Give one reason or argument that God doesnt exist

[austin12345]

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist, but not one emotionally.

[Peter]

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist, but not one emotionally.

Here are ten pretty good reasons gods don't exist but, by definition, it's impossible to prove a purely supernatural entity doesn't exist. The opposite also applies. It's impossible to prove a purely supernatural entity exists. I'm sure you know this already.

[austin12345]

There is a few problems just skimming that article. First it commits a genetic fallacy which is showing the authenticity of a religion based on how it originated. Second all the points were opinionated and based on philosophical predispositions. For example the lack of great Apologetics. That is dependent on his opinion. I am a believer that Apologetics is great and has shown God to exist.

Also you cant prove God with arguements and science but you can point to its best explanation. I believe whole heartedly that all the science we have and philosophy points to a creator instead of away.

[Divine Insight]

Again not one person has made any argument agaisnt God so far.

What kind of a God are you talking about?

I can't very well give you reasons why a God doesn't exist unless you tell me something about your supposed God.

If you're talking about the Biblical God this is easy.

Reason 1. The Biblical God is supposed to be a designer God that actually designed the animals and saw that his design was good.

Well, animals each other. Surely that's not good, nor is it a good design. So a designer God clearly doesn't exist.

Same is true with disease, and genetic defects, mental illness, etc. Why would a designer God design such detrimental things into his creation unless of course he's some sort of sadist.

But the Biblical God is not supposed to be a demented sadist, on the contrary he's supposed to be trustworthy and loving. Therefore he cannot exist according to the things he must be because they are in contradiction.

Reason 2. The Biblical God is supposed to be consistent, unchanging and therefore trustworthy and dependable.

But that's not true either. According to Christianity the Biblical God once dealt with the sins of mankind by drowning men in a Great Flood. But then he supposedly changed his mind lately and gave his only begotten son to pay for the sin so men.

Again, a blatant contradiction that cannot hold true with any sense of logical or rational consistency.

Reason 3. The crucifixion itself is an oxymoron.

This God supposedly commanded men, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". So now he's going to forgive men of their sins for disobeying his commandments and crucifying his son?

Again, that's such a blatant contradiction in terms that it can't possible be rationalized and thus it must necessarily be false.

I could go on, but you really only asked for one reason. The biblical myths of God have countless reasons why they can't be true.

I just gave three quite apparent ones.

[Divine Insight]

I believe whole heartedly that all the science we have and philosophy points to a creator instead of away.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that exactly. None the less the philosophy and science most certainly does NOT point to the kind of creator described by the ancient Hebrews.

Why bother with that religion?

There are far better spiritual philosophies that make far more sense.

[Nickman]

There is a few problems just skimming that article. First it commits a genetic fallacy which is showing the authenticity of a religion based on how it originated. Second all the points were opinionated and based on philosophical predispositions. For example the lack of great Apologetics. That is dependent on his opinion. I am a believer that Apologetics is great and has shown God to exist.

Also you cant prove God with arguements and science but you can point to its best explanation. I believe whole heartedly that all the science we have and philosophy points to a creator instead of away.

Why would a truly existent god need apologetics?

[Divine Insight]

There is a few problems just skimming that article. First it commits a genetic fallacy which is showing the authenticity of a religion based on how it originated. Second all the points were opinionated and based on philosophical predispositions. For example the lack of great Apologetics. That is dependent on his opinion. I am a believer that Apologetics is great and has shown God to exist.

Also you cant prove God with arguements and science but you can point to its best explanation. I believe whole heartedly that all the science we have and philosophy points to a creator instead of away.

Why would a truly existent god need apologetics?

Truly.

Moreover, if God couldn't convince me of his existence via the Old Testament, and Jesus couldn't convince me via the New Testament, but then some mortal Evangelists comes along and convinces me via apologetic arguments, then guess what that means?

That means that both God and Jesus fell flat on their faces in the mud trying to convince me, but the mortal Evangelist put both God and Jesus to shame by exhibiting far superior arguments.

All that Apologists and Evangelists are doing is imagining that they can somehow do a better job than both their God or Jesus were capable of doing.

Moreover, if anyone would "fall through the cracks" of this God's judgmental justice system if not "saved" by an Evangelist, that doesn't say much for this God's justice system.

All Evangelists are doing is screaming, "We don't trust our God's justice system!".

If a God's justice system is truly righteous and just, then no decent person is going to fall through the cracks by accident, and the people who do fail the system are supposed to be damned, after all, it's supposed to be a just system right?

So anyone who tries to "save" someone from the Biblical God's justice system is doing nothing more than proclaiming that they don't trust their God to have set up a fool-proof system in the first place.

Apologists and Evangelists cannot possibly be required for anyone's salvation.

This is yet another reason why this religion is necessarily false.

