God Does Not Exist

[Castle]

The Christian God, that is. I wouldn't be quite so arrogant as to make a categorical statements about all gods (indeed, I couldn't even define the term).

Proof? Glad you asked:

1) The Argument From Suffering
a) God would know about, be able to stop, and want to stop needless suffering
b) God has not done so
c) God does not exist

2) The Argument From Lack of Evidence
a) Knowing that God exists is important to making an informed decision about Hell and accepting Jesus
b) God could provide proof of his existence
c) He has not done so
d) God does not exist

3) The Argument From 'Hell sucks'
a) Hell's only purpose is to increase unhappiness
b) God would not create something whose only purpose was to increase unhappiness
c) God does not exist

I'd be happy to elaborate on any of the above if they're not clear; those were all rather shortened versions.

[Gods_Mercenary]

None of these prove God does not exist, but I'll humor you.

1) This is probably the best argument, but it is flawed. Most suffering is caused by humans, God loves us too much to violate our free choice, so He allows it to happen. God knows that the sufferers will be repaid beyond their dreams and the perpetrators will be made to suffer. The suffering caused by nature is harder to dismiss. Possibly God has some higher plan that could, in the end, prevent more suffering. I don't know, and niether does any theologian I know of.

2)I don't think that one has to believe in God to be saved, so this argument is moot.

3) Hell is, in fact, necessary for God to be good. Imagine if God sent Stalin to the same place as Mother Theresa, that's not a god of justice or comapassion. For God to be a god of Justice, Hell needs to exist, the bad must be punished, and the good must be rewarded.

[Epistemologist]

Well, there are some very valid (in the logical sense) atheist arguments; these do seem rather valid (except for the second one), but they are not sound.

In the first argument, the first premise is questionable, because perhaps God would not want to stop suffering, which is not necessarily needless, because it might be a means to greater end. It could be a test of faith, for instance. Your definition of the Christian God is misconceived.

I think that the second argument is not even logically valid. Besides that, God does not need to provide evidence of His existence even if He could i.e. He wants us to believe in faith, which means that there should be no evidence in the foundation of our belief. We should thus be agnostic theists in this sense.

In the third argument, the second premise is flawed, because hell and the associated suffering is, again, perhaps a means to an end, and it is perhaps a necessary tool to bring people to the alternative of heaven.

There are better atheist arguments, but they are also unsound to some degree albeit valid. I think you gave a form of the argument concerning the problem of evil. I must say that theistic arguments such as those from natural theology i.e. the moral argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, and the argument from religious experience are also unsound. That's why I don't think the existence or non-existence of God can be absolutely proven, and a fideistic belief formation is in order.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Perfect, no argument.

[Castle]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Most suffering is caused by humans, God loves us too much to violate our free choice, so He allows it to happen. God knows that the sufferers will be repaid beyond their dreams and the perpetrators will be made to suffer.

Doesn't rebut the argument (as per "most").

And I find it somewhat disturbing that you think its OK to let people suffer as long as you make them happy later, to say nothing of the viciousness of condemnation to eternal suffering.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The suffering caused by nature is harder to dismiss. Possibly God has some higher plan that could, in the end, prevent more suffering. I don't know, and niether does any theologian I know of.

Translation: I have no response to this, so I'm just going to ignore it and say "Nice try".

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I don't think that one has to believe in God to be saved

What happened to the whole "Accept that Jesus died on the cross to repent for your sins and be saved" thing?

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Imagine if God sent Stalin to the same place as Mother Theresa, that's not a god of justice or comapassion.

Oh, the compassion of eternal suffering...

[quote=Gods_MercenaryFor God to be a god of Justice, Hell needs to exist, the bad must be punished, and the good must be rewarded.[/QUOTE]
Which is, of course, totally incompatible with supposed omnibenevolence.

[The Bacon Guy]

The argument that suffering and hell are somehow necessary for a greater good doesn't hold when discussing the Christian god. If God was omnipotent, he would be able to create a system in which suffering is not necessary.

[Castle]

Quote by: Epistemologist In the first argument, the first premise is questionable, because perhaps God would not want to stop suffering, which is not necessarily needless, because it might be a means to greater end.

Pray tell, what end does (for example) killing infants in tsunamis serve?

Quote by: Epistemologist I think that the second argument is not even logically valid.

Er...what's wrong with it? Logically, that is.

Quote by: Epistemologist He wants us to believe in faith, which means that there should be no evidence in the foundation of our belief.

