What is the most convincing argument opposing your belief about God you have heard?

When it comes right down to it, the universe appears to have been created spontaneously out of nothing. Explaining the creation of the universe with some sort of eternal, powerful intelligence is an appealing idea. I don't know if I could really say it's convincing, but I figured it was at least worth mentioning.

This is a brilliant survey. Bravo!

I don't believe in God, nor have I ever heard a convincing argument for belief in God. If I had, I would believe in God. The whole point is that I find all the arguments totally unconvincing. I have no problem with people believing in God for their own reasons, though. Faith doesn't have to be based on convincing arguments. That's the whole point of faith.

None of them have been very convincing; If they had, I'd be an agnostic/atheist.

I've never heard a convincing argument opposing my disbelief in god.

My "belief" is based on observation, deduction and empirical evidence. The only arguments in favor of the existence of god are based on repeating what people have been taught by their elders, and wishful thinking. I've never heard a convincing argument of this form.

Haven't heard any.

Thank you

I'm an atheist. I've been learning about the ontological argument in Theology, and I really like Norman Malcolm's version:

God cannot be created or destroyed, because this would mean something is better than Him.
So either He has always existed, or never existed (he is either necessary or impossible).
He isn't impossible, so His existence is necessary.

It doesn't seem like anyone else agrees

I'm not seeing the step from:
He has always existed or never existed
to:
He is either necessary or impossible.

If he has always existed, this makes him necessary (purely because he exists, a better word might be 'certain.')
If he has never existed, he cannot be brought into existence, because that would mean something is more powerful than him, which is impossible. If he has never existed, he is impossible.

Okay, 'certain' I can see.

No arguments here what can I say oh well

I believe in God, however, I have yet to hear a convincing argument against his existence.

Don't believe. I have never heard a reasonable argument.

What a lousy survey. Some basic options are missing here.

For one, I don't consider God a him.
For two, that would be like asking for a reasonable argument against gravity or solar radiation. There's no option for 'Believe and haven't heard a reasonable argument against'.

While I witness God, that argument is unfortunately flawed. At no point is it ever discerned that God is either always-been or never-been, or necessary or impossible. It could be (by that argument) that God is in fact impossible, if the definiton of impossible is 'never-was'. It's a self-circular proof at best (although self-circular could be the nature of God too).

Two miracles, the existence of anything whatsoever from nothing, and the existence of our conscious ability to perceive this something (computers with cameras have no conscious awareness of their perception) should be all the proof one needs of a creator which exists beyond the boundaries of physics.

Even if one were to ignore both those points and take a purely physical view of the universe as it currently appears, one finds the universe to be highly organized at every level. Even if this is simply the result of atomic self organization, the implication here is that the design of sub-molecular matter inherently contains within itself at least the intelligence of constructing a universe beyond any system a man could design.

However what is most convincing is when one witnesses that not only is the universe organized at every level, it's also unified/integrated/synchronized across all components at every level.

Brilliance is rarely appreciated in its lifetime. ....just don't cut off your ear or anything

Really, I think it just shows how close-minded both sides are.... that's the brilliance of this. You basically just asked everyone if they are close-minded and they all said "yes".

'Open-minded' - That's something like 'I don't necessarily exist just because I think'?

the human body is way to complex for someone or something not to have put it here, i just don't believe in religion

I believe in a higher source, which may be called "God". The most convincing argument opposing there is such a thing is osmeone who says he does not exist. Therefore he does not. But just like someone telling me that PB&J is good for me, they can say what they need to, but I know that PB&J is not good for me, for them? sure, maybe, but not for me.
Excellent question.

The most reasonable argument for is physical matter being able to have conciousness / free will (supposedly). The most reasonable argument against is lack of concrete evidence of the existance of "Him".

The most convincing argument for Deism is that tiny changes to universal properties would have resulted in a universe in which we couldn't exist.

I have never heard a convincing argument for Theism.

How do you determine that God is not impossible?