[austin12345]

Apologists are in no way trying to do something God cant do. WHat they are trying to do is give a rational defense of showing belief in God is rational. Also God in my opinion(which is just as valid as yours) was not trying to prove his existence. He acted in nature as a just and loving God bringing us salvation through Jesus Christ. Jesus also wasnt trying to prove himself. If he was trying to he wouldve came down from the cross and showed himeself to be God. That wasnt his intent. He was trying to bring Salvation to all mankind and fullfill the old testament prophecies.

Also God uses Apologists. We dont do anything by our own knowledge or right but through Christ who empowers us.

[Nickman]

Apologists are in no way trying to do something God cant do. WHat they are trying to do is give a rational defense of showing belief in God is rational. Also God in my opinion(which is just as valid as yours) was not trying to prove his existence. He acted in nature as a just and loving God bringing us salvation through Jesus Christ. Jesus also wasnt trying to prove himself. If he was trying to he wouldve came down from the cross and showed himeself to be God. That wasnt his intent. He was trying to bring Salvation to all mankind and fullfill the old testament prophecies.

Also God uses Apologists. We dont do anything by our own knowledge or right but through Christ who empowers us.

If belief in god was rational then don't you think we would ALL come to the same conclusion? We also wouldn't need apologists trying to rationalize god.

[Divine Insight]

He was trying to bring Salvation to all mankind and fullfill the old testament prophecies.

Well, he certainly failed at that miserably.

The messiah was supposed to bring peace among all nations. That never came to pass. So much for fulfilling any prophecy.

I personally view Christianity as basically a hateful cult that just uses Jesus as an excuse to condemn people. Their tactics don't even correspond to the rumors about Jesus.

Jesus supposedly forgave the people who were mocking him, beating him and nailing him to a pole.

Yet the Christians proclaim that Jesus will hate anyone who doesn't even believe in him.

That's absurd.

IMHO, Christians are the ones who make Jesus out to be a hateful monster. I don't even see where the gospel rumors support such nonsense.

I don't see where Jesus would be my enemy. But it sure seems like the Christians would be extremely disappointed if Jesus didn't hate me.

They seem to love to used Jesus to spread hatred toward non-Christians.

I don't see the point in that at all.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not Jesus that's filled with hate, but rather those who claim to follow him.

In the meantime I've already given you plenty of reasons why the Old Testament God can't exist and you haven't addressed any of those.

What's your reason why a designer God would design animals to eat each other?

And why would he design disease and horrific birth defects in babies?

And if he's interested in judging people based on their choices, then why did he design mental illness?

I haven't heard your apologies for any of this yet.

[Mithrae]

If belief in god was rational then don't you think we would ALL come to the same conclusion?

No more than we all come to the same conclusions about the best political or economic systems. No more than all scientists come to the same conclusions about interpretations of quantum mechanics or theoretical cosmology.

Seems to me that most atheists (and most theists for that matter) make a big assumption about the nature of reality, often without even realising it.

In the mother's womb we couldn't really have any concept of a world or our place in it even if we had a well-developed brain - we'd have virtually no information or experience to work with. Once we're born we'd experience a veritable explosion of new images, sounds and sensations, which would resolve (perhaps over a matter of weeks) into certain familiar things like the mother's face, voice and breasts and other, vaguer and varying sensations. We'd start to develop a sense of 'self,' the subject which experiences all those things as distinct from the objects of experience; we understand that the world is not like me, as it were. And eventually we also come to realise that some parts of the world are not merely objects, that they also have 'selves' which experience and want things just like we do. I imagine that realisation begins somewhere around 12-18 months of age - hence the proverbial 'terrible twos' in which a child recognises other wills which might conflict with their own. That full process continues throughout childhood, moreso in some folk than in others; kids without a healthy upbringing (abusive, abandonment etc) might not have as much opportunity to see themselves in others, and end up more divorced from others' feelings than their victims might like

What's all that got to do with the price of feet? Back in the day the common view (especially in Western history) reflected this selves/other or subject/object distinction which is so fundamental to our development, reasoning, language and thinking. Not only were we as humans believed to be both physical body and immaterial soul, but (depending on the era and culture) animals, trees and streams might have their own spirits governing their behaviour; or the weather, sea and so on as a whole might have their respective gods; or all of creation might have its great Spirit overseeing its formation and behaviour.

Here's the rub: In recent centuries both philosophers and scientists have increasingly and rightly rejected that dualistic view of reality - but mostly in favour of the 'physical' or objective view.

Why is that?

As a basic childhood distinction, nurtured by the Christian view of physical reality as a thing unto itself, distinct from its creator, it's understandable. But that doesn't make it justified. Atheists rightly demand justification for a creator distinct from our 'physical' reality. But we should also demand justification for viewing reality as 'physical' rather than mental or 'spiritual.'

As long as that grand assumption stands unchallenged, then no of course we won't all come to the same conclusion about 'god.'