What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?

395 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
You don't seem to understand

You don't seem to understand what atheism is.

Atheism
Noun
The lack of belief in a deity or deities.

Atheism isn't a denial of the existence of a deity. No argument is necessary in order to reject a belief (theism) when it is presented without sufficient evidence.

What objective evidence have you for choosing one deity as real when you don't believe the rest are real?

Dejess's picture
"Atheism isn't a denial of

"Atheism isn't a denial of the existence of a deity. No argument is necessary in order to reject a belief (theism) when it is presented without sufficient evidence."

So, there is lack of sufficient evidence, that is why you do not have a belief in God, or any of the gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

But when you come to evidence then you will no longer have to disbelieve, but you already with evidence know God exists, as opposed to only not believing.

So, have you at all take any effort to search for evidence?

Jared Alesi's picture
Sorry, but could I trouble

Sorry, but could I trouble you to put that in coherent English? I don't speak grammatical error.

Diotrephes's picture
Dejess,

Dejess,

"So, have you at all take any effort to search for evidence?"

So far no one has ever found any shit from any God.

As Yeshua's brothers told him in John 7:4 (CEB)) = "Those who want to be known publicly don’t do things secretly. Since you can do these things, show yourself to the world.”

No celestial deity of any kind has ever done anything godly since a con man cooked him up.

Sheldon's picture
There is only one argument,

There is only one argument, and that's that no theist can demonstrate sufficient evidence for their claim a deity is real.

Dejess's picture
"There is only one argument,

"There is only one argument, and that's that no theist can demonstrate any sufficient evidence for their claim a deity is real."

How did you come to that conclusion, where is the rational thinking that is the support of that conclusion?

What you are doing is issuing categorical statements which are essentially not founded on any rational thinking, but are purely wistful utterances.

Jared Alesi's picture
Okay, so if he's wrong about

Okay, so if he's wrong about you theists not having evidence, show us some!

One piece of verifiable evidence for god's existence is all it would take to destroy atheism.

Diotrephes's picture
Jared Alesi,

Jared Alesi,

"One piece of verifiable evidence for god's existence is all it would take to destroy atheism."

Unlike most atheists I simply don't care if one God or a trillion of them exist. I'm not interested in worshiping any of them.

Jared Alesi's picture
True, but my point concerned

True, but my point concerned belief, not worship. I never said I'd be a Christian.

Sheldon's picture
"How did you come to that

"How did you come to that conclusion,"

No rational person believes something that is asserted without sufficient evidence, as I said.

"What you are doing is issuing categorical statements which are essentially not founded on any rational thinking,"

I disagree.

Rational
adjective
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Could you demonstrate a logical argument that beliefs should be held without sufficient evidence?

I notice you ignored my question, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that your deity is any more real than all the others you know are fictional?

Sheldon's picture
"I know God exists,"

"I know God exists,"

I doubt this but by all means tell us how you know this? What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your assertion?

I know humans create fictional deities and so do you, why is yours any different?

Algebe's picture
Well Dejess, people have been

Well Dejess, people have been looking for evidence or signs of deities for millennia, but there's not one scrap of evidence anywhere. All the things that were once seen as evidence of gods, such as lightning, tsunami, earthquakes, epidemics, comets, have all been explained by science.

How many more millennia of searching do we need before we can conclude that, as far as gods are concerned, absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Since you've come here asking a question, perhaps you'd be good enough to answer one. You say you know that god exists. How?

Grinseed's picture
"No atheist here has come up

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

I beg your pardon, Dejess, Algebe has provided you with one of the many great arguments against the existence a christian god and you flatly ignored it!

Read it again and at least give Algebe some recognition. If your "God" is the one true "God" with the one true message, why are there so many who worship lots of different versions of "God" and read so many different versions of the bible and why are they all at such odds with each other. Either, only one of the interpretations is true, or else, they are all false.

What is demonstrably true is, no theist has ever come up with an iron-clad, convincing argument, much less proof, that "God" exists. Ever. Otherwise we'd all be religious, wouldn't we?

In the "good old days" those who denied God's existence could, or usually, would be ostracised, isolated, bullied, tortured, and put to death, never ignored, but punished.

The punishment continues but these days they are mercilessly subjected to meaningless demands from earnest zealots to prove "God's" non-existence.