Please explain:
1) Why faith is more valuable than actual use of reason to arrive at knowledge
2) How faith leads us to Christianity, rather than, say, Islam?
3) Why we have any evidence at all (e.g. the Bible, prophecy, etc.) of God's existence

Quote by: Epistemologist In the third argument, the second premise is flawed, because hell and the associated suffering is, again, perhaps a means to an end, and it is perhaps a necessary tool to bring people to the alternative of heaven.

Please explain how suffering Hell can bring people to Heaven, and how the condemnation of the majority to eternal suffering is worth bringing a tiny minority to Heaven.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The argument that suffering and hell are somehow necessary for a greater good doesn't hold when discussing the Christian god. If God was omnipotent, he would be able to create a system in which suffering is not necessary.

Even though by our definition, God can create the said system, He is not obligated to fulfill that capacity because there could be a greater good for not doing so. This is one of the most fundamental flaws of the argument from the problem of evil; there is a lack of a more teleological analysis.

Quote by: Castle Pray tell, what end does (for example) killing infants in tsunamis serve?

I guess to test your faith or at least to make you have more doubt in God. Some see belief just like steel i.e. it often has to be tempered.

Quote by: Castle Er...what's wrong with it? Logically, that is.

Well, basically the premises don't logically lead to the conclusion. What logical principle are you using in that argument?

Quote by: Castle Please explain: 1) Why faith is more valuable than actual use of reason to arrive at knowledge 2) How faith leads us to Christianity, rather than, say, Islam? 3) Why we have any evidence at all (e.g. the Bible, prophecy, etc.) of God's existence

To the first question, I say that faith is more valuable because we can't ever have absolute evidence to use with our reason and arrive at Knowledge i.e. the absolute truth. For instance, if we adopt a more empirical approach and only believe what we can see, hear, feel, smell, and taste by sense perception, then we wouldn't have absolute evidence since our sense perception might be flawed. Think about the Matrix, for instance, where the people were made to believe in a pseudo-reality created by machines. Also, if we adopt pure skepticism of all beliefs (n.b see William Clifford), even then we are employing faith in our method of belief formation, even though some would say that this method employs pure reason.

To the second question, I say that faith leads us to certain religions depending on our cultures. In fact, the presence of these religious beliefs within established cultures adds more credibility to the concept of faith. Some have argued that if we are fideists, then what's to stop us from believing in something as supposedly absurd as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Well, such a concept has not been firmly rooted in a culture, which is, in a sense, the fundamental fiber of our being and behavior. So, many Westerners exercising faith would be drawn to Christianity, and many Arabs and Persians exercising faith would be drawn to Islam.

To the third question, we have evidence because it suits gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. However, I wouldn't say that the Bible and such are sufficient evidence, as Clifford puts it, of the existence of God. Neither is the Big Bang sufficient evidence of the non-existence of God. Faith is belief without evidence, and that's what agnostic theists such as myself and agnostic atheists employ; we have Peirce-esque tenacity.

Quote by: Castle Please explain how suffering Hell can bring people to Heaven, and how the condemnation of the majority to eternal suffering is worth bringing a tiny minority to Heaven.

I suppose when we're on Earth and must make our decision calculus, if we see the existence of both heaven and hell, then we would be more inclined to choose heaven. That corresponds to our acceptance of God and our escape from all torment as God puts it. Also, why wouldn't God create something that make unhappiness? Maybe that could serve a greater good; for example, if some people were scared about hell, then believers who aren't might work to comfort them, and that compassion, etc. could be part of God's plan.

I still say all the arguments are unsound, but nice try.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary 1) This is probably the best argument, but it is flawed. Most suffering is caused by humans, God loves us too much to violate our free choice, so He allows it to happen.

Heaven is a sinless place (or at least a much better place). Is our free will inhibited in Heaven? :] You make so little sense.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary God knows that the sufferers will be repaid beyond their dreams and the perpetrators will be made to suffer. The suffering caused by nature is harder to dismiss. Possibly God has some higher plan that could, in the end, prevent more suffering. I don't know, and niether does any theologian I know of.

Though I bet a lot of Atheists know.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary 3) Hell is, in fact, necessary for God to be good. Imagine if God sent Stalin to the same place as Mother Theresa, that's not a god of justice or comapassion. For God to be a god of Justice, Hell needs to exist, the bad must be punished, and the good must be rewarded.

What finite sin deserves infinite punishment? It is nonsensical, sinister, pointless, and utterly frightening to hear someone say this.

