What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?

395 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dejess's picture
What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?

I know God exists, and I like to know very much the best argument from atheists against God existing.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Jared Alesi's picture
Interesting. Well, prove to

Interesting. Well, prove to me that Zeus doesn't exist, and I'll just use your method.

Tin-Man's picture
No, no, no, Jared! Bad dog!

No, no, no, Jared! Bad dog! EVERYBODY already KNOWS Zeus exists. That's just silly to try to prove otherwise. Oh, I'm sorry, Dejess. Uh, Zeus IS the god you are talking about, right? Or, wait, my bad. Perhaps you mean the god Odin? No, you seem more like an Aphrodite kinda of believer. (Although, technically, that would be goddess.) Or maybe you meant Poseidon? Well, crap. Instead of me sitting here making all these assumptions, maybe it would be easier if you could just tell us which god you would like for us to prove doesn't exist. I mean, there several thousand from which to choose, and I would not want to waste the whole night sitting here guessing which one you believe exists. And then, like Jared said, you tell us how you would prove any of the others don't exist, and we can just follow your method. Fair enough?

Jared Alesi's picture
No, he's one of Jehovah's

No, he's one of Jehovah's little fairies. His bio has Christianity listed. Why can the drive bys never have cool beliefs, like Zoroastrianism?

Qu@si's picture
he doesn't want his method to

he doesn't want his method to use it against him T-man....
see??there is no response from him about your post...

pity pass-byers...really, shame on you....hypocrites...

can you guys guess how many times this people creates new account for AR?just to come back with irrational post??

your god is stupid for sending the wrong person to convince us.....that is if (god) exist....no one has your back bro..
you've come to the wrong place....

Qu@si's picture
he doesn't want his method to

sorry, the message got duplicated..my bad..

(edit, removed the duplicated one)

FormerAtheist's picture
This does not seem like a

This does not seem like a very strong argument against God existing. There are for example different interpretations for how the universe got here and yet all agree (well some don't) most agree the universe is here. The question is rather how the universe or life as we know it got here. Just because there are different beliefs in God does not mean that God does not exist. Of course there is a God and of course many would choose to worship or follow or believe in there own ways. Are some right and some wrong? Are they all wrong? It would not matter in proving a God one way or another. Whether you like their idea of God or not would also not affect the outcome. God is very easy to define and of course there can only be one just as it is impossible for a committee to rule the planet there can only be one God.

Algebe's picture
@FormerAtheist: Of course

@FormerAtheist: Of course there is a God

Assertion isn't proof. The universe exists, but that doesn't mean a god was necessary to to create it.

God is very easy to define

Then please do so.

there can only be one God.
Why? There are plenty of polytheists and atheists. Even Christianity is polytheistic. Satan is a god by most definitions. So are the angels and saints. And then there's the trinity nonsense.

FormerAtheist's picture
God: A being that created

God: A being that created life and the universe or caused it in one way or another to come in to existence.

God: A being that without which life/universe would not be possible.

Proof = Easy Cheesy just prove that universe or life as we know it is impossible without outside intelligent interference.

Algebe's picture
@FormerAtheist: just prove

@FormerAtheist: just prove that universe or life as we know it is impossible without outside intelligent interference.

You make it sound simple. Centuries of scientific endeavor have so far failed to produce any scrap of evidence that god exists or needs to exist. Philosophers have only managed to come up with specious arguments like the so-called "proofs" put forward by people like Anselm and Aquinas.

FormerAtheist's picture
There can only be two

There can only be two possabilities:
1. Life as we know it now happened with no outside intelligent interaction.
2. Life as we know it now happened with outside intelligent interaction.

The science leads to #2.
Therefore God as most see it then is a must. But the word "God" has different meanings to different people. Either way it is clearly something that is powerful.

Algebe's picture
FormerAtheist: The science

FormerAtheist: The science leads to #2.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but creationist/intelligent design mumbo-jumbo doesn't actually qualify as science. There is not one scrap of evidence in cosmology or biology for intelligent intervention. Life arose by chance out of complex chemical reactions happening throughout the primeval oceans of Earth over hundreds of millions of years. Why would an intelligent designer have needed that long?

Outside intelligent interaction

Outside of what? Interaction with what?

mykcob4's picture
@ Former

@ Former
The fact is that the planet IS ruled by committee, over 200 national governments to be precise.
If there is a god (and there isn't) FUCKING PROVE IT!
And if there is a god (and there isn't), why the fuck does there have to be just one? That seems rather illogical at best. How the fuck did this one fucking god come into existence then?

FormerAtheist's picture
The committee you speak of

The committee you speak of does not rule over a chicken shack in the deserts of some far off land let alone the planet. They are a joke. They do nothing of use and have no real power. Bezo's has tons more power then that group.

There can only be one because a being that powerful would not need another.

How did God come into existence this should be obvious. The only way to get something out of nothing is to start with eternity. You can not start a loop that is trapped in its own laws without an outside force that is not subject to those laws. So who created the creator arguments fall flat. This is a materialism way of explaining quantum physics = not going to work.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Former atheist

@ Former atheist

Nice command of the english language. However your dialectics prove exactly jack shit.

