Arguments Against The Existence Of God.

A website produces a pretentious list of Ten Arguments For the Non-Existence God. Or does it?

1) Where's the Proof? If God is so powerful, why doesn't he show Him or Herself?

A. The logical deductive proofs abound, and are without refutation. You could easily find them if you really wanted. Go ahead.

Empirical proof at Fatima and Lourdes, etc exists, and is not refuted just because you weren’t there to observe it; you must refute those empirical claims using empirical techniques. Go ahead.

Reveal himself? In what fashion would satisfy you? Would the quantum/conscious connection suffice? If not, then what is the mechanism which allows all material things to change between t=0 and t=0+?

And the non-physical gift of free will: would you have God revoke free will in favor of automatonism?

Why does your demand on God have any force with such a being? Are you a god or a superior being to God? Why do you think so?

Further, the demand for physical proof is a logical Category Error. One cannot rationally demand proof for the nonexistence of Category [!A] by searching only Category [A]. The insistence that only Category [A] exists is anti-logic, and is irrational.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. It is merely denialism in the form of Radical Skepticism, with no disproof given, even in the face of actual evidence..

Fails.

2) Why do Bad People Exist and Get Away With Things? If God is loving, why does he permit so much suffering in this world?

A. Bad people exist due to their free will to choose evil over good; their first choice is to reject the existence of evil as even existing in a universe which is closed and physicalist, a common Atheist position. Thus “all things are permitted” (Dostoevsky). If evil does not exist, then how can you ask about “bad” things and suffering as being evil? The question is posed out of a worldview which does not even believe that “bad” exists, and therefore that suffering is actually “bad”. So it is an attack on God for the purpose of justifying the contrary position. But the presupposition that “love” would produce a different outcome is false; a loving deity might provide a gift which involves having to deal with hardship and choices. So the underlying presupposition is false (False Premise).

Love does not mean perfect overprotection; such protection would eliminate free will rendering us automatons, thus it would trivialize human existence. (Automatons do seem to be the objective of most Atheist driven ethics, such as humanism, Virtue Ethics, and Nietzschean ethics).

Further, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; it is a deliberately false understanding of the nature of that agent, the nature of loving gifts, and is thus merely an attack on a Straw Man. Omnibenevolence is not a characteristic attributable to the Abrahamic theology. Nor is it even desirable. It is a false creation of Atheists.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. It is an attack on the existence of free will and the Straw Man of presumption of omnibenevolence, not on the existence of God.

Fails.

3) How Can One Say God Exists, But Not all those Other Gods? You know, the Indian ones, the Norse ones, the Roman and Greek ones, the Hawaiian ones? Everyone is talking about so many different deities, it's hard to suggest yours is "right".

A. Even the parsimony of Occam’s Razor suggests that there need be only one cause for the universe; if the Big Bang Theory is correct, there needs to have been a decision made to trigger the expansion, and that suggests a single agent with the capacity to have made the decision and then implemented it.

To argue that because "some" concepts are incorrect, therefore all concepts are incorrect is false; it is the Fallacy of False Association. Each concept must be analyzed in its own right.

Further, there is nothing either logically or empirically which prohibits the existence of agencies outside of our four dimensional universe, agents which might be either maleficent or beneficent by our standards. The question posed is very earth-centric and physicalist, and is without any merit because it is the Fallacy of False Association, as well as ignoring the “scientific” (e.g. String Theory) possibility of other dimensions and their contents, which map into our four dimensions.

Further still, the bible does not claim that there are no other "gods"; it abjures worshipping them.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. It is in fact a logical fallacy of the form Fallacy of False Association, and it is a false understanding of the Bible.

Fails.

4) Where are the Miracles? We certainly haven't seen any for a long time.

A. You have miracles to refute; go ahead and do so, making certain that your empirical data is available to all. Further, refute that quantum observation is entangled with consciousness, which implies scientifically that existence, all of it, depends upon a conscious observer. We’ll need to see your work on that.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; plus, it is a fatuous and false claim. There is no refutation of claimed miracles such as Lourdes and Fatima.

Fails.

5) If God Created Everything, What Created God? Doesn't using God as an answer for what created things defer the question and ignore the main issue?

A. The other horn for this Radical Skeptical (and rather obtuse) dichotomy/dilemma is an infinite regression. What is the evidence for an infinite regression? None. Like “infinite universes”, the argument presents a fantasy as an option in a fantasy dichotomy, a dichotomy which posits no grounding for any origins whatsoever. Yet this fantasy is proposed out of a worldview of physicalism/materialism, which actually believes in a closed universe, and does not believe in any regression at all, much less an infinite regression.

