Arguments against God

Author: Jarrett_Ludolph ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 103
  • Jarrett_Ludolph
    Jarrett_Ludolph avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 51
    0
    0
    7
    Jarrett_Ludolph avatar
    Jarrett_Ludolph
    Put forth your best arguments against the existence of a God. I will define God as Maximal Great Being, that is omnipotence(all powerful), omniscience, (all knowing) and omnipresence (all loving).

    I will not be responding to your arguments, since this a forum, and if I wanted o debate, I would have created a debate. I just want to see how you think

    Thankyou


  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @Jarrett_Ludolph
    Ain't no good reason for believing
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 20
    Forum posts: 2,455
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Jarrett_Ludolph
    I see the argument you are implying to make here:

    p1: god is maximally great
    p2: Something which exists is greater than something that does not
    Con: Therefore god exists

    Or the Ontological argument for the existence of god.

    There are the obvious reductio ad absurdum that one can employ such an argument:

    p1: There is an island where chickens have taken over 
    p2: This island is maximally great
    p2: Something which exists is greater than something that does not
    Con: Therefore this island exists

    The problem being the labeling of a maximally great being. Why does your god deserve this label? What demonstrates your god as maximally great? Even the other three things are philosophically contradictory (An all-powerful creator who can create anything, can that creator create a rock they can't move, etc, etc)

    A god that is maximally great is not in the standard definition of the word, thus you have the burden to prove this. 

    As I am unconvinced of your claim which god exists, I do not believe in god, as one should hold their belief where the evidence lies, and therefore do not believe in god.

  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 526
    3
    2
    5
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    --> @Jarrett_Ludolph
    Why would an all loving and all powerful Being create pediatric cancer?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 20
    Forum posts: 2,455
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @FLRW @Jarrett_Ludolph
    Why would an all loving and all powerful Being create pediatric cancer?
    This is a fair thing to point out, though usually not very convincing towards actual believers. Here's why

    Fundamentally - Most theists believe that the blame of sin is on humans, and particularly people who believe that "Man partook of the fruit" and all that. Even though it doesn't logically follow that:

    p1: God created everything
    p2: Suffering is a part of everything
    Con: Therefore humans caused suffering?

    Obviously, the conclusion of humans should be replaced by god, often indoctrination is so deep, and against the idea that it seems an absurd notion to blame god for anything bad, much less suffering itself

    Of course, the theists could always interject: "But god told the humans to not eat of the tree to avoid suffering!

    I would respond with the fact that god made the tree in the first place and that she decided the punishment for eating of said tree. But again the theist will usually not be convinced, insisting that it was all man's fault. 

    I would agree that an all-benevolent god wouldn't cause cancer, and the only arguments in favor of such a position are either non-sequiturs or appeals to ignorance. 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Every atheist argument is contingent on making God something other than what God is. Namely, The Ultimate Reality.

    So if God is The Ultimate Reality, what is the argument of the atheist?

    Equate God with a created thing such as a concept, something cultural, or some other type of impermanent thing.

    Every atheist argument is a straw man because there is no argument against God that stands. It is self defeating to say there is no ultimate reality. If there is no ultimate reality, then the argumwnt against it cannot be ultimately real, it cannot be true.

    That is why atheism is the same thing as nihilism. 

    Atheism is a patently self defeating and stupid position. Most atheists don't really understand what atheism is, they are simply uneducated or badly educated. Most atheists, I'd say, if they knew what God really meant would abandon atheism and at the very least confess that God exists.

    True atheists who are in fact real deal nihilists have such a foolish position that they don't even deserve to be taken seriously. In fact, a nihilist is pretty much admitting that everything they say is a lie. They don't believe in The Truth. That being the case, all of their reasoning is on a foundational level deception. 
    A nihilist can be dismissed outright, they are after all coming from a position of insanity, not reason. They don't even truly believe in reason. When they make appeals to reason, it isn't a sincere appeal to reason, after all, they are nihilists.

    Several philosophers in the 1800s would say, "If there is no God, I am God!"

    And so the nihilist reasons for the sake of self deification. 

    Satanism is the taking of oneself as being god. 

    Atheism is Nihilism. Nihilism is Satanic. All of it is fundamentally anti-Christ.

    This is the religion of anti-Christ. 

  • Jarrett_Ludolph
    Jarrett_Ludolph avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 51
    0
    0
    7
    Jarrett_Ludolph avatar
    Jarrett_Ludolph
    --> @FLRW @Theweakeredge
    First things first.
    I do not believe in God, nor have I ever claimed to be on this website, I was simply asking for others to provide their favorite argument for God,(so I can help understand the people who use this website better).
    Second things second.
    Yes, I did get my definition for God that I used (a maximally great being) in this forum from the Anselm's ontological argument definition for God. However, I do not support this argument, since I am an agnostic.
    Last things last.
    FLRW, you brought up the problem of evil, however, I am an agnostic, so I am completely fine with that argument.

