Good short and simple argument against God

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Imagine a world where God did not exist but people just really wanted to believe for whatever various reasons. Now try to find the difference between the world you just imagined and our world.

Such a scenario proves exactly nothing.

There is a simple answer for everything,and it's wrong (Ambrose Bierce)

[Cyberman]

Here's a couple responses, not necessarily consistent with each other:

1) The difference is that God exists in our world.
2) The world you describe isn't possible, since God necessarily exists in all possible worlds.

Yet in both cases remains totally undetectable; as such, even if it were to exist, the Universe still plays out exactly as would be expected if it didn't.

[Simon Moon]

Here's a couple responses, not necessarily consistent with each other:

1) The difference is that God exists in our world.
2) The world you describe isn't possible, since God necessarily exists in all possible worlds.

1) There's no demonstrable evidence or reasoned argument to support this assertion.
2) The Ontological argument? Really?

[Chuff]

Imagine a world where God did not exist but people just really wanted to believe for whatever various reasons. Now try to find the difference between the world you just imagined and our world.

Well you've just described the different viewpoints of theist and atheist

same world, different worldview.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh I don't know about that...their world is filled with ghosts and magic -literally bursting with them- two things which are mysteriously absent from my own.

More often than not it doesn't even seem that we're attempting to explain the same things anymore, as those things which they have explanations for are things which I have never experienced, and to my knowledge, things which no one has any actual experience of whatsoever....

[CliveStaples]

Here's a couple responses, not necessarily consistent with each other:

1) The difference is that God exists in our world.
2) The world you describe isn't possible, since God necessarily exists in all possible worlds.

Yet in both cases remains totally undetectable; as such, even if it were to exist, the Universe still plays out exactly as would be expected if it didn't.

Oh, was there a "detectability" requirement? And what does the standard of "detectability" require--i.e., when precisely is something "detectable" and when does it fail to be "detectable"?

---

Here's a couple responses, not necessarily consistent with each other:

1) The difference is that God exists in our world.
2) The world you describe isn't possible, since God necessarily exists in all possible worlds.

1) There's no demonstrable evidence or reasoned argument to support this assertion.
2) The Ontological argument? Really?

1) I didn't say that there was. I was only outlining different responses that could be made; I wasn't making those responses myself, or providing the reasoning made to mount an effective argument for them.

2) You could think of it that way, I suppose. The Ontological argument isn't the only way to argue that God 'necessarily' exists.

[Cyberman]

To quote the Texan Tank, AronRa (from memory, so the wording will be off even if the meaning will remain): when god intervenes in our world, it ought to pull its hand out dripping with physics. In other words, whatever interacts physically with our Universe and our reality must leave some trace of its interaction. Whether we have the capability right now to detect this evidence is irrelevant. The fact remains that the Universe plays out exactly as it would be expected to as though there were no gods active in it. Now why should that be?