What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?

395 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
For the Atheist it seems a

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.
----------------------------

Yeah this nonsense seems to be in vogue with religious apologists at the moment, I blame Lane Craig.

!. That a fallacious appeal to ignorance, look up argumentum ad ignorantiam, and learn how the common logical fallacy applies here.
2. Well done you have used two common logical fallacies here. a second fallacious appeal to ignorance, and your inclusions of the very thing you are arguing for in your argument, "creation and intelligent cause" are using the fallacy begging the question, again I urge you to look up begging the question and understand why it makes your claim irrational, and therefore logical untrue.
3. Begging the question, you are arguing that an intelligent cause exists, and have used it in your argument.

This woeful ignorance of informal logic and irrational arguments is not surprising if a so called professional philosopher and religious apologist like Lane Craig does it, he ought to hang his head in shame, and so ought the institutions he gained his credentials from.

Your problems start and fail with your incorrect definition of atheism.

atheism
noun
The disbelief or lack of belief in a deity or deities.

Thus since it is not a claim, but the disbelief of a claim, it has no burden of proof, no matter how much Lane Craig lies and misrepresent basic philosophical epistemological.

FormerAtheist's picture
I don't know who Lane Craig

I don't know who Lane Craig is but he might be worth looking into. Can you prove that evolution does not require an intelligent agent? Do you have a method that can make living from non-living? Is there even a method?

We are over 150 years removed from Darwin's origin of the species and yet father away (MUCH FARTHER AWAY) from a coherent tree of life. And no Deep Divergent artifacts. The Molecular Clock studies are accurate to within oh several billion years +/- hundreds of millions of years. One study suggested Deep Divergent was 95% to have happened 13billion years ago .... that would be amazing since there would not have a been a planet around when that happened.

There are problems with this theory and it is time to think outside of the box. You don't have to agree with some outside intelligence. You don't have to like it. Same with your parents. But denying the possibility of it will only limit the avenues of science.

The greatest danger to science does not come from the outside but rather from the inside. Once there is a "consensus" then the outsiders will be suppressed. This happened with Darwin too by the way in the very beginning.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sweet FA

@ Sweet FA

"There are problems with this theory and it is time to think outside of the box. You don't have to agree with some outside intelligence. You don't have to like it"
Try this
There are problems with deism and creationism and it is time to think outside of the box. You have to agree with some facts and scientific theories. You don't have to like it

Also

"The greatest danger to science does not come from the outside but rather from the inside. Once there is a "consensus" then the outsiders will be suppressed.

Is

The greatest danger to religion does not come from the outside but rather from the inside. Once there is a general acknowledgement of the evidence (as is happening) the appeals to 'magic' will be ignored. Religion will contract as believers dwindle in number and influence.

If you could present one piece of evidence for your continued fanciful assertions you might get a hearing. As it is I am done.

FormerAtheist's picture
I don't understand why

I don't understand why everything has to be about religion. Science is science and religion is religion and so what if people don't believe as you do it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Especially if we're talking science then lets just talk science. Don't think I ever brought up religion.

So just don't understand the focus on that.

Sheldon's picture
"Don't think I ever brought

"Don't think I ever brought up religion.

So just don't understand the focus on that."

Apart from it being the entire point of the thread op you mean?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sweet FA

@ Sweet FA

"Don't think I ever brought up religion. So just don't understand the focus on that."

You have repeatedly asserted what passes for your version of the 'evidence' for a 'creator', referred to an "intelligence outside' all thinly disguised buzzwords used by theist apologists to disguise their true intention. You have even used the word 'god'. You refer to to yourself as an "ex atheist" which must make you a theist of some sort or at least and agnostic.

So please don't twist in the wind like a dried out leaf, your evasions and avoidance of every person who has asked you a question regarding your definition of such a postulated "creator/First" being does not get you even a brownie pack badge for apologetics.

David Killens's picture
@FormerAtheist

@FormerAtheist

Please be more concise. Your post is beginning to take on the semblance of hocus pocus ramblings.

I must assume that "Deep Divergent" is your personal definition of the "Big Bang", which I personally prefer to define as "rapid expansion" because it is more accurate. And if you are talking about the Big Bang, yes, we do have artifacts, namely the cosmic microwave background.

