What are the arguments that God does not exist?

The atheist's typical proposition is that it cannot be said there is no God, however, it should be said there isn't reason to believe one exists. Also, that the Gods describe in the Abrahamic religions are certainly disproved by the factual contradiction of the monotheistic texts' metaphysical claims regarding the origins of our species and cosmos, as well as their descriptions of who God is and what God is like. Science has adopted much more accurate and verifiable explanations for the observable world and universe; so good, it has been said, that had we had these scientific explanations to begin with, religion would have never taken root in the first place.

On to various disproofs of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths, they are as followed:

An all-virtuous being cannot exists

1. God is (by definition) a being that which no greater being can be thought.
2. Greatness includes the greatness of virtue.
3. Therefore, God is a being that which no being could be more virtuous.
4. But virtue involves overcoming pains and danger.
5. Indeed, a being can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed.
6. A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is no one that which no greater being can be thought.
7. For you can think of a greater being, on that is non-suffering and indestructible.
8. Therefore, God does not exits.

Worship and moral agency

1. If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
2. No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent.
3. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.

The problem of evil

1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
2. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil (or so we're told by the followers of these faiths).
3. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

Religions attempt to overcome the problem of evil by attributing evil to Satan, however, if God were indeed a sovereign and all-powerful God, his authority would surely preside over all things including Satan, and he could end evil. The fact that he doesn't, or so far hasn't but one day will, affirms the fallacy of an all-loving God, as he has allowed evil to exist either thus far, or indefinitely; if he can't, than the proposition that he is all-powerful is dispelled.

A perfect creator cannot exist

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe isn't perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.

A transcendent being cannot be omnipresent

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside of space and time)
2. If God exists, he is omnipresent.
3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.

A personal being cannot be nonphysical

1. If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or personal being, as Jesus is described in the Bible after his resurrection "a man").
3. A person, however, must be physical.
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.

An omnipotent (all powerful being) cannot exist

1. Either God can create a stone he cannot lift or he can't create a stone he cannot lift.
2. Either way, God is not all powerful.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

There are far more scientific contradictions of God than philosophical ones. The bedrock of the so called intelligent design movement is that matter cannot come from nothing. Illustrating one of the many reasons intelligent design isn't allowed in a class room is that physics shows that matter does indeed spontaneously materialize, and that the true evidence of a universe with a God, would be one in which nothing existed. In fact, it has been said by Nobel Prize winning scientists that because there is material in the Universe, is proof God doesn't exist.

ANOTHER ANSWER

An interesting thought...............

Technically one doesn't even need an argument for the nonexistence of something if it is already plain that it doesn't exist. There is no evidence for the existence of a god anywhere so we cannot presume a god to exist. Analogy: we cannot presume a green and purple giraffe to exist if there is no evidence. If there is no evidence for something we cannot think that it is real.

Humans have always been very curious about their origins. With the advent of science, not only human origins can be investigated but also the origins of the Earth and Universe. Obviously why the world seemed so wonderful and why anything should bother to exist seemed inexplicable to them. For some psychological or evolutionary reason, it seemed logical to the ancient peoples that the world and themselves should have come into existence through the work of some powerful being (invisible, yet powerful). They couldn't find such a force or being. But there were other advantages to the notion of a god than just explaining the bewilderingness of nature. The notion of a spirit watching over them seemed comforting to some. That's two advantages. Simply thoughts, that provide comfort and explanations for the existence of the world and oneself. Comfort was found with regard to death. They made up that the god who looked after them while alive, would protect them and look over them when they were dead. Death was a baffling and frightening phenomenon. Many peoples require comfort around the topic of death and their own in particular and the notion of God could easily provide it.
Such stories of a god were precious. Children were told about their god who would protect them. If a child asked where did the world come from, an easy answer could easily be found. To be able to answer so easily showed the cleverness and control of the adult over their child. Over generations of story telling, a culture obviously becomes convinced of a real god.
The notion of gods was by then seen as precious. All the answers and love in the world in one.
THere are dubious sections of the Bible indeed. But by judging some of the trends of human behaviour documented in the Bible, the world was indeed a very violent place.
Suppose a community that had made up a god met a community that had not yet thought of a god. The community with their stories of god would try to comfort the community without a myth of a god (remember the godfilled community is convinced of their god by now) by telling them of how good and useful a god is. THe godless community would be intrigued by the stories. Maybe thrilled to hear of a good god to protect them dead or alive and the treasure trove of answers of the origin of the world. But they would never have heard of such a thing before. They would wonder how to be sure of something so invisible and whether something so invisible could have indeed made the world. The godless community may have become convinced of the 'reality' of God, but obviously there would have been initial jitterings of doubt. Even tiny shimmers of doubt could have sparked ire into the godseeing community. Their precious story was doubted? All the answers in the world? Could they be so? Remember this theist community now loved the god they thought and had been told existed. Why didn't the community they had just met believe their stories instantaneously? It seemed so obvious that they should. If a precious notion held dear by someone is doubted it may spark ire in them at the person who did the doubting or even tentative questioning. To promote their religion, it has been written that the Romans of so long ago used the sword. They would kill people, frighten them, until the onlookers of the new community believed in god. Whether out of real conviction or fear of being killed, people believed as it was insisted that their should be belief in God. Another notion for belief in a god had been found. Control! It may even stem from the child asking about their origins and being able to be answered. That is control of the child. Discipline could be implemented. The children were maybe told not to misbehave, not because the parents disliked it but because their god that they were so convinced of disliked it. The Bible told stories of a very violent world. Perhaps contrast was seen between the notion of God's love and the world's hideous violence. The violent people and the villains of communities did not deserve the love of god, so god would not protect them when they died. Places like Hell were invented for this story. The next use of a god had been discovered. Force people to behave. Exert control. Such control could be used to force people to love one another (they would be rewarded in a heaven; just dreamed up) and to not be violent and to not doubt the existence of god (they would be punished in Hell and burn forever).
If a certain person realised the controlling power of religion and the idea of god, one could control whole communities. Maybe priests evolved out of the quagmire of peasant and normal society in such a way; by realising the power of this control. So there are advantages of religion and advantage can be taken of religion (in those presenters of the religion itself's case; maybe priests). But note that at no point along the way has anyone stopped to examine the evidence of the claims behind religions. Most of all, no question has ever been raised as to where the notion of god came from; it is just a notion.