If there is no grounding in an original source for existence, then there is also no grounding for any morality. Any morality derived by Atheists under such a proposition is merely their opinion: volatile and personally derived subjectively and relativistically, and therefore without value. The lack of principles under Atheist rejectionism also applies to argumentation, and this is an example of the result of unprincipled argumentation.

The infinite regress required by such a statement is irrational; it requires the existence of agencies placed a hierarchical fashion infinitely, with no origination for their agencies or their existence. What, then, is the proof for this under a physicalist/materialist worldview? None: they do not believe it. Once again, the parsimony of Occam can be invoked to help refute this issue.

Finally, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; it is a childish sophistry posed as an illogical and faux conundrum. It is a rhetorical issue, only.

Fails.

6) Geological Evidence Contradicts the Bible, Koran and other Religious Texts The earth appears to be much older and more naturally occurring than any religious scriptures seem to acknowledge.

A. First: No, that is false. The Bible does not claim any time frame other than allegorically, metaphorically. This claim is a literalist attack, from a worldview that hates Biblical literalism. The Bible, including the OT, contains many types of literature, not just literal narrative.

Second: How does that prove that God does not exist? It does not even relate, because it is an attack (false) on ecclesiasticism, not on the existence of a creating agent for the universe. The argument has no bearing on the existence of God.

This is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; if anything, it is a Red Herring Fallacy which points off of theology and toward ecclesiaticism.

Fails.

7) Hypocrisy Among Religious People Why is it that some of the most fervent believers don't believe in abortion but support the death penalty, which directly contradicts one of the ten commandments... which they claim to know and honor?

A. Judeo-Christians do not claim to be morally perfect; only Atheists claim that for themselves, since Atheists get to create their own morals to suit themselves and to match their preferred behaviors (e.g. homosexuality, Scientism, Humanism/totalitarianism, Consequentialism/Utilitarianism, etc.)

Why do most Atheists support the killing of the innocent but decry the humane killing, by the state, of killers of the innocent? Atheists who support abortive dismemberment and killing of pre-born humans have no moral right (much less moral authority) to question those who support the humane punishment of those who kill innocent post-born humans.

This is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. And the argument is based on a false premise: the presupposition that Christians are perfect creatures rather than struggling humans dealing with moral decisions.

Fails.

8) Isn't It Very Possible the Whole "Immaculate Conception Thing" Was a Cover Up... ...for an unwanted pregnancy?

A. You might as well just claim, by implication rather than actual evidence, that the entire NT is false, since the immaculate conception is perfectly integrated into the entire metanarrative. Your accusation is thus required to deal with the entire metanarrative. The accusation being Radically Skeptical and physicalist/materialist in nature, the entire metanarrative thus requires disciplined empirical evidence for its disproof, not just innuendo. This question does not qualify as evidence for anything whatsoever. And it does not bear on the existence of God.

And as we see with every question posed, this is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. This question is merely an injection of Radical Skepticism as innuendo with no possible proof of its accusation: none.

Fails.

9) If Believers So Ardently Subscribe to the Idea of Heaven... ...why are people afraid to die?

A. Where is your proof that this accusation is true? The actual evidence suggests that this is false; in hospitals it is observed that the most raucous wailing during pre- and post-death is by those with “no belief”, and the opposite by those with belief. This is a false premise, and the conclusion does not bear on the existence of God.

This is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. And it is a false proposition, obviously made for rhetorical purposes with the hope that it is not refuted.

Fails.

10) Prayer's Ineffectiveness Prayer has a spotty success rate, to put it gently.

A. Double blind studies with both humans and animals show otherwise. And God is not a candy machine, as Atheists reductively surmise: there is no reason to expect that a prayer inserted will deterministically produce a goody in return. That is not the purpose of prayer. This premise is another Straw Man Fallacy. And it does not bear on the existence of God.

This is not an argument against the existence of a creating agent for the universe; it is the injection of false expectations – unstated – and a false conclusion – with no evidence for its veracity.

Fails.

Conclusion:
This List does show some of the common Atheist positions, and it allows us to dismantle them all right here in one place. There must be some better arguments for Atheism, but all that I have seen involve either Radical Skepticism, Denialism (of responsibility for forming a valid argument), or Straw Men and other rhetorical fallacies.

I have made the persistent request for disproof of a creating agent for the universe, and I never have received any such proof, either empirical or disciplined deductive. From this it is parsimonious to assume that Atheism is not based on either evidence or logic, as claimed; rather it is based on emotional neediness, and nothing more.