First off, Hubble (and others) used the red shift data from observations to deduce that the universe was expanding. Working backwards, this led to the theory that at one time the universe was a singularity, approximately 13+ billions years ago. Other work followed, and the mathematical calculations pointed to a source of energy that would be created with this rapid expansion. And when astronomers looked for it (a very difficult task) they did discover exactly what was predicted. This was confirmation, this was the exact artifact that should exist as a direct result of the big bang.

I suggest you go back to your books and learn more, you are displaying a lack of knowledge.

In the scientific community, no one bows down to the consensus. In fact, dissecting and attacking predictions or theories is encouraged. That is how we learn, by constantly challenging the consensus of opinion.

I do not agree with the concept of "outside intelligence" because I have not seen any proof of it, just like I have not seen any proof of unicorns. My mind is not closed, but my mind will not willingly accept everything. I need to be convinced.

You have not proven an "outside intelligence" exists, you have just made an unproven assertion.

FormerAtheist's picture
Ok well first off no

Ok well first off no disrespect but "Deep Divergence" refers to the break off point from the universal common ancestor or the ur-animal as sometimes referred to so this is not about the big bang. And in all honesty I think your better off going with one of the eternal universe ideas but that's fine.

An outside intelligent agent is needed if its impossible to get life in other way and it is.
For example in order to get beyond the protein problem there are two problems:
1. Make and existing protein structure do a different (slightly different function)
2. Make a brand new protein fold. (fantastically harder)
We can't do number one. Its so bad in fact that atheist scientists have now had to invent a magic dragon protein that no one has proof ever existed. The theory goes something like this:
Evolution is done and is perfected ... we have reached the end game hence we cannot modify proteins and so current proteins are complete but we had a protein in the past that was able to evolve. That does not qualify to me as legit that qualifies as imagining dragons.
Don't even get me started with Marshall's theory of GRN's doing the work of proteins. To this day I can't believe he came up with that :(

aperez241's picture
@FormerAtheist "Can you

@FormerAtheist "Can you prove that evolution does not require an intelligent agent?"

Galapagos study finds that new species can develop in as little as two generations
November 23, 2017, Princeton University

No god needed fro a new species to emerge.

" Do you have a method that can make living from non-living? Is there even a method?"

The fact that there is not yet a firm theory fully explaining abiogénesis just means that science has not gotten thee yet. Nothing more. At a certain time science did not know the cause of tsunamis. It did not mean it was Neptune's anger. Had we chosen to accept they were Neptune's a making, a curse, we would have never developed methods to predict them. Arguments from ignorance do not show anything.

FormerAtheist's picture
When ever people say new

When ever people say new species they mean micro and of course no one disputes that but macro .... that's another animal ... get it?

Nyarlathotep's picture
FormerAtheist - When ever

FormerAtheist - When ever people say new species they mean micro...

Uh no. Micro changes are below the species level, macro are above the species level. So you have it exactly wrong.

Sushisnake 's picture
Been awhile since I heard the

Been awhile since I heard the "macro...that’s another animal" thing: are you doing "kinds" next?

aperez241's picture
@ Former Atheist "When ever

@ Former Atheist "When ever people say new species they mean micro and of course no one disputes that but macro .... that's another animal ... get it?"

You are confused about evolution, so let me explain what it is and why it happens.

Evolution is defined as "The change with time of gene frequencies in a population". Sweet and simple.

This change of gene frequencies is observable and happens all the time, so it is fact. Implication: Evolution is a fact.

It is known that genes are the ultimate factor that determine the morphology and functions of organisms. It is a proven fact.

It is a fact that mutations (both genetic an epigenetic) happen and are some of the causes of variations among individuals in a population.

They are observed facts that the number of chromosomes in a specie can vary by duplication of one, many or all or reduced by fusion or inactivation. It is also an observed fact that genes can migrate from one species to another through the work of viruses and that whole and partial virus genomes can attach themselves to the DNA of another species.

With these facts in mind, continuous change of the genome of individuals in populations is unavoidable and endless. It means that there are no limits to the changes that a genome can get through and that explain why the potential is there for a species to change until it becomes another species, genus, family, order, etc.

