How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Tom Fearnley]

I'm really interested to know what you guys think of this argument:

Moderator Notice
link removed for violating 30/30 rule

Theists often don't know how to respond I find or their responses are poor.

[Tom Fearnley]

[Alan V]

[Belacqua]

[no one]

You seem to be forgetting the powers of Muh huly buuk.

[Gwaithmir]

Nothing new here. This is merely one of dozens of arguments I've used against theists for years.

[Acrobat]

[Acrobat]

[Alan V]

The equivalent ontological Theistic conclusions revolve around intentionality, seeing our reality as created for some underlying purpose endowed with a meaning of some sort. The antithesis for such a view isn’t found in some scientific explanation of how the world works,  but in an opposing ontological view, such as nihilism, that it’s all a product of a some cosmic accident, a fluke. That it’s all sound and fury signifying nothing. A competing atheistic view would be along those lines.

I don't think you are talking about nihilism here, the belief that life is meaningless. It doesn't follow from the universe itself having no essential absolute meaning because people create their own relative meanings, both from their human nature and by their specific interests.

The first cause argument you're referring to, isn't everything requires a creator. That's an atheist straw man of the argument. 

It's everything that is contingent has a cause. Something that exists by necessity, that is uncaused. Or else you'd have an infinite regress.

Yes, I have heard that variation of the theistic argument as well, and as you say it deals with the problems of the more simply stated argument.

However, in that case one of the atheistic answers is that there are certain things which are known to be uncaused, like ratioactive decay and quantum fluctuations. It is thought that the big bang could have started from a quantum fluctuation, as an alternative theory.

Further, there are other problems with the argument as you have stated it, like how theists arrive at their very specific God concept. Why should we assume a First Cause which is said to have created the universe is conscious and willful, as a God is assumed to be, or even good and moral for that matter?

So as I mentioned, atheists have a wide range of arguments to answer various theistic arguments.

[Mister Agenda]

It's not always simple, but the way to defeat any argument for God is to find the flaw in the premises and/or fallacy in the reasoning. In theory there could be a perfect argument for God that has premises almost anyone would accept as reasonable and no fallacious reasoning, I just haven't seen one. If one existed, it would not suffice to prove the existence of God, any more than a perfect argument for talking goats would prove the existence of talking goats if no examples could be produced; but having a perfect argument on your side isn't nothing.

Each argument for God must be defeated on its own merits or lack thereof. There's no 'one size fits all' logical refutation.