The only being that deserves Hell is God.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Epistemologist Even though by our definition, God can create the said system, He is not obligated to fulfill that capacity because there could be a greater good for not doing so. This is one of the most fundamental flaws of the argument from the problem of evil; there is a lack of a more teleological analysis.

If there is a greater good in suffering, he can simply change the system so that the greatest good is achieved with no suffering. For an omnipotent being, this should be no problem at all.

[Gods_Mercenary]

To change the system would be to violate free will.

We choose infinite punishment, every sane person knows well enough right from wrong.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary To change the system would be to violate free will.

1) What's wrong with that?
2) An omnipotent god would be able to change the system without violating free will.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary We choose infinite punishment, every sane person knows well enough right from wrong.

And insane people all deserve to go to hell, do they?

[Kamehameha34]

God can not be concurrently all-loving, omniscient, and omnipotent. That is what you've proven. Disproving the existence of the Christian god, however, is not as easy. Christians will constantly redefine their concept of "god" to adapt to any arguments that prove its impossibility.

[Gods_Mercenary]

God loves us too much to violate free will

Maybe God likes this reality, wants to see us pull through in the end, a sort of revival in His faith in us, if you follow.

Guess I forgot to put in that insane people have had their free choice corrupted, they can't be punished.

Just like I've done Kamehameha34

This is an excercize in futility.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy If there is a greater good in suffering, he can simply change the system so that the greatest good is achieved with no suffering. For an omnipotent being, this should be no problem at all.

That's inconceivable. As an omniscient being, He knows that the current system, which involves suffering, is the best way. Even for a benevolent God, suffering is not necessarily indicative of malevolence.

Another possible explanation is that perhaps suffering is an inevitability within the whole set of possible optimal systems. To not have suffering is an impossible anomaly for that set. Just as we can't really divide by zero within our given system of numbers, He can't provide a system without suffering within that optimal set. And just because He can't, doesn't mean He's not omniscient. I think if you argued against that, then you'd be sort of arguing the words and be committing a fallacy of equivocation.

Also, the definition of the Christian God might not be that He's omniscient. Maybe the definition is that He's the most powerful being. Anselm says that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." There are a variety of definitions.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 God can not be concurrently all-loving, omniscient, and omnipotent. That is what you've proven. Disproving the existence of the Christian god, however, is not as easy. Christians will constantly redefine their concept of "god" to adapt to any arguments that prove its impossibility.

Then again, continuing to revise a definition from the original can be considered abuse since you are making an unfalsifiable position. What I was saying before is that maybe the Christian God isn't defined according to that given definition. Nonetheless, we could still stick to that given definition and be right. You haven't proven it's wrong.

[Castle]

Quote by: Epistemologist I guess to test your faith or at least to make you have more doubt in God.

So God is killing people to make sure that I don't believe in him and am condemned to Hell? Got it

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, basically the premises don't logically lead to the conclusion. What logical principle are you using in that argument?

1) If God is omnibenevolent, he wants maximal good (definition)
2) Knowledge of God's existence contributes to good by allowing people to avoid Hell (premise)
3) Therefore, God wants to let people know he exists (from 1and 2)
4) God, being all-powerful, can do #3 (definition)
5) If a being both could and wanted to do something, it would (premise)
6) God has proved his existence to all (from 3,4, and 5)
7) God has not proved his existence to all (premise)
8) Contradiction; God does not exist (from 6 and 8)

Look more rigorous now?

Quote by: Epistemologist To the first question, I say that faith is more valuable because we can't ever have absolute evidence to use with our reason and arrive at Knowledge i.e. the absolute truth. For instance, if we adopt a more empirical approach and only believe what we can see, hear, feel, smell, and taste by sense perception, then we wouldn't have absolute evidence since our sense perception might be flawed. Think about the Matrix, for instance, where the people were made to believe in a pseudo-reality created by machines. Also, if we adopt pure skepticism of all beliefs (n.b see William Clifford), even then we are employing faith in our method of belief formation, even though some would say that this method employs pure reason.

Granted, we have to accept some things on faith. But God's existence need not be one of them, and we ought to keep that number as low as possible (Occam's Razor).

Quote by: Epistemologist To the second question, I say that faith leads us to certain religions depending on our cultures. In fact, the presence of these religious beliefs within established cultures adds more credibility to the concept of faith. Some have argued that if we are fideists, then what's to stop us from believing in something as supposedly absurd as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Well, such a concept has not been firmly rooted in a culture, which is, in a sense, the fundamental fiber of our being and behavior. So, many Westerners exercising faith would be drawn to Christianity, and many Arabs and Persians exercising faith would be drawn to Islam.