Without a biological mechanism to stop genetic changes at a certain point, the change of one species into another, given natural selection, (which is also a proven fact) is simply unavoidable. If you want to debunk evolution you have to provide a biological mechanism that will stop genetic variation once it has reached a certain point so as to stop a species to keep changing. As nobody have ever been able to provide that mechanism, evolution (micro and macroevolution are the same thing) stand as the unavoidable result of all these well- known facts.

Sheldon's picture
Mon, 04/09/2018 - 16:56

Mon, 04/09/2018 - 16:56
FormerAtheist "When ever people say new species they mean micro and of course no one disputes that but macro .... that's another animal ... get it?"

Theists are forever telling people what to think, what they mean, I suppose it's insecurity from being forced to relinquish thinking for themselves.

Macro and micro evolution are creationist propaganda terms, science makes no distinction as they are the same thing. Species evolution is a scientific fact, and that fact is explained by the scientific theory of evolution, I don't care what religious people believe about scientific facts, as that is irrelevant to their validity.

Sheldon's picture
"Can you prove that evolution

"Can you prove that evolution does not require an intelligent agent"

The scientific theory already evidences this. Natural selection is accepted as the major driving force for evolution, nothing else is needed.

Can you show any objective for an "outside intelligence?"
----------------
"Do you have a method that can make living from non-living? Is there even a method?"

No science hasn't discovered an explanation for this yet. As abiogenesis is in its infancy, though this has nothing to do with evolution of course which explains the origin of species, and makes no claims or comment on the origin of life.
-------------------
"We are over 150 years removed from Darwin's origin of the species and yet father away (MUCH FARTHER AWAY) from a coherent tree of life."

I don't know who you mean by we, but your remark does not reflect the scientific world's view. The entire scientific world regards species evolution as a scientific fact. There are no scientific objection to it, only faith based religious objections. This is axiomatic as genuine scientific refutations would falsify it.
-------------------
"There are problems with this theory and it is time to think outside of the box. "

No there aren't and no there isn't. Hitchens's razor applies. Until someone cites valid scientific evidence it remains one of sciences best evidenced facts. Take it up with science if you can....
---------------
"You don't have to agree with some outside intelligence. You don't have to like it. "

I neither like nor dislike your claim, it simply has had no objective evidence demonstrated for it. You're the one making claims based on personal beliefs not me. I'm merely pointing out what science asserts to be the fact regarding evolution and speciation. As for superstition I base what I belief on objective evidence so am always unbiased and open minded. Unlike religious apologists.
--------------------
"The greatest danger to science does not come from the outside but rather from the inside. Once there is a "consensus" then the outsiders will be suppressed. This happened with Darwin too by the way in the very beginning."

Complete nonsense. Creationists don't decide what's true by committee or consensus. Scientific research has tho be replicable BY ANYONE AT ANYTIME. It always remains tentative no matter how well established. Creationists are just sulking because their beliefs are being refuted by evidence and facts.
------------------------
Darwin's work has been validated by 150 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny, his work was a bedrock but only represents a small portion of the evidence amassed for species evolution.

You either don't have a clue how science works or you're making up demonstrable lies deliberately. This unfortunately is how creationists waste their time.

Your bias is self evident and I'll prove it. Name 3 scientific facts you deny other than evolution that don't in ANY WAY contradict any part of your religious beliefs.

I'm guessing you don't see the irony here, but others will.

David Killens's picture
@FormerAtheist

@FormerAtheist

"For example in the case of OJ Simpson. Some thought he was guilty and some thought he was innocent."

And the conclusion of OJ Simpson's criminal trial was ... not guilty. The conclusion was not that he was innocent, but that there was not enough evidence to support the burden of proof of guilt.

So instead of just one of two decisions, we now arrive at one of three. Guilty, not guilty, or innocent. This is what you are attempting to do, make it just one of two very distinct results.

If you cannot prove the existence of a god (I have not seen you present anything yet) then my position is that until I have proof, I will not believe either guilt or innocence, I will abide by the third option, not guilty.

FormerAtheist's picture
Once again I talked of

Once again I talked of peoples opinions not the lawyers or verdicts.

