honest answer doesn't meet with your approval, that's your problem.

It is by definition a yes or no question. It is either true or false that you believe that there is no God, (if you refuse to answer, then you must disagree, if so, why?)

It's a loaded question, and perhaps you lack the subtlety to understand why it is not a simple yes or no question.

and it is quite obvious to me that it is true that you believe that there is no God. You have every right to say "yes," and clarify why you say yes, or the other way around, but if you cannot answer this question it should be obvious to all that you are just dodging because you cannot admit defeat.

Please, give me a break, you really don't believe that there is no God?

One break coming up.

You are fucking mistaken. I do not believe that there is no god. I do not believe IN god. The question as to whether any gods exist is unanswerable by me. Unless and until you define precisely what you mean by "God" and what properties you claim it to have, the question is wholly meaningless.

Dodging, my ass. Can't admit defeat? On the contrary, I can admit what I do not know.

[Skepsis]

I don't believe that there are no gods. I lack belief in any of them, a subtle but important difference.

Just to be clear, is it not true that you believe there is no God?

Believing that there is no God and lacking belief are very, very different.
How can you not understand when he explained it in the very post you quote in your reply?
This is a false dichotomy.

[jonb]

To refute a thing i need a definition of it.
I made a very nice little god out of cardboard
However I don't think you are talking about him, so I will tell you parts that I totally refute
Creator of the Universe: this is a silly idea, Used to explain where everything comes from, but the inherent hole in the theory is that it does not explain where the creator came from. To put the explanation on it that she was always there is no better than saying the elements of the universe is composed of were always there as such the notion of creator is redundant.
Super intelligent guiding force. Problem with this is Darwin, you don't even have to accept Darwin's scientifically proven theory for it to undermine the argument for a divine force, Darwin shows that that chance could bring about all the features we find around us, as such in any comparison the oft speculated divine force has done no better than chance so it is irrelevant, as it makes no difference whether it is there or not.
God of love. the concept of a being of universal good does not stand up to anyone's experience so for that to exist there has to be a bady that cocks up her plans. But if The first God is so right there is no explanation why the second god would turn against it, apart from jealousy, but that is an attribute of the first god. In Short it is not a god of love it is a god about power as such it is my duty to deny it because it is primarily about retaining power not sharing.
However that falls apart because a bad god does not fit normal experience any better than a good god, which brings us back to Darwin
And Chance
So if your definition of god is chance then I at the moment cannot think of an argument against it

[pgrimes15]

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 think that all or most of these could fall under a more general category of "Lack of expected evidence for God".

Lack of evidence IS evidence of absence (although not PROOF of absence), particularly when claims are made that the god in question intervenes in the real world.

Regards

Grimesy