"How did God come into existence this should be obvious"
and is not.

:You can not start a loop that is trapped in its own laws without an outside force that is not subject to those laws."
who says? evidence please.

"This is a materialism way of explaining quantum physics = not going to work."
Your command of language just failed.

Evidence required for all your claims.

FormerAtheist's picture
God can not come into

God can not come into existence or this being would be inside of another loop and then the loops just keep getting pushed back. A being more powerful then the universe wouldn't be bound by such constraints and so would have to be infinite.

I know of know examples of something inside of a loop being able to create the loop.

For example on Quantum Physics there is Quantum Tunneling. This can not be explained by materialism.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ FA

@ FA

As requested some actual evidence would be nice instead of tortured loopiness.

FormerAtheist's picture
God can not come into

God can not come into existence or this being would be inside of another loop and then the loops just keep getting pushed back. A being more powerful then the universe wouldn't be bound by such constraints and so would have to be infinite.

I know of know examples of something inside of a loop being able to create the loop.

For example on Quantum Physics there is Quantum Tunneling. This can not be explained by materialism.

Sheldon's picture
"How did God come into

"How did God come into existence this should be obvious."

Begging the question again. Look it up or continue to use fallacious irrational arguments and not know why people are laughing.

" The only way to get something out of nothing is to start with eternity."

Hmmm, firstly straw man, no one has claimed something came from nothing, secondly what evidence have you that something can't come from nothing, and lastly, how on earth can you include "something" (eternity and therefore time) in a scenario where nothing exists, that''s a particularly stupid claim. Eternity can only exist in a temporal condition, and time as we understand it exists because the universe exists.
-----------------------------------
"You can not start a loop that is trapped in its own laws without an outside force that is not subject to those laws."

As you keep doing with your deity you mean, that exited outside of time and space then created and now can exist within time and space, this is hilarious guff.
-------------------------------------
"So who created the creator arguments fall flat."

You so far, though you have produced zero evidence for a deity.
---------------------------------------------
"This is a materialism way of explaining quantum physics = not going to work."

No it's not, and it is clear you understand neither, whose arguments have you plagiarised? They're appalling ignorant. Materialism has nothing to do with evidencing scientific explanations for quantum mechanics that is solely the province of physics and science.

What evidence have you for a deity?
what evidence have you for the non-material?

Your arguments are woeful, and you have n evidence or you'd have presented it. This then in microcosm is why I am an atheist, because theism has no evidence and it's arguments are woeful.

FormerAtheist's picture
If your talking about the

If your talking about the eternal universe argument I will not argue on that because I see no flaws in it at this time.

The truth is though that in debating something before this existence of the universe is difficult and likely to fall into philosophy or theories as it would be difficult for us to prove anything outside of the lens of this universe so once again I must take a step back if you go to eternal universe. Even with a universe with a beginning it is difficult and not much can be proven one way or another at least I struggle at this time.

Now about life or evolution that is a different matter. And for the atheist argument to be correct you need all 3 things to work and 2 of them will not work ... they would be:
Life from non-life
Life as we know it now with no outside intelligent interaction.

Algebe's picture
@FormerAtheist: Life from non

@FormerAtheist: Life from non-life Life as we know it now with no outside intelligent interaction.

What evidence do you have for saying that these two won't work? You're just making groundless claims. You haven't even defined your terms. What does "outside" mean. What's an "intelligent interaction"?

Sheldon's picture
"This does not seem like a

"This does not seem like a very strong argument against God existing."

Yes it does - Hitchens's razor.
--------------------------------------
"Just because there are different beliefs in God does not mean that God does not exist"

It means that humans create fictional deities, and theists have either arbitrarily picked one without sufficient evidence, or they simply accept the one their parents / culture foisted on them. The simple fact is that humans have created thousands of fictional deities, and there is no evidence to single out one as real.
---------------------------------------------
" Of course there is a God"

Many many in fact, and all fictional.
------------------------------------------
" God is very easy to define"

Yes, fictional.
------------------------------------------
"there can only be one God."

Nope, you have presented no evidence for this claim, or indeed for any of your claims, Hitchens's razor applied, again.

A whole post that consists solely and entirely of unevidenced claims, why don't theists understand how utterly meaningless this is?

FormerAtheist's picture
Humans have made up things

Humans have made up things for centuries to explain things that are complicated. Humans make assumptions based on beliefs all the time that prove to be false. For example tonsils were considered to be useless and were removed. The tailbone was thought to be useless and a throw back to evolution now we know it to be very important to humans. This does not mean there is not a God though nor does the two first sentences give proof that Evolution is false.
Only by looking at the evidence in full can we make an informed decision as to what is true. One thing is certain there can not be a requirement for outside intelligence and no requirement at the same time. One is true and one is not.

Algebe's picture
@FormerAtheist: Humans have

@FormerAtheist: Humans have made up things for centuries to explain things that are complicated.