Sheldon's picture
Mon, 04/09/2018 - 16:57

Mon, 04/09/2018 - 16:57 (Reply to #46)Permalink
FormerAtheist "Once again I talked of peoples opinions not the lawyers or verdicts."

Opinions that contradict known scientific facts, like those flat earthers. Species evolution is a scientific fact, opinions based on superstitions are entirely moot.

Stu. K.'s picture
I asked this question a

I asked this question a little while ago. There are some nice answers in there. My original post has whats in my opinion a great argument. Check it out :)

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/do-you-guys-have-favor...

Tin-Man's picture
Oh, and Dejess, one more

Oh, and Dejess, one more little thing. I have the most amazing little Oompa-loompa who lives in a cabinet in my basement. He is invisible and makes me the best little chocolate treats I have ever tasted. But I am the only one who can see and taste the chocolate treats he makes. However, if you believe in him hard enough, he will also make treats for you. He is really awesome like that. I call him Tony. What arguments do you have against Tony's existence? To be fair, my friends and family just call me crazy. But I think they are all just jealous because they have never tasted the chocolate treats.

Sheldon's picture
I believe you. If I give you

I believe you. If I give you my name, address, credit card details, and PIN will you send me some of those treats?

Tin-Man's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Absolutely, my good man. I would be absolutely delighted to send you some of the tasty treats. It is always nice to have another believer enter the fold. You understand, of course, it is entirely up to the Great Oompa-Loompa as to whether or not HE believes that YOU believe in Him enough to make your treats. Oh, and you don't have to "pay" for them. Isn't that GREAT? All you have to do is make a sincere cash donation of faith. And, naturally, the more you donate, the more faith you show to convince the Great Oompa-Loompa you are a true believer. Oh, and you will also need to send an extra $7.87 that will be placed in escrow for shipping and handling of the treats should He finally determine you are a faithful servant. And for those He decides are extra-true believers, there will be an opportunity to visit The Land of Pure Imagination. How awesome is THAT? So, remember, the more you donate, the greater your reward. But, again, you must really, really, really believe.

mykcob4's picture
@Dejess

@Dejess
Oh, what do we have here? Another drive-by believer that thinks that they have something new?
Let me tell you your little game has been played before many times. The fact is that you believers made up your god and it is incumbent upon you to prove your claim. All that atheists claim is that we don't believe YOU. We don't need to disprove your god. We never invented your god, YOU FUCKING DID. So PROVE IT!
And have the balls to stick around. This drive-by shit is so chickenshit it is unbelievable. You guys start a debate, can't handle the fact that you KNOW you are going to LOSE that debate and just bail like the pussies you are!

Tin-Man's picture
@Myk

@Myk

I was wondering how long it would take you to get here. LOL

Edit to add: Now where the hell is Old Man?

arakish's picture
I don't know. But I could

I don't know. But I could have sworn I saw somebody changing a tire on my drive back home from work.

???

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
@Arakish

@Arakish

Well, if it was Old Man, I do hope he had his emergency reflectors set out behind him. That little tricycle of his can be hard to see sometimes.

Qu@si's picture
i just saw him taking the bus

i just saw him taking the bus...he can't be around today i guess....his tricycle got towed away..

poor old man...

Algebe's picture
@Dejess: What is the best

@Dejess: What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?

Catholics, Jews, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Salvationists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Seventh Day Adventists, Greek Orthodoxists, Russian Orthodoxists, Coptics, Quakers, Shakers, Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses.....

An omnipotent god would at least be able to get its own followers into line. Instead the Judaeo-Christian sects have proliferated in darkness like mushrooms in horseshit. There's one proof of god's non-existence.

Algebe's picture
And here's one more proof

And here's one more proof that there's no benevolent god: The Australian Tax Office.

But they even make me doubt evolution, so perhaps that one doesn't count.

Dejess's picture
Thanks a lot for your posts.

Thanks a lot for your posts.

I am asking for atheists' best argument against God existing.

No atheist here has come up with any best argument of God existing.

Tell you what, as you are not sure which God I am referring to, just then choose any of the God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities you happen to know about as to deny them all to be existing, and bring up the best argument from the part of any atheist who has one argument which is the best according to him.

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.