And it's OK to condemn all those Middle Eastern people to Hell because of their culture?:eek:

Quote by: Epistemologist To the third question, we have evidence because it suits gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. However, I wouldn't say that the Bible and such are sufficient evidence, as Clifford puts it, of the existence of God. Neither is the Big Bang sufficient evidence of the non-existence of God. Faith is belief without evidence

You miss the point. Why the level of evidence available? Why not more, so that it could be proven, or less, so that more faith could be exercised?

Quote by: Epistemologist and that's what agnostic theists such as myself and agnostic atheists employ

As an agnostic atheist (categorically, that is, not about the Christian God), I would like to point out that "agnostic" implies uncertainty, not faith.

Quote by: Epistemologist I suppose when we're on Earth and must make our decision calculus, if we see the existence of both heaven and hell, then we would be more inclined to choose heaven.

Would it not serve the same purpose (and save billions eternal torment) to lie about Hell?

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary We choose infinite punishment, every sane person knows well enough right from wrong.

That's complete and utter idiocy. First of all, even if we to assume (and we shouldn't) that everyone knows right from wrong, not everyone knows about the eternal punishment thing.
Second of all, not everyone agrees with God on what "wrong" is. Not everyone believes that not being Christian is wrong, or that blasphemy is wrong, or that ,say, coveting things is wrong (myself, I think ambition is a good thing)

[Gods_Mercenary]

I like your explanation of why God doesn't change systems, big E

[Kamehameha34]

Then again, continuing to revise a definition from the original can be considered abuse since you are making an unfalsifiable position. What I was saying before is that maybe the Christian God isn't defined according to that given definition. Nonetheless, we could still stick to that given definition and be right. You haven't proven it's wrong.

I am an agnostic, I don't defend any brand of deity. I've merely pointed out that god will continue to be redefined by Christianity as arguments proving it illogical surface.

By the way, applying a definition to any god which you don't prove is a quick way to be ignored by the more intelligent Christians.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I wish but I have nothing better to do.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Epistemologist I guess to test your faith or at least to make you have more doubt in God. Some see belief just like steel i.e. it often has to be tempered.

Odd, religion is sooo demographic.

Obviously some fetuses need a life that would be impossible to end in faith, while others fetuses need a life which can only lead to faith from the beginning of their upbringing to the end. Does that really make sense to you?

Quote by: Epistemologist To the first question, I say that faith is more valuable because we can't ever have absolute evidence to use with our reason and arrive at Knowledge i.e. the absolute truth. For instance, if we adopt a more empirical approach and only believe what we can see, hear, feel, smell, and taste by sense perception, then we wouldn't have absolute evidence since our sense perception might be flawed.

Right, it's far more valuable to already think you know everything than to know you don't know everything. That way, we can forget about the improvement of human life in favor of reserving our place in a imaginary second life with a supernatural being that loves us as said by a very old religious book out of the many hundreds of religious books. Screw the earth! Jesus is coming to destroy all and we'll ascend to a new life in Heaven! Screw the progress of science and medicine! Our time here is meaningless when we get to live eternally in bliss in our second life.

Quote by: Epistemologist I suppose when we're on Earth and must make our decision calculus, if we see the existence of both heaven and hell, then we would be more inclined to choose heaven. That corresponds to our acceptance of God and our escape from all torment as God puts it. Also, why wouldn't God create something that make unhappiness? Maybe that could serve a greater good; for example, if some people were scared about hell, then believers who aren't might work to comfort them, and that compassion, etc. could be part of God's plan.

God's plan is absurd and repulsive. He chooses to remain elusive so that he can test the faith of his own creations. This elusiveness is precisely what leads millions of people to suffer for billions and trillions and billions of years plus an eternity in Hell. That's part of God's plan? To torture countless millions of people? Why doesn't he come down here as our father and teach us right and wrong. Why doesn't he show us the way?

Face it, if you had a father that never showed himself to you, and you had no solid proof that he existed, but a homeless guy on the street (who's credibility you have no clue about) told you what your father wants you to do and if you didn't do what he said you would be taken to a tool shed where you would would be chained up and tortured with knifes and hot iron.. you would immediately claim that your father was mentally insane and REPULSIVE. Or the homeless guy is mentally insane.

That's how it's like for non-believers. That's what it feels like for me.

Face it, God isn't real. That's why the Bible has to threaten others with Hell. If God were real, and good, he wouldn't be the elusive father in my above example. That's sick, disturbing, and repulsive.

Tell me, what finite sin deserves infinite punishment?