God only exists in a moving reality. For someone who infinitly believes, there may be moments of forgetfulness. For someone who does not believe at all, god does not exist. For me personally...it's all in my head.

I see that a lot of people have misread the question. I chose not to answer the question, "What is a convincing argument opposing your belief in God" as I have yet to hear one. What I did try to do was remember which argument had pulled me furthest in the opposite direction.

I've never heard any convincing arguments, I don't believe there are any.

I suppose that goes off our current knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is quantifiable evidence to say he is impossible - there is a 'chance'. It's not a perfect argument; it's really just playing with linguistics. But it pushed me to be more open minded towards agnosticism.

I think I could have worded the question better so people didn't misread it. The word 'convincing' is misleading.

'For one, I don't consider God a him.

Sorry, I should have included that option for you and - oh, just you. Hm. Give me a singular, gender neutral, third person pronoun and we're sorted.

For two, that would be like asking for a reasonable argument against gravity or solar radiation. There's no option for 'Believe and haven't heard a reasonable argument against'.

No, there isn't. It's included in the all-encompassing 'other' option. I was thinking economically.

If I say something mean or blunt, can I get a -1 too?!

I took a theology course where the recommendation was not to use a pronoun at all, but to just use 'God'. A pronoun is rather limiting and presumptuous even if it were gender neutral.

.. and you'll notice you got a lot of votes for 'other'.

I'm taking a Theology course where we always say He... because that's what most people do. It's easier.

Ys, there are a lot of other votes. That's, um, good observation.

Here maybe. Not in India or Japan, where God is either the spiritual cosmology nature of reality, or if personified, is personified into a pantheon.

A truly academic theology class should be concerned with what God is. 'He' leaps to a huge presumptive conclusion there.

Our class is concerned with the classical and/or Western beliefs. Most people are used to them - most people are familiar with the Bible. Eastern cultures are used for comparison. We only have two years, and the exams don't ask about them. That's not my fault; it's not like I (or most people in my class) think of Michelangelo's big bearded granddaddy of a man for God.

The ontological argument is concerned with what God is (it's usually what its flaw is). Anselm defined God as 'incomprehendable', Descartes and Aqunias as 'supremely perfect'. Why should his 'gender', physical nature, or lack thereof, even be an issue when we are asking things like whether not he is omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent, just, unjust? Just because we're not covering this, it doesn't mean my class isn't 'truly academic'. I can always find out the grades for the past exams for that.

Instructors taste, I guess. Ours was really Western too. My role there was as interpreter, illustrator, and reference of Eastern comparison. The instructor was good though, hung out with renowned lecturing rabbis. As I had spiritual awakening 19 year ago, I'm in a good position to explain a lot of cryptic stuff. I had a similar role in what was essentially what's left of the illuminati.

I doubt few really imagine god has a gender. 'He' is a bit more insidious than that. Asides from issues of omni..etc., 'He' sneaks in the premise that whatever powers or motive god has, that he has consiouness like our own, just grander in scope.

I don't believe in God and I don't think that there are any particularly reasonable arguments in favour of His existence. However, if I were to pick one of the best of a bad bunch, I would go for Pascal's suggestion that just as you use different methods to measure length and volume as they relate to different dimensions, you would need to find yet another way to measure something (i.e. God) that should be understood within the context of yet another dimension. Traditional scientific methods of examining evidence therefore may not be sufficient to address the question of God's existence (as they only deal with certain dimensions of existence). As traditional scientific, rational consideration forms the basis of my atheism, throwing that into question would also call my atheism into question.

However, I think that's very much a "God of the gaps" argument and certainly not one I find convincing.

I think this is a great survey

A couple of points about the ontological argument though...

> God cannot be created or destroyed, because this would mean something
> is better than Him.