Read that again Dejess, "to prove "God's" non-existence". Its a meaningless phrase. There is no "God". That's the atheist standpoint, you would like for us to prove his non-existence exists? Please we be mere atheists, we believe in reason.

If you think God exists, please enlighten us, bring us your evangelical prowess, prove it, or provide some evidence or even a reasonably good argument. The good heathen folks here are tired and jaded of the same old "Prove something-you-don't-believe-in doesn't exist" request over the years, yes, years. I've heard it over the past fifty years myself. You aren't exactly being original, Dejess.

As far as I understand it, you must believe "God" brought you to this site and I think you believe he is reading all this. If he is omnipotent he already knows what we don't believe and why, and most of us are already probably done for. by your lights, but he is probably wondering what you are waiting for, why you don't broadcast why you believe in him. Are you not meant to proselytise, spread the faith, rather than annoy with meaningless questions? Give it your best shot.

Diotrephes's picture
Grinseed,

Grinseed,

"Read it again and at least give Algebe some recognition. If your "God" is the one true "God" with the one true message, why are there so many who worship lots of different versions of "God" and read so many different versions of the bible and why are they all at such odds with each other. Either, only one of the interpretations is true, or else, they are all false."

According to the biblical fairy tale the very people who supposedly saw Yeshua in the flesh were calling each other liars and heretics three seconds after he bit the dust. So if they couldn't agree at that time how can anyone agree thousands of years later?

Sapporo's picture
The question is loaded.

The question is loaded.

If you know god exists, why are you asking what the best argument is against god existing?

The best argument against god existing is that I don't need to provide one, because a valid hypothesis for god has never been presented.

Cognostic's picture
@Dejess

@Dejess

HINT: Look up "Shifting the burden of proof."

No one here needs to prove anything. You are the one that believes in magic. The fact that you can't prove a damn thing you assert is enough for non-belief in your version of God. When you think you can prove something, come on back. I, for one, would love to hear something new or original about the existence of your magical, omnipotent, all powerful God, that just needs your belief and your money. Please share.

Dejess's picture
"I doubt this but by all

"I doubt this but by all means tell us how you know this? What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your assertion?"

So, that is your best argument in a sort of way, namely, that there is no evidence.

Rational thinking dictates that we now first work together in order to concur on what is evidence - that is clear to you, from rational thinking, instead of wistful insistence?

On evidence, first of course rational thinking requires that the subject seeking evidence must have some idea of the target of evidence that he is seeking evidence for.

So, you wistfully desire that there be no God, that is a belief, not knowledge grounded on rational thinking.

Then you say that it is a belief from your part because there is no evidence; but that is again a wistful thought, i.e. a belief, scil., that there is no evidence - that is a pure belief, not grounded on any rational thinking whatsoever.

Rational thinking requires that you use your brain to undertake analytical investigation on what is God, and what is evidence which points to the existence of God.

Now, first of course when you seek evidence, rational thinking requires you first to have an idea of the target for which you seek evidence.

The target is God.

So, do rational thinking, tell me what is your information of any concept at all of God.

No idea equals no direction for evidence, that amounts to irrational thinking, which then dispenses you to not come to knowledge, but to just engage in wistful thinking which is as you keep drumming on, namely, it is a belief from your part that there is no God.

Summing up: You say there is no evidence, but you neither know what is evidence, and even worse you thereby do not know either what is the target of the evidence you seek for.

First task for you and me is that we will work together for us to arrive at concurrence on what is evidence.

Second task for you is to get information on the target of evidence: you see for, namely, what is your information of the target of evidence, which target is God – but you do not have the right information at all on what is God.

You have the right information on the correct concept of God?

Okay, tell me then, what is your information on the concept of God, for which you say you have no evidence for, but you also don’t have concept of what is evidence, that is why I am inviting you and me to work together to arrive at a mutually concurred concept of what is God, and what is evidence.

What do you say, will you work with me, to come to the right information on the concept of God, and also the right information on the concept of evidence?

David Killens's picture
@Dejess

@Dejess

"What do you say, will you work with me, to come to the right information on the concept of God, and also the right information on the concept of evidence?"

NO

I will work under the logic of evidence and unsupported claims. And before we can engage in any rational discourse, you must first prove the existence of this imaginary being.

