Yes.
What’s your strongest argument FOR god?
I don’t mean to be fatuous, but there’s absolutely nothing to show for any deity so why should I believe in something that has no evidence?
If he supposedly interacts with this universe, there needs to be at least a single solitary SHRED of evidence. Where is it? In the thousands of years that humans have been in existence, billions of people have looked. No one, not a single person has ever found a single piece of evidence for any deity.
Why?
And why should I believe? Because you say so? Because some book says so? No dice.
a predictable answer, people who believe in god usually use circumstantial evidence that can be described as pure coincidence as evidence of god’s involvement.
“Ask an atheist!!!”
You shouldn’t answer any question with the question simply inverted.
But then, couldn’t it be ANYTHING? Why that specific deity? What about leprechauns? Fairies? The vortigaunts? Joe Pesci? There’s just as much evidence that these entities did these things as that deity, isn’t there?
I noticed that you cut off the rest of my response. Thanks!
See it from another angle. I recommended you to cut off that part I didn’t.
I will answer that soon.
wat
If there is a god that interacts with our universe in any significant way that actually existed, it should leave some sort of evidence behind. Since there is none to be found, one must logically conclude that until some sort of evidence is found, the more logical proposition would be that the god doesn’t exist. If this god did not exist then there would be no evidence, as we have seen thus far this is what is indicated.
Since we have noticed that the concepts of unobservable beings occur naturally in children not exposed to any sort of doctrine, then we can logically say that the concept of a god occurs naturally.
Since we have found no evidence, and the idea is naturally occurring that imaginary beings exist when they do not, it is more logical to go on the assumption that the being god is just another imagined being.
The chance of something without evidence existing simply because we imagine it does is roughly 1 chance in ∞. The chance that we simply don’t know or understand some grander function of the universe because of our limited perception? I’d say that is far more probable. Because we already acknowledge that we don not understand everything about the uni/multiverse.
The idea of a personal god seems to take this concept further to suggest that all of these ideas should be ignored including what we actually CAN observe. A god that simply interacts with a universe can be something discussed. A god that created EVERYTHING just for mankind, and to be the keeper of mankind? No.
Sorry I will try again. I recommended you not to begin with that rhetorical device the next time. I liked the part I have cut off.
I mentioned that I wasn’t trying to be fatuous but the rhetorical device I used was actually a good one. What is my strongest argument against a god? That there’s no evidence FOR a god.
Agree with that.
PS: Don’t think that I ignore the text I cut off from replies.
Oh, ok.
I already answered why the universe is there, why we are here, why there is no god and even why most species are separated into 2 genders. I can’t prove it and it takes a high IQ to understand.
There are actually numerous of evidences against the existence of God. At least, the existence of God as portrayed in the bible or any religion derived from Judaism.
First, when someone says something about God (what he likes, what he wants, etc), it uses the same part of the brain that is used someone talks about other people, whether imaginary, real or dead. A wider explanation about it is in this video.
Second, monotheism only appeared in Israel around 600 BC. Iahweh was a “modification” of a god of war among many other gods. Watch this video or read this in Wikipedia.
Third, the hell. It contradicts omnibenevolence. I have a reasoning similar to the problem of evil, but slightly different. I don’t see evil in the world as a bad thing if we can get something back from the suffering, like if we gradually learn a lot of stuff (as Spiritism believes) or if that eventually gets us to heaven. But I can’t see how hell is a good thing for the people that end up there. It is like pulling the trigger of a gun while it is pointed at someone: you didn’t kill the victim, the bullet did, but you are guilt because you knew the pulling the trigger would make the bullet to be projected and kill the person.
Fourth, God, in the old testament, is an angry, vengeful, selfish superhuman. He even literally struggled with one of the prophets. He also ordered many murders, wars and sacrifices in his name, while also killing and torturing lots of people himself for not complying to him. He left his own people wandering in the desert! As time and human knowledge increased, God developed to a more believable, benevolent being. That means God was invented by humans, not shown to humans, or he and his will would not mutate with time.
Fifth, inconsistency. Lots of people say they have “personally experienced” God and that they know him, but they have different views about what God is or wants, what he did or did not, etc. Ok, people are people, you may argue that they can make mistakes, but, then, how can I trust them when they say they “personally experienced” God? I used to be a Christian and I “personally experienced” God, but that is not much different from listening to a nice music, concentrating on your objectives in life or having hope on what is right.
Sixth, prayer do not work, as shown by several statistical studies.
Seventh, the whole concept that a completely blind belief in God will save you from eternal damnation. That looks much more like a weapon that the Roman empire used to control people and nowadays is an evil inheritance.
Anyway, I only said the main reasons. All that the above is saying is, in one sentence, that there is no evidence that God exists. All alleged evidences or proofs cannot be trusted.
I honestly believe that a God might exist. I like to think about God as a being that
- have complete free will, as in “he is able to prevent himself from doing anything that he does not want to”
- is omnipotent, as in “he can do anything that doe not contradict logic”
- is omniscient, as in “he can know anything that is knowable”
- is omnibenevolent, as in “each suffering that happens to each subject as a direct of indirect consequence of one of his choices has a benevolent consequence for the subject that is greater than the suffering caused”
- created everything else that exists
- created the laws of Physics
I say the most generic definition of God is a being who satisfies at least (1) and (5). If you want to define multiple Gods, than all of them should satisfy (1) while (5) should be substituted by “the set of all Gods created everything else that exists”.
Let’s stick to one God. Since he created everything else (5) and chose to do so (1), all suffering is ultimately chosen by him, so (4) is equivalent to:
“Each suffering that happens to each subject has a benevolent consequence for the subject that is greater than the suffering caused”.
This means hell isn’t possible. And that is because my definition of omnibenevolence is more relaxed than the usual one! With the usual one, an absurd is created because of the existence of evil, creating, therefore, an absurd. One thing I am sure about: God might or not exist but, if God exists, he is not even nearly like any religion have depicted him.
God can be refuted by this fact: God is perfect - God needs worhsip
Needs = Imperfections