On the surface, this certainly seems to be logical. However, I've just been reading "I, Robot" which deals with various philosophcal questions relating to the three laws of robotics and also to the experience of a robot as a created "being". In one of the stories, a robot becomes convinced that people could not have created it as they are clearly inferior to itself, being less suited to the function for which they are present (and for which the robot was specifically designed). The men in the story make a new robot in front of it, to try and convince it that it was created by people, but it is able to use logic to side-step their claims. In other stories, humans design robots that are able to use advanced mathematics to design even better robots, which then design even better robots. I know "I, Robot" is hardly firm evidence, but I do think it's an interesting thought experiement relating to the creation of something superior by an inferior being.

But, even if we accept the logic and follow it to the next step...

> So either He has always existed, or never existed (he is either necessary
> or impossible).

Like dab, I struggle to see the leap from always existed/never existed to necessary/impossible. I could almost accept always existed = necessary, because presumably the existence of everything in the universe is required to be exactly as it is in order for everything else to be exactly as it is (like a cosmic butterfly effect, I suppose...) though it certainly doesn't follow that God's existence would be any more necessary for the status quo to be maintained than my existence, or the existence of the bicycle tyre that has been dumped in the canal...

Where I really question the logic is when it suggests that never existed = impossible. The child (let's call it Child XY) that would have resulted if Sperm X made it to Egg Y may not exist, as Sperm Z made it there first (resulting in Child ZY), but that doesn't mean that child XY's existence was always impossible. I suppose you could take several steps back and say that there are natural laws that exist that will always, always lead the the same end-point, thereby removing any real degree of free-will, etc. However, that doesn't really stand up when we consider the next assertion:

> He isn't impossible, so His existence is necessary.

If we take your explanation (to icurok) of this:

> I suppose that goes off our current knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is quantifiable evidence to say he is impossible - there is a 'chance'.

There's also a 'chance' of Child XY existing. So never existed doesn't have to mean impossible, so God could be possible (in terms of 'chance') but still never have existed.

Though I'd be interested to see what other philosophers have said about that final step, to see if there are more convincing arguments in favour of that logic than the one you put forward

It's all interesting stuff

I'm glad I got this reply on a Sunday evening rather than a Monday morning!
> I think this is a great survey

Thanks

> |> God cannot be created or destroyed, because this would mean something
> |> is better than Him.
>
> On the surface, this certainly seems to be logical. However, I've just been reading "I, Robot" which deals
> with various philosophcal questions relating to the three laws of robotics and also to the experience of a
> robot as a created "being". In one of the stories, a robot becomes convinced that people could not have created
> it as they are clearly inferior to itself, being less suited to the function for which they are present (and
> for which the robot was specifically designed). The men in the story make a new robot in front of it, to try
> and convince it that it was created by people, but it is able to use logic to side-step their claims. In other
> stories, humans design robots that are able to use advanced mathematics to design even better robots, which
> then design even better robots. I know "I, Robot" is hardly firm evidence, but I do think it's an interesting
> thought experiement relating to the creation of something superior by an inferior being.
>
Concerning the I, Robot argument (the amount of times I've picked that up and given up by page 50...) that's part of the idea which usually fails the ontological argument - how do you define God? People often have a problem with ontologists saying God is perfect. I don't see how anyone who believes in God would think him imperfect. But then, what's perfection..? I think here, Malcolm believes that God is supremely perfect – by definition, the idea is that he cannot be created.
I've never heard that specific argument, though. I really like it.

> But, even if we accept the logic and follow it to the next step...
>
> |> So either He has always existed, or never existed (he is either necessary
> |> or impossible).
>
> Like dab, I struggle to see the leap from always existed/never existed to necessary/impossible. I could almost
> accept always existed = necessary, because presumably the existence of everything in the universe is required

I don’t think I explained this very well. I brought it up in class – apparently the ‘philosophical’ opposite of impossible is necessary. But I wasn’t told any explanation for that. A lot of the argument depends on that idea – as I said to Dab, perhaps ‘certain’ is a better word.
However, can you really have ‘less necessary’ and ‘more necessary’? You could survive for longer without your... I dunno... kidneys (?) than without your heart but you’re still going to die. The idea of being necessary or impossible stems from the first argument – if he has always existed, he is necessary, if he has never existed, and something cannot create him, he is impossible.