    Thank you both for posting on this forum

  • Jarrett_Ludolph
    Jarrett_Ludolph avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 51
    0
    0
    7
    Jarrett_Ludolph avatar
    Jarrett_Ludolph
    Correction, favorite arguments against God sorry
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 20
    Forum posts: 2,455
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Jarrett_Ludolph
    I wasn't meaning to say you made the argument, just the one it implies to make
  • Jarrett_Ludolph
    Jarrett_Ludolph avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 51
    0
    0
    7
    Jarrett_Ludolph avatar
    Jarrett_Ludolph
    --> @Theweakeredge
    I see. Thank you for clearing things up
  • BearMan
    BearMan avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 1,021
    3
    4
    11
    BearMan avatar
    BearMan
    If God is maximally great, ask Him to create a being that is greater than He is. Repeat this several times, so that you have an ultimate being.


  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 225
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    Put forth your favorite arguments against the existence of a God. 
    If existence as we know it is contingent upon God, than it may be appropriate to say that God is, but not that God merely exists.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @BearMan
    "Maximally great" means that nothing can be greater.

    God already is the ultimate being.

  • BearMan
    BearMan avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 1,021
    3
    4
    11
    BearMan avatar
    BearMan
    --> @Mopac
    So its self contradicting then, an omnipotent being has to be able to do everything, including creating something more great than itself

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Conway
    "Is", "be", and "exist" 

    These words are so related they are practically variations of eachother.

    To say something "is" would be to acknowledge its existence. 

    To say, "let it be" would signify an acceptance of the. existence of something. "Being" in itself is a word that means "existence".

    God exists, but not in the sense that other things have their existence, sure. God is a singularity, wholly unique and different from all other existences. Everything we think of existing does so in relation to something else that is created. They don't exist on their own. The world of created things, while all created things exist in relation to eachother, exist in a particular way. As created things. They exist relatively.

    Creation itself however derives its existence from God. The existence of God however is unique in that it is an absolute existence, not a relative existence. God does require anything else to exist, no contrast, nothing. This is because God is Ultimately Real, while everything in creation has conditional reality.


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @BearMan
    Omnipotent means that all power ultimately comes from God. It has nothing to do with creating rocks so big that God can't move them. These arguments are absurd and come from a bad understanding of theology.
  • BearMan
    BearMan avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 1,021
    3
    4
    11
    BearMan avatar
    BearMan
    --> @Mopac
    Nah "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful."


    There is no such thing as an omnipotent being, it's very definition is contradicting
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @BearMan
    I would say rather that omnipotence doesn't make sense to you.

    But having universal power, authority, and force certainly is in line with my understanding. That is, all power, force, and authority, is derived from God.

    That is also the doctrine of the church, which understands our relationship with this power through synergism rather than monergism




  • BearMan
    BearMan avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 1,021
    3
    4
    11
    BearMan avatar
    BearMan
    --> @Mopac
    Anything regarding the terms of the omnipotent being's power being limited makes it self-contradictory.

    Make a rock that even the omnipotent being can't lift is a clear example of it. Dismissing that at is invalid is fallacious in nature.


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @FLRW @Theweakeredge
    The reason why it doesn't make sense to disbelieve in God for the bad things that happen are all tied to God's identity.

    The Ultimate Reality.

    That being the case, it makes no sense to reject reality simply because it does not conform.to one's own standards, reasonings, and/or personal sense of aesthetics. Rather, to prefer fantasy over reality is the surest way to delusion. Faith in God is not about prefering fantasy to reality, rather it is peace with reality. The peace to say, "Thy will be done" rather than a petulant refusal to accept a reality that is opposed to one's own will.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @BearMan
    For something to be falllacious, it must be false. What I am saying is true. What you are saying is false.

    The understanding I am putting forth makes rational sense.

    The understanding you are putting forth is superstitous.

    It's really simple. I have told you what I believe. You can tell me that I believe differently, but you would be wrong.

  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 225
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @Mopac
    Well, literally arguing against God would be vain.  That's why the best argument you can make is whether it's appropriate to treat the title of God like an idol of creation through a finite term of existence. 

    I don't know how anyone could come up with anything else to comply to the rules here.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Post #6 says it all. Pay attention, because it will prove to be the rule.


    "Every atheist argument is contingent on making God something other than what God is. Namely, The Ultimate Reality."
  • BearMan
    BearMan avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 1,021
    3
    4
    11
    BearMan avatar
    BearMan
    --> @Mopac
    Your evidence consists of:

    Omnipotent means that all power ultimately comes from God. It has nothing to do with creating rocks so big that God can't move them. These arguments are absurd and come from a bad understanding of theology.
    The definition of omnipotent is not "all power comes from God." That is false. 

    Your proof consists of dismissing logical arguments that if a God was truly omnipotent it is self-contradicting. This is provided by several logical examples. In other words, you rely on superstition, not me.d





  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Conway
    The word "God" is like a finger pointing at the moon.

    It is a created word pointing toward an Uncreated Ultimate Reality.

    To accept that The Word is God is to acknowledge the incarnation. That united in the one hypostasis of The Incarnate Word is a nature that is fully uncreated, and a nature that is fully created. United without confusion or mixture.

    "Every atheist argument is contingent on making God something other than what God is. Namely, The Ultimate Reality."

    They reject The Incarnate Word. That is how we can say the truth is not in them, and that they argue from a position of anti-christ.