But I will throw you a bone. For the "concept of evidence", we shall use the rules applied to a court of law. Your turn now, prove the existence of this imaginary being using the rules of evidence for a court of law.

Once you have accomplished this step, then I will proceed with the definition thingy.

Dejess's picture
You say:

You say:
"I will work under the logic of evidence and unsupported claims. And before we can engage in any rational discourse, you must first prove the existence of this imaginary being."

Do you notice that you have made an incoherent and inconsistent declaration with the statement above?

That is an example of illogical because irrational thinking.

Here, I will show you that your statement above is incoherent and inconsistent in its internal parts.

[1] I will work under the logic of evidence and unsupported claims.
[2] And before we can engage in any rational discourse,
[3] you must first prove the existence of this imaginary being.

With your [1], I ask you: Is there a logic of unsupported claims, under which you will work, as you do with the logic of evidence?

Suggestion from me: Rethink rationally and rewrite [1].

Your statement parts in [2] and in [3] are contradictory:
[2] And before we can engage in any rational discourse,
[3] you must first prove the existence of this imaginary being.

I ask you: How can there be rational discourse between us unless and until we first work together to prove the existence or non-existence of the imaginary being?

Besides you are already irrational in insisting that I prove the existence of the imaginary being, don't you see that an imaginary being is just plain fiction in your mental self-illusioning or self-delusioning or self-hallucination?

No need for any rational human being to prove the existence of an imaginary being, since it is all imagination, don't you comprehend that at all - ? ! ? !

Don't ask members of the species homo sapiens to prove the existence of an imaginary being, because by its own description of imaginary, it is already beyond proving, for it is plain pure 100% un-adulterated delusion or illusion or hallucination inside your brain.

What you should do, in the name of rational thinking and speaking and writing, is to present the concept of something that is intrinsically possible to exist in empirical reality, then challenge fellow members of the species homo sapiens to prove: by going forth into the realm of the material universe, and even into the much broader realm of the totality of existence, to search for any sighting of an entity, that corresponds to the concept you have constructed with your creative intelligence.

Do you now get it that you are in the habit of making incoherent and inconsistent utterances? What with bringing in imaginary beings and demanding that members of the species homo sapiens prove their existence?

You know, dear atheist sir, you are into an utterly irrational way of thinking and speaking and writing.

Suggestion: Please rethink your whole statement and revise it, scil.:
[1] I will work under the logic of evidence and unsupported claims.
[2] And before we can engage in any rational discourse,
[3] you must first prove the existence of this imaginary being.

The way your statement stands:
"I will work under the logic of evidence and unsupported claims. And before we can engage in any rational discourse, you must first prove the existence of this imaginary being."

It is a paragon of incoherency and inconsistency.

Sheldon's picture
"Do you notice that you have

"Do you notice that you have made an incoherent and inconsistent declaration"

Followed by,,,,

"That is an example of illogical because irrational thinking."

>>Irony overload.
---------------------------------------
So can you demonstrate any objective evidence for your deity? Your evasion and obfuscation, combined with your reticence on that point isn't inspiring much confidence thus far.

David Killens's picture
By Hawking's chair, what a

By Hawking's chair, what a load of BS in an attempt to evade my post.

"I ask you: How can there be rational discourse between us unless and until we first work together to prove the existence or non-existence of the imaginary being?"

I already stated that I will not work with you. You made a god claim, it is incumbent upon you to first prove this entity exists. I did not make any god claim, you did.

I am not going to engage in any god discussion because to me it is like discussing whether Sasquatch wears nail gloss, or that unicorns are double-jointed. Until you can prove your god claim, I will not indulge in any hypothetical scenarios or discussion of fashion sense of any god(s).

mykcob4's picture
@Dejess

@Dejess
So let's just look at what you wrote.

"Rational thinking dictates that we now first work together in order to concur on what is evidence - that is clear to you, from rational thinking, instead of wistful insistence?"

You make an assumption that just isn't true. That it is a wistful desire insistence that there is no god. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Atheists don't desire or insist that there is no evidence. There just isn't any evidence that there is any proof of any god. If there were, you would make that evidence clear and immediate but you don't and won't because there is any.

"On evidence, first of course rational thinking requires that the subject seeking evidence must have some idea of the target of evidence that he is seeking evidence for."

The only requirement here is that it is clear what you claim as a god. Then the FACTS will take us to the facts.