> Where I really question the logic is when it suggests that never existed = impossible. The child (let's call
> it Child XY) that would have resulted if Sperm X made it to Egg Y may not exist, as Sperm Z made it there
> first (resulting in Child ZY), but that doesn't mean that child XY's existence was always impossible. I suppose
> you could take several steps back and say that there are natural laws that exist that will always, always
> lead the the same end-point, thereby removing any real degree of free-will, etc. However, that doesn't really
> stand up when we consider the next assertion:
>
> |> He isn't impossible, so His existence is necessary.
>
> If we take your explanation (to icurok) of this:
>
> |> I suppose that goes off our current knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is quantifiable
> evidence to say he is impossible - there is a 'chance'.
>
> There's also a 'chance' of Child XY existing. So never existed doesn't have to mean impossible, so God could
> be possible (in terms of 'chance') but still never have existed.
>
> Though I'd be interested to see what other philosophers have said about that final step, to see if there are
> more convincing arguments in favour of that logic than the one you put forward
>
> It's all interesting stuff

The first and second arguments show how God is different to Child XY – God can only be impossible or necessary. Or at least they’re meant to show that. You’ve really talked me out of this whole ‘necessary’ thing. I’ve lost quite a lot of faith in this argument, now.

I think Malcolm’s argument is much better than the previous philosophers’. Anselm said something isn’t perfect unless it exists. With the ‘impossible or necessary’ clause, Malcolm has defeated things like the idea of perpetual motion machines being necessary, when they actually defy physics.

I wish we went more in depth in these kinds of things, but they are less important on the exams than knowing the facts.

Ok, I clicked Check comment, as a kind of preview, but now all I can see are the 'blah blah isn't a word, add to dictionary in the actual survey. So this whole thing might be a mess.

While I don't quite see what you've said of Pascals thoughts to be any argument towards God, I surely see it as true, and can see that it at least opens the door of doubt. I witness God frequently, and while what I witness is perfectly obvious and sensible once you open your mind, it does not happen in the realm of science. It's a lot like the book Flatland, where most everyone lives in a single plane. You could discuss the possible existence of Sphere, and claim that circles are evidence of whatever Sphere might be, but until you see in 3D and witness Sphere for yourself, your understanding of circles will be terribly ignorant, though flatland science will have it's own sensible comprehensive laws about how circles grow and shrink (and not surprisingly, these laws are much more complex than the actual elegant truth).

I love your I Robot argument. It even had me for a second about the nature of superiority arrangements until it occurred to me that the robots are not distinct superior entities, but rather an extension of the mankind which created them, adding to mankind's superiority as creators. It's rather akin to what I was saying about the seed of particle physics being of such power and intelligonce as to create such a fascinating integrated universe. {and totally beside the point, but robots currently have reached nearly the intelligence of a retarded cockroach.}

As far as arguments of possibility go, it has ocurred to me that if matter is anything like recombinant DNA, that given eternity, eventually every universe that could exist will exist as the electrons continue to intermingle. (current science alone could argue for that scenario). If one imbues matter with consciousness or other traits of God, that also means that anything that could be imagined will eventually exist, such as universes where planets teleport between solar systems.

I didn't really think much of most of the arguments presented in theology class. There was the 'first motion' argument, and one where if a clock was found in the woods, or the rocks on a hill approaching a train station spelled the name of that town, we would not imagine they were merely the products of random atomic chemistry or geology. That seems closest to my own '3D' awareness of synchronicity and higher organisation. Most people though either don't see such connections or dismiss them. That's why I like talking to four year old kids. They see the non-scientifically explicable relationships just as readily, and haven't yet been trained to filter them out or dismiss them in favor of only that which is physically causal. That, in a nutshell, is why science will fail. It seeks to prove in a domain that is purely physically causal that which is not physically causal, and which is not obligated to follow any rules (another presumption of most science). That is not to say though that God is not causal and merely some separate plane or a matter of faith.

