How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Belacqua]

This is the sort of thing I find really baffling about theology is that in trying to make their presupposed God out to be so vastly different from anything else in existence,

The way you write this, you seem to be assuming the psychology of a vast number of people, most of whom are long dead. 

Do you take it for granted that they begin with a "presupposed God" and then have some motivation to make it "vastly different"? 

Rather than imagining the motivations of people from very different times and places, I think it makes more sense to deal with the arguments as given. 

If you just begin with the axiom that lots of people were disingenuous, it looks like an easy way out. 

 it ends up being so impossible to the point that some theologians are careful not to assign attributes to it while nevertheless describing it in some way, and some even wondering if it makes sense to say God exists while presupposing God is!

If you're interested in working on why many theologians feel it's important not to say that God has attributes, that's something we could discuss, I guess. 

But it looks as though you've already judged that their motives are bad, so their conclusions must be dishonest. 

As for why it's misleading to say that God exists, it's because it doesn't exist in the way that objects exist. God, being existence itself, is not one object existing in addition to all the other objects. 

I agree that many people are dishonest in their arguments, or have their logic overwhelmed by a desire to reach a given conclusion. We see it all the time. Still, this isn't sufficient to dismiss the arguments themselves. You know about the ad hominem fallacy and all that, right.

[Acrobat]

If you break this all down, it's still saying the Good/God is the standard for what's right and wrong. The Holocaust is wrong because of something to do with the Good/God.

That’s true.

It’s sort of like a wife, whose friend has a really good husband, saying to her own husband why can’t you be more like him? As opposed to saying why don’t you arbitrarily do whatever he tells you to do.

[GrandizerII]

This is the sort of thing I find really baffling about theology is that in trying to make their presupposed God out to be so vastly different from anything else in existence,

The way you write this, you seem to be assuming the psychology of a vast number of people, most of whom are long dead. 

Do you take it for granted that they begin with a "presupposed God" and then have some motivation to make it "vastly different"? 

Rather than imagining the motivations of people from very different times and places, I think it makes more sense to deal with the arguments as given. 

If you just begin with the axiom that lots of people were disingenuous, it looks like an easy way out.

I don't need to do any psychic readings of dead people. Theology itself begins with the assumption that God exists and contains the assumption that God, in order to be God, must not be like other entities in existence.

When/if theologians try to demonstrate God's existence through logic, they would then be doing philosophy, not theology.

From Wikipedia (Theology):

Theology begins with the assumption that the divine exists in some form, such as in physical, supernatural, mental, or social realities, and that evidence for and about it may be found via personal spiritual experiences or historical records of such experiences as documented by others. The study of these assumptions is not part of theology proper but is found in the philosophy of religion, and increasingly through the psychology of religion and neurotheology. Theology then aims to structure and understand these experiences and concepts, and to use them to derive normative prescriptions for how to live our lives.

Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (experiential, philosophical, ethnographic, historical, and others) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any myriad of religious topics. As in philosophy of ethics and case law, arguments often assume the existence of previously resolved questions, and develop by making analogies from them to draw new inferences in new situations.

The study of theology may help a theologian more deeply understand their own religious tradition,[9] another religious tradition,[10] or it may enable them to explore the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition. Theology may be used to propagate,[11] reform,[12] or justify a religious tradition or it may be used to compare,[13] challenge (e.g. biblical criticism), or oppose (e.g. irreligion) a religious tradition or world-view. Theology might also help a theologian address some present situation or need through a religious tradition,[14] or to explore possible ways of interpreting the world.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

---

If you break this all down, it's still saying the Good/God is the standard for what's right and wrong. The Holocaust is wrong because of something to do with the Good/God.

That’s true.

It’s sort of like a wife, whose friend has a really good husband, saying to her own husband why can’t you be more like him? As opposed to saying why don’t you arbitrarily do whatever he tells you to do.

But in your analogy, X is right not because of "good husband" but because of something else. It's just that "good husband" is great at upholding X. But if you insist that X is good because of "good husband" then it is arbitrary.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here we go again. All of this is an excuse to complain about atheists.

[LadyForCamus]

[auote]What I’m saying is that you, Acrobat, are the one who is making that determination. I agree with you that the holocaust, and torturing babies is immoral. I don’t agree with you that a god, and/or a ‘divine maximal good’ is necessary for me to make that moral judgement.

