What are the common, modern-day objections to the existence of God?

[The_Exodus]

Compassion. I feel very sorry for those who are spending their one and only life on a mirage. (If I only had a dollar for every time this was asked…)

How noble of you… and yet your “compassion” is just a product of the purposeless universe, which has eventually – and determinately – led to chemicals being released in your brain whenever you are presented with various stimuli.

Do you not see that, without a grounding in the absolute, there can be no “ought” or moral value? There is only the illusion of such, which are just chemicals being released causing you to think and feel a certain way.

Obviously, you hold some esteem for “truth” and believe it is somehow good for mankind. Thus you try to educate all religious people’s dark, feeble, and infantile minds. Yet what reason do you have for thinking truth is “good” in the first place?

There is no basis for morality outside the abolute. Every recourse you could possibly give, will in fact amount to nothing more than a subjective feeling, which, in any other case concerning what is “true” you reject as mere sentimentalism.

You reject spiritual/emotional experiences as being worthy of evidence for God’s existence, because you think feelings cannot give us any accurate view of reality. Do you not see that your “compassion” is a feeling as well? Why do you think it can lead you into some knowledge about how things “should be” (i.e. that it is good to know the truth, good to liberate oneself from ignorance)?

As with everyone who denies the existence of the Absolute (and I’m not even talking about the Christian God), your entire worldview is a contradiction.

 

[R_Daneel]

The fact is, it is almost universally accepted that the person Jesus Christ, as man, existed. The question comes in regarding if you believe he is in some way divine.

Correct.

The evidence that must be dealt with – which you conclude is inconclusive – amounts to the fact that those closest to this man claimed to have seen him rise from the dead, experience certain revelations, witnessed healings, and saw him ascend into heaven. These people believed this so much many of them were killed as a result. One man – Paul – went from killing these very Christians to being one of the religions most influential men.

Here you are on shaky ground. There are some legends that claim that these things happened. There is no corroborating evidence - even in the form of unbiased testimonies - that any of those