Such black & white either/or scenarios aren't the only sort spiritual cosmology out there anyhow. There's the old jewish notion of shikenah where holy people transform the inert ground they walk through into something of a holy nature. That is an offshoot of pantheism where spirit and matter were seen as integrated, which evolved to becoming delineated into archetypes like growth, decay, war, love, chaos, serenity, and such. Such archetypal thinking is the source of personified pantheons, astrology, tarot, saints, angels, and such. Monism, 'All is God', leads to pantheism (diverse spirit forces), which leads to polytheism (personified independent forces), which leads to dualism (a supreme deity overlord), which leads back to monism. Back in biblical times the world's most popular religion was Zoroastrianism, in which the plane of matter was interwoven with a separate opposing plane of spirit, hence the concepts of light and darkness which found their way eventually into kaballism and the new-fangled teachings of Christ, and again in a second wave in the fourth century (after Constantines eastern conquests) when notions of heaven and hell were greater formulated in the west. Until then judaism was founded in panteism/polytheism ('Thou shalt worship no other God' implies a belief in other Gods (back when each tribe had their own)).

Another fascinating branch of theology is free-will. If physical reality, including our thoughts, is epiphenomenalism, a chain of electron collisions like a game pool of pool dating back to the big bang, then only by intercession of a superior non-physically causal plane of spirit is choice within matter possible. That then brings up the question as to whethar god too is epiphenomenal, each new choice the result of prior thoughts. One could answer this by suggesting that time for God is not linear but all comprehensive. We only say that times moves forward anyhow because of the direction of our memory. If we had no memory of the past, but were totally precognitive of the future, we would have to say that time flow in the other direction. There exist varieties of people who see well in both directions, or do perfectly well living totally in the flow of the moment, seeing in neither direction, memory nor precognition.

Throw in the issue of human separation and synchronicity with the mind of God, regardless of models of time, and the question of free-will or predestiny evaporates, as choice and destiny become the same thing.

Belief in God is not really something that can be argued; you either believe/feel it or you don't

but i never heard an argument against him

Probably not, but many are convinced there is no evidence for God either, which amounts to them as much the same thing, otherwise we'd have to believe in flying spaghetti monsters, intergalatic dragons, sub-atomic planets, and every other thing we have no evidence of which might exist.

atheist...my proof is the bible and all the organized religions...read the bible some time!

The bible and organized religions are proof that God doesn't exist?

Oh gee, let me count the ways. The most significant thing that questions my disbelief in God is; How could he/she allow the person I loved the most to walk away from me?

I never understood that, why would he/she let her just get up and walk away? I figured it out some twenty years later………because it was the best for her.

I've never heard any arguments that are even remotely convincing that opposes my belief in God and I don't believe there are any. I'm a very strong believer in God and Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Nothing or no person will every change my beliefs.

Hitler, Stalin, etc...

That's not an argument against the existence of God, that's an agument that God doesn't care about people (is omnibenificent). Old Israeli tribes seemed to slaughter others, believing themselves to be God's chosen. Perhaps the jokes on them, and God was preferential to Hitler and Stalin.

Personally I believe there would be nothing but a kaleidoscope of delight, nothing resembling creation at all, if not for contrasts of good and evil, pain and joy. I also figure God plays all the parts and we are eternal, so in the long run no lasting damage is done. It's more like watching horror movies on occasion.

Whatever

There isn't one. God doesn't exist, only evolution via natural selection.

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation that can make me see why someone wouldn't believe in God. I can't explain my convictions any better than that.

I was, at one time, agnostic. It was a darker time in my life .. and I moved on from that. I realized that my own self-hatred kept me from having faith in anything, and this includes more than religion. I then found God, and since, cannot be convinved by anyone that he does not exist.

That's what faith is, dude. I just can't explain it.

I do think this is an interesting survey, however, and I meant no disrespect in that sense. I've enjoyed reading the responses.

theres always the old epicurean paradox :) its been around for a long time...
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?