"So, you wistfully desire that there be no God, that is a belief, not knowledge grounded on rational thinking."

Again a wrong and completely dishonest assumption on your part. It is NOT a "belief" but a fact!

"Then you say that it is a belief from your part because there is no evidence; but that is again a wistful thought, i.e. a belief, scil., that there is no evidence - that is a pure belief, not grounded on any rational thinking whatsoever."

No atheist has a "belief". Again you make false claims that cannot back up with any facts whatsoever!

"Rational thinking requires that you use your brain to undertake analytical investigation on what is God, and what is evidence which points to the existence of God."

No, rational thinking requires to make a claim that there is a god that you fucking PROVE a god instead of making false claims about those people that just don't believe YOUR FUCKING claim that there is a god!

"Now, first of course when you seek evidence, rational thinking requires you first to have an idea of the target for which you seek evidence."

You keep saying rational thing yet you aren't making ANY rational statements. You present the evidence and we'll weigh that evidence!

"The target is God.
So, do rational thinking, tell me what is your information of any concept at all of God."

No, the target is accessing what YOU call god ad weighing that evidence that is YOUR responsibility to produce, which you and no one has done!

"No idea equals no direction for evidence, that amounts to irrational thinking, which then dispenses you to not come to knowledge, but to just engage in wistful thinking which is as you keep drumming on, namely, it is a belief from your part that there is no God."

No one is "drumming that there is no god" it is a reply a rational reply to your claim that there is a god when you make that claim without any credible evidence!

"Summing up: You say there is no evidence, but you neither know what is evidence, and even worse you thereby do not know either what is the target of the evidence you seek for."

That is utter bullshit and you fucking know it. You fucking make a claim that there is a god not atheists. You don't provide any evidence to validate that claim. YOU don't know what evidence is since you don't produce any. It isn't wistful desire-belief or any of the insulting bullshit that you claim. Your whole purpose here is to just be insulting. How the fuck do you know that WE don't know what evidence is moron? You demanded that we provide evidence of no god. That is illogical and irrational. YOU have the burdon of proof. WE didn't make up a god. You fucking did. You provide evidence.

"First task for you and me is that we will work together for us to arrive at concurrence on what is evidence.

Second task for you is to get information on the target of evidence: you see for, namely, what is your information of the target of evidence, which target is God – but you do not have the right information at all on what is God.

You have the right information on the correct concept of God?"

There is so much wrong with these 3 statements it isn't even funny. You assume that WE atheists don't know what the god concept is. It is clear that your first mistake was your original demand. You should have asked WE, atheists, what we think that the god concept is before you started insulting people claiming that we don't know what it is!

"Okay, tell me then, what is your information on the concept of God, for which you say you have no evidence for, but you also don’t have concept of what is evidence, that is why I am inviting you and me to work together to arrive at a mutually concurred concept of what is God, and what is evidence."

You aren't "inviting us to work with you" that is a flat-out lie. You have done nothing but insult the intelligence of atheists in general. You have NO evidence that atheists don't know what evidence is. You just blatantly make a claim that we don't Your argument is one of ignorance and stupidity.

"What do you say, will you work with me, to come to the right information on the concept of God, and also the right information on the concept of evidence?"

The obvious answer to this request is not until you recant all your fucking insulting assumptions and insults. You present YOUR concept of god AND produce the evidence of that god and we'll access it, weigh it and make a determination letting the FACTS, REAL facts not just a bunch of bullshit hyperbole and word salad!
You keep talking about rational thing, yet YOU haven't made ONE FACTUAL or RATIONAL statement! All you have done is get your rocks off with backhanded insults. Why the fuck do you think that these people have asked you "which god?" That are being accurate and rational. YOU have to be specific about which god you claim is real. AND you have to present REAL facts that prove that god. You can't just say that we don't know what evidence is. You haven't presented any for us to assess or discuss. Your behavior is irrational almost psychotic. It's fucking ridiculous! Get a fucking education!

LostLocke's picture
First of all, you sound

First of all, you sound suspiciously like Mariosep from AF... https://atheistforums.org/thread-45866.html

Second, it's not our job to "come up with a concept of god." That's your job and yours alone.
You're walking up to me and saying "A god exists." and then insisting that I describe that god YOU claims exists. You got it all backasswards.