You’re  the one that makes the determination as to whether something is true, whether you’re a real person, or a brain in vat, whether the earth is round, whether the holocaust happened.

You and I may agree that the holocaust is bad, but you and I don’t agree about the nature of good and bad, even without any notion of God.

You don’t think that the holocaust is bad is an objective truth, but the subjective whims of groups.

No, as I have clarified. Do bear with me as I catch up with regard to the relevant terminology here. 

If a group of people can agree on a set of goals for that group, then we can say that certain actions are objectively good or bad, based on the pre-set goals for the group. If we decide that physical well-being is generally good for the majority of the group, then we can judge rape as objectively wrong with respect to that goal. That would be a moral fact.

If a group of people thought the holocaust was good, like the Nazis etc.. they would be wrong, just like if a group of people thought the earth is flat would be wrong.

The truth is independent of any groups opinion or subjective goals.

Yes, the truth that killing/torturing/raping someone is bad for their well being is independent of what anyone thinks. I think well-being is a good and moral goal for any group of people, because it is based on the fact that some actions are objectively bad for an individual’s well-being. No god necessary. Could there hypothetically be a group of people who’s societal goal is to rape and/or kill women and children? Sure. But that wouldn’t change the fact that raping and killing women and children is bad for their well-being. It would also be a pretty self-destructive goal for the group itself.

Subjective judgements don’t become objective because a group of people share them with you, they remain subjective.

I agree with you. I apologize if I didn’t communicate my thoughts clearly.

[The Grand Nudger]

We hear so much about a more sophisticated god or set of arguments, but we never see those gods or arguments.

As such, it doesn’t matter whether or not there are more sophisticated gods or arguments, since this god...and these arguments, aren’t those gods or arguments.

This god, and this argument, is common and in contradiction with itself. It’s a minor contradiction, resolved by correcting the metaphysical claim made about the moral system of this god. Unfortunately, that misappropriated designation is central to how people who believe in this god view their beliefs. So even though it’s a mechanically simple issue, it can’t be corrected while retaining the content of the god and worldview held by the believer. There are, ofc, people who believe that morality works this way even if they don’t like it’s accurate metaphysical categorization.

[Belacqua]

Theology itself begins with the assumption that God exists and contains the assumption that God, in order to be God, must not be like other entities in existence.

When/if theologians try to demonstrate God's existence through logic, they would then be doing philosophy, not theology.

The field of Natural Theology attempts to use reason alone to say that God exists, and what it's like. 
If you want to declare by fiat that Natural Theology isn't really theology, I guess you can. But you'll be disagreeing with every other source, including Wikipedia, which says: 

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of .

Anyway, the main point still stands: if you declare that a person's argument must be wrong because his motivations are bad, that's a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy. Even if we could know what a person's motivations are, the argument still might be right. 

[The Grand Nudger]

Irrelevant, since..in this case, regardless of what our arguers motivations are, he’s wrong by reference to his own statements and god concept.

[GrandizerII]

Theology itself begins with the assumption that God exists and contains the assumption that God, in order to be God, must not be like other entities in existence.

When/if theologians try to demonstrate God's existence through logic, they would then be doing philosophy, not theology.

The field of Natural Theology attempts to use reason alone to say that God exists, and what it's like. 
If you want to declare by fiat that Natural Theology isn't really theology, I guess you can. But you'll be disagreeing with every other source, including Wikipedia, which says: 

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of .

Anyway, the main point still stands: if you declare that a person's argument must be wrong because his motivations are bad, that's a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy. Even if we could know what a person's motivations are, the argument still might be right. 

Meh, natural theology borrows from both theology and philosophy, I suppose. Anyhow, not the theology I had in mind, but even in some of those arguments for God's existence, particularly the ones that are purportedly abductive arguments for God, the possibility of God's existence is nevertheless assumed in the premises.

And regarding your main point:

There's no ad hominem in saying that the arguments made by theologians can be quite ridiculous. This is because I'm focusing on the arguments I've read, along with what you have said as well, and then made my judgements based on that. Not the other way around.

Also, never said motivations are necessarily bad. Why must motivations be bad in order for strong biases to play a role?

[LadyForCamus]

Basically, “god is good, and good is god.” And yet, we have no definition or explanation of either. What an incredibly useless basis for a moral system.