Four arguments against the existence of God

[Aoi Magi]

Among those arguments, only the 4th one stands, the rest have absurd explanations which vary with each theist. Actually the fourth one might have some too.

I know, I'll answer like a theist (let the flames begin):

1. God is ill-defined
To define God is beyond the capacity of us mere mortals. Claiming to be able to define or grasp the understanding of our lord is but the height of arrogance.

2. God is hidden
He is not hidden, he shines his mercy upon all those who seek him with faith and devotion.

3. The problem of evil
Without evil we cannot recognize or understand "good". What one sees as evil is only an illusion on this mortal plane, which aids out to reach out for His light.
Note: As per hinduism, there is no evil or good, there is just actions. God is a soul, a giant piece of soul (Param-atma). We are tiny pieces of that soul (atma), thus we to some extent are like Him, and have the capacity to do any action of our choosing. Whether that action is good or evil is determined by the grand soul, when the tiny pieces get back to him. And because we are all part of him, he can only intervene when we choose to accept him and allow his interventions.

4. The failure of positive arguments for God's existence
Corcoduck? No that was for evolution non-sense, hmm, positive proof, let's see.....oh I remember, The Bible and the ancient books talk about the supreme being, thus it must be true, or else how would those ancient people know so much about him if he didn't tell them personally? Or, if that one fails, then fallback to, the proof is there, but only those who seek it with faith shall receive the blessing of understanding it.
Note: Some versions of gods as worshipped by ancient poeple do exist, like the sun, wind, lightning, crocodile, tiger, Luke skywalker e.t.c

<insert random bible/religious quote here>

[Neo-Scholastic]

1. God is ill-defined. Reply: the elephant and the blind men.
2. God is hidden. Reply: The One is easily deduced. (see 4)
3. The problem of evil. Reply: it’s the best of all possible worlds.
4. The failure of positive arguments for God's existence. Reply: the unmoved mover argument remains undefeated.

[Mudhammam]

1. God is ill-defined. Reply: the elephant and the blind men.
2. God is hidden. Reply: The One is easily deduced. (see 4)
3. The problem of evil. Reply: it’s the best of all possible worlds.
4. The failure of positive arguments for God's existence. Reply: the unmoved mover argument remains undefeated.

All of those replies are pretty weak and easily disposable in terms of support for even a generic theism.

[KUSA]

1. He is the one that made your ungrateful ass.
2. You haven't been knocking hard or long enough.
3. If you do it then it's evil. If God does it then it's just his prerogative
4. You just have to feel the love.

[Cato]

I have five:
1. Can't see him
2. Can't hear him
3. Can't taste him
4. Can't feel him
5. Can't smell him

[Aoi Magi]

I have five:
1. Can't see him
2. Can't hear him
3. Can't taste him
4. Can't feel him
5. Can't smell him

Pay more attention to him or you'll hurt his feelings, and you don't want that

[Esquilax]

4. The failure of positive arguments for God's existence. Reply: the unmoved mover argument remains undefeated.

It also remains undemonstrated, which means talking about how it hasn't been refuted is nothing more than a shifting of the burden of proof.

I also find it fascinating that you'd put that argument in answer to this question, because "unmoved mover" doesn't get you to "god." It doesn't even get you to "being," let alone "christian god." This is just another case where the argument being proposed only leads to deism, if one is extremely generous with the supposed implications of it, and you're attempting to swap out your specific version of theism into the conclusion, heedless of how the premises no longer align.

[Crossless2.0]

4. The failure of positive arguments for God's existence. Reply: the unmoved mover argument remains undefeated.

It also remains undemonstrated, which means talking about how it hasn't been refuted is nothing more than a shifting of the burden of proof.

I also find it fascinating that you'd put that argument in answer to this question, because "unmoved mover" doesn't get you to "god." It doesn't even get you to "being," let alone "christian god." This is just another case where the argument being proposed only leads to deism, if one is extremely generous with the supposed implications of it, and you're attempting to swap out your specific version of theism into the conclusion, heedless of how the premises no longer align.

Oh, but don't you know? Aristotle was a proto-Christian.

[Ryantology]

4. The failure of positive arguments for God's existence. Reply: the unmoved mover argument remains undefeated.

Great argument, sparky. Now, I can justify bragging that I'm the best football player who ever lived because I've never lost a single game in my entire life.

[Simon Moon]

The most I struggle with is the problem of evil. I've made threads about that though. We've had good discussions about it here.

That's interesting, since I consider the problem of evil to be one of the weakest augments against the existence of a god.

Apologist, Sye Ten Brugencate laughs this argument off by just pointing out that the Biblical god is not all loving. He claims that those that die horrible deaths must deserve it.