A simple argument against God

[LinuxGal]

God's understanding is infinite:

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

God's understanding is finite:

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

[Objectivist]

[P1] If there is no evidence for God then God is unlikely to exist
[P2] There is no evidence for God
[C] Therefore God is unlikely to exist

Of course, the theist will take issue with premise two.  He'll say that everything that exists is evidence for a god but that could only be the case if one assumes that a god created it in the first place.  D'oh!

[Peebothuhlu]

[P1] If there is no evidence for God then God is unlikely to exist
[P2] There is no evidence for God
[C] Therefore God is unlikely to exist

[P1] Just because we have not found where the great Cthulhu is sleeping... does not mean it's not slumbering awaiting its awakening...

[P2] Again, we haven't looked in the 'Last place' to find a sleeping Great One...

[C] Once the Great Old One has awoken, with their rising showing their existence, may you be eaten first.

You're welcome.

Not at work.

[Gwaithmir]

[P1] If there is no evidence for God then God is unlikely to exist
[P2] There is no evidence for God
[C] Therefore God is unlikely to exist

Of course, the theist will take issue with premise two.  He'll say that everything that exists is evidence for a god but that could only be the case if one assumes that a god created it in the first place.  D'oh!

Perhaps [P2] should be: There is no evidence for God which will stand up to rational scrutiny.

[Objectivist]

Of course, the theist will take issue with premise two.  He'll say that everything that exists is evidence for a god but that could only be the case if one assumes that a god created it in the first place.  D'oh!

Perhaps [P2] should be: There is no evidence for God which will stand up to rational scrutiny.

I don't think there is any other kind of evidence.   Evidence that does not stand up to rational scrutiny isn't evidence.  This is what gets me.  They place their god in another realm outside of this one that we all live in and experience in which everything is subject to the law of identity and then want to debate its existence.  If this god exists outside of the law of identity then it is outside the reach of logic.  I think it's completely dishonest to do this.

[tackattack]

Pardon this is on my phone.

FM- u know very well I do whole heartedly believe what I said. I believe Harrison believes that Krishna exists. I have seen no evidence that Krishna exists, therefore I don’t believe that Krishna exists to me. But that’s what happens in subjective reality, what’s real and true to one isn’t necessarily the same to others. With the widest definition of exists, being evidenced by some to “be”. I would say that Krishna exists. I have no problems with their existing many gods other than God. I’m certain that my God isn’t even the same God as some Christians.


@Objectivist- here is where rational scrutiny fails as a definition; prove to me that a parent or SO loves you. I can’t prove to you I love you, but I do and it’s real to me. Does that mean my love for you doesn’t exist? What most people mean when they want proof is externally verifiable, measurable and repeatable material evidence.

[Fake Messiah]

. I would say that Krishna exists. I have no problems with their existing many gods other than God. I’m certain that my God isn’t even the same God as some Christians.

Oh great, so now you are a polytheist. How does that go with Christianity considering that Jesus and his dad don't allow it?

[LadyForCamus]

[P1] If the prime mover requires a mind then there is justification for this
[P2] There is not justification for this
[C1] The prime mover does not require a mind

^^ A more interesting argument

I thought you identified as a theist now.

[Aegon]

[P1] If there is no evidence for God then God is unlikely to exist
[P2] There is no evidence for God
[C] Therefore God is unlikely to exist

This isn't even really an argument, at least not one that could convince anyone who isn't already an atheist. Obviously there is plenty of nuance to interject into your second premise and anyone who believes in God or is even a certain brand of agnostic would take issue with it.

[Angrboda]

Pardon this is on my phone.

FM- u know very well I do whole heartedly believe what I said. I believe Harrison believes that Krishna exists. I have seen no evidence that Krishna exists, therefore I don’t believe that Krishna exists to me. But that’s what happens in subjective reality, what’s real and true to one isn’t necessarily the same to others. With the widest definition of exists, being evidenced by some to “be”. I would say that Krishna exists. I have no problems with their existing many gods other than God. I’m certain that my God isn’t even the same God as some Christians.


@Objectivist- here is where rational scrutiny fails as a definition; prove to me that a parent or SO loves you. I can’t prove to you I love you, but I do and it’s real to me. Does that mean my love for you doesn’t exist? What most people mean when they want proof is externally verifiable, measurable and repeatable material evidence.

Say no to mouldy chestnuts.