Qu@si's picture
"First of all, you sound

"First of all, you sound suspiciously like Mariosep from AF..."

i was surprised when i saw chimp on the Atheist Forum..hahah..

Algebe's picture
@Dejess: rational thinking

@Dejess: rational thinking requires that the subject seeking evidence must have some idea of the target of evidence that he is seeking evidence for.

The lack of a consistent, coherent definition for god is another reason for disbelief. Every sect offers its own version, from a prime mover who is no longer involved in the world, to a highly interventionist deity who is constantly talking through his chosen mouthpieces. But regardless of the variety of self-delusion, not one single follower has any clear idea of what they are basing their beliefs on. Not one.

A god is supposedly a conscious being who is eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and above and beyond the laws of nature and physics. There's no evidence or logic for such a being. The bible is actually evidence against it. The god of the bible evolves and changes. He becomes bored or lonely and decides to create a world and people. He's driven by petty emotions like jealousy, and vengeance. And he makes mistakes. Big mistakes. Everything he creates goes wrong.

So I don't believe in it.

Sheldon's picture
Sheldon "I doubt this but by

Sheldon "I doubt this but by all means tell us how you know this? What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your assertion?"

Dejess "So, that is your best argument in a sort of way, namely, that there is no evidence."

>>That's not an argument, that's a question, note the squiggly symbol at the end of the sentence with a full stop underneath it.
----------------------------------------------
"Rational thinking dictates that we now first work together in order to concur on what is evidence"

>>No it doesn't, you don't understand logic I think, but evidence is in the dictionary and so is objective, and the claim is yours, that a deity exists. I have made no contrary claim, I simply don't believe your claim as you can demonstrate no objective evidence for it. Or can you? You seem to be tap dancing your way through this thread but offering naught but a lame attempt to reverse the burden of proof, Breezy will like it, but it is nonsense of course.
---------------------------------------------
"So, you wistfully desire that there be no God, that is a belief"

>>The next 2 paragraphs are almost incomprehensible gibberish, but atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of a belief. You need to look it up in a dictionary as you're making yourself look silly. I disbelieve your claim, but not because I long for it to be false, or true for that matter as you weren't very clear there, I disbelieve it solely because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for a deity. You appear to have nothing to offer either.
------------------------------------------
"Rational thinking requires that you use your brain to undertake analytical investigation on what is God, and what is evidence which points to the existence of God."

>>No it doesn't, do you do this with unicorns or mermaids?
----------------------------------------------
"Summing up: You say there is no evidence,"

No I didn't, your grasp of English is as execrable as your grasp of logic. I said no one had demonstrated sufficient evidence, then I asked you to demonstrate objective evidence for the deity you claim is real, so far you've offered naught but vapid flimflam.
---------------------------------------------
"What do you say, will you work with me,"

Nope, it's your belief and your claim, it is for you to evidence it. Now once again what objective evidence CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE that your deity is anymore real than all the ones you don't believe exist?

take your time...

Sushisnake 's picture
"... you wistfully desire

"... you wistfully desire that there be no God..."

Nope. Wrong. I actually wistfully desire there was one plus an afterlife, but I don’t believe there is. I feel the same way about the Lochness monster- I like the idea of it.

"... You have the RIGHT information on the CORRECT concept of God?..."*
* emphasis mine

Since I'm an atheist, clearly not, but you clearly believe you have, so off you go. Hit me with it. Pick up your cross- the burden of proof- and give me the RIGHT information on the CORRECT concept of god. I'll grade you pass or fail when you're done. I'm already giving you 110% for hubris.

Sapporo's picture
Dejess defines the atheist

Dejess defines the atheist (incorrectly, as it happens) more readily than he defines "god".

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Dejess

@ Dejess

There is not one jot, skerrick or particle of credible proof for the existence of the Christian (or any other god(s)).
You are making an infantile attempt to reverse the burden of proof to a community of highly intelligent and rational people.

Start with producing evidence of your 'knowledge' of your "god". Then we can discuss its merits as evidence for the existence of such.

I would recommend you read some previous threads before you attempt the stepping stones over the crocodiles backs.

CyberLN's picture
Dejesus, you wrote, “So, you

Dejesus, you wrote, “So, you wistfully desire that there be no God, that is a belief, not knowledge grounded on rational thinking”

Who wistfully desires that there be no god?

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.