You're absolutely right. The things they made up are called gods, and they've been doing it for millennia, not just centuries. It's time to throw away these imaginary friends and grow up.

Qu@si's picture
"Humans make assumptions

"Humans make assumptions based on beliefs all the time that prove to be false."

yes and you're one of the bad examples of false beliefs and assertions...

rational arguments + religious people = syntax error
i've always said this here in AR..
...

Sheldon's picture
"Humans have made up things

"Humans have made up things for centuries to explain things that are complicated. Humans make assumptions based on beliefs all the time that prove to be false."

Irony overload.....

"One thing is certain there can not be a requirement for outside intelligence and no requirement at the same time. One is true and one is not."

That's a false dichotomy. Unless you can demonstrate evidence for "outside intelligence" of course? So far all you're doing making wild assertions based on what we don't know. Ironically exactly what you accuse others of doing in this very post.

Qu@si's picture
seriously??

seriously??

he's god, if he knew that his people will misinterpret of course he can change that in just a snap...see how stupid your god/s is?
his god for god fucking sake...and you call your god almighty and all powerful?? come on...

"God is very easy to define"

yeah...and very easy to deny...
i think you've already been..and got banned..and now
here you are for we don't really fucking know whats the point..

arakish's picture
Burden Of Proof

Burden Of Proof

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

That is Latin for "he who says he does not have the burden of proof lies." And this is something ALL you Absolutists truly lie about… Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, "Then prove God does not exist." Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to. Funny how that also describes all Absolutists.

The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence." If you propose the existence of something, anything, you MUST follow the Scientific Method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe your preposterous claims. Hearsay is the worst possible form of any kind of evidence. ALL religious texts are nothing more than 100% hearsay. Thus, I have no reason to believe any religious text as any kind of proof.
-synthesized by RMF Runyan

Until you Absolutists can present any hard empirical evidence to support your claims, then your claims shall forever be preposterous, and summarily dismissed.
-RMF Runyan

For you Absolutists since you seem to not know what these words mean:
Preposterous = completely contrary to nature, reason, evidence, or common sense; absurd; senseless; utterly foolish.
Summarily = in a prompt or direct manner; immediately; straightaway; without notice.
Dismissed = to discard; to put off or away; put aside; to reject.

Claims without any hard empirical evidence can be disregarded. - RMF Runyan

The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. If you are going to claim that scientists are lying, doctors are being paid off, there is a global conspiracy against religion, etc., the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim. Just saying it proves nothing, except you possess just enough intelligence to speak.
- from thelogicofscience.com

***************************************
And here is a good short argument I found at Atheist Republic:
"There is no evidence that God does not exist."
This argument is often offered as a last line of defense in religious debates, and the person posing it might feel very clever coming up with it. However, the premise of the argument is both flawed and ridiculous. The failure to disprove something does not constitute proof of its existence. The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, especially in cases where the claims are unsupported or unfalsifiable. With no enduring evidence that a God exists, there is simply no reason to believe in a deity, even if it is not possible to irrefutably disprove his existence. Many thought experiments have been created to show the absurdity of these claims, such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in My Garage," Russell's Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All of which are absurd claims without evidence and yet impossible to disprove. Familiarizing yourself with these thought experiments can give you a clear picture of exactly why the burden of proof should always be on the person making a claim.
***************************************

Always remember the above. Just because I say that I rationally deduce that your God has an extremely high probability of not existing, does not mean I have to prove He does not exist. YOU Absolutists are the ones who are making the preposterous and extraordinary claims that a supernatural super-being of ultimate power, ultimate knowledge, and ultimate goodness (and I beg to differ on the goodness) exists. We atheists are just saying, "Prove it. Show us the hard empirical evidence." You are a Christian Absolutist and believe in a deity that wants to be found, wants us to find Him, and this deity is capable of literally anything. It should not be a problem for this God of yours to provide evidence that would convince me of His existence.

rmfr

FormerAtheist's picture
This may be true in some

This may be true in some situations but not in this one. When two parties have competing views about a particular event then burden of proof would be equal. For example in the case of OJ Simpson. Some thought he was guilty and some thought he was innocent. Both clearly had a view of an event. The event in this particular case is how life could get to this point in time:
A. Intelligent outside agent was responsible in some part.
B. No outside agent was responsible.
For the Atheist it seems a bit of a harder road because the Atheist needs 3 things to be right:
1. Existense/creation of Universe without outside intelligent cause
2. Creation of life from non-life without outside intelligent cause
3. The eventual development of life as we know it in present form without outside intelligent cause.

The person that believes in God simply needs to prove one or disprove the Atheist on one for their to be a God.

mykcob4's picture
Absolute RUBBISH former

Absolute RUBBISH former atheist.
The Atheist doesn't NEED to prove anything. Also in the O.J. case, the burden of proof was squarely on the prosecution.
So Forme you are wrong in both cases!

FormerAtheist's picture
I spoke of people that have

I spoke of people that have an opinion on the matter not of the attorneys. Think a little deeper before letting your emotions get the better of you.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.