It has been pointed out by Richard Dawkins that if you are a Christian, you have been told that Christianity is correct. You believe this. You also think you know that all other religions are completely incorrect and belief in them would be heretical. If you were a Muslim or Jew or Hindu you would think that you know that your respective religion were truely and undeniable the correct one and believe passionately that Christianity were incorrect. As you see, the idea of God is simply an opinion, with no actual truth in any statement about him anywhere. There cannot be a truth if all other religions in the world think the exact opposite. And their religion isn't true either as every other religion in the world other than themselves is against their doctrines too. God is in the eye of the beholder as it were.

The Bible has been used to tell people the wonderful story of the origin of the world as made up so many years ago in order to explain it. The Bible states that Earth is about 6000 years old. This year (2008) it will probably turn 6012. Southern Africa has evidence of bushman/San paintings from 100 000 years ago. Suppose a theist met one of the descendent San and suppose the San had kept a history of their community for 100 000 years. Suppose the theist told the San the Earth was only 6000 years old. The whold situation would be a complete mess.

The notion of God was thought up (as recorded biblically) in a tiny corner of the world. This was the Meditteranean, Greece, Arabia and Egypt. The world seemed to spread no further. To a God believer the Earth was suggested as being 6000 years old after investigations of the ages (as so written down) of biblical characters like Adam, stated to being 900 years old. No land or people or language that did not exist in the bible lands was recorded. So those peoples (like the San) and languages were probably considered to not exist by a reader of the bible. Kent Hovind in a God-promotional evolution-'demolishing' speech said that Jesus spoke every language in the world. There was only one language to speak. Probably Arabic. And Jesus spoke it announced Kent Hovind. You see, a language that was not mentioned in the Bible was considered to not exist. Try convincing a San that they had no language just because they didn't feature in the Bible. And yet after all this, a creationist will still believe the history that Jan van Riebeeck arrived in South Africa on 6 April 1652 and met the local people. They do not notice that this implies that these people had been there forever, nowhere near the Garden of Eden (in other words the bible lands). Having realised this, they immediately revert to the doctrine that all man sprouted out of the sand in the Garden of Eden (Arabia, Greece et cetera). THe doctrine they have been spoon fed.

The evolution of the notion of God has been explained. It should be clear that God does not exist and is simply a story. It should also be clear that just because their are stories or thoughts of somethin's existence doesn't imply it ever did exist and is not a prerequisite for it to exist in reality.

Above is a hypothesis about how the notion of gods may have arisen. Some people may claim that therefore it is useless and unlikely to be of any validity. Many creationists claim there is little validity in scientific arguments for the Big Bang and the evolution of life on Earth, all the way from abiogenesis. (They object because it contrasts with their beliefs that they think are true because they have been told that they are true and hold them dear because they have been told they are important and precious.) But the difference is that no religious claim has ever been evaluated (by the religious) against any evidence from the actual world of any kind. A zoologist from Britain said they place their beliefs on a "human manuscript" that has "nothing to do with the world out here". The scientific claim is that even if there are inaccuracies in a theory, if the theory works and has applications in the world and stands tall within the walls of all the theories surrounding it, it can be accepted. The tiniest amount of evidence accelerates scientific credibility beyond the level religions and notions of any gods will ever reach because the evidence for gods is zero.

What of a hypothesis (less worthy than a theory as it hasn't been tested) such as the hypothesis of the origin of the idea of God, seen above. Hypotheses are valid as they are constructed entirely from those things that are actually known from the world. They are built from common sense. It is known that there were people a long time ago. It is known people have a yearning to know about their origins. It is known that people feel comforted by an overlooker.
Science and its hypotheses, however fantastical, are rooted in the realm of evidence driven reality and common sense. Nothing unsubstantiated by evidence has arisen from science. Nothing unsubstantiated and so-called supernatural has needed to be invoked.

THe Bible stories, dear as some people may hold them are not valid as an account of the evolution of the Universe/Earth and life. There is no evidence for a god-initiated creation. Everything, by the evaluation of evidence, just arrived. Odd as it may seem to some why things should just arrive by formation within the limits of classical and quantum physics and chemistry, there is no value in having a god invoked to explain their origin. There is no evidence for gods. There is evidence for the Universe. So it is the Universe that will actually yield valid answers about the Universe.

First answer by ID1413771858. Last edit by A greywood 12 dec. Contributor trust: 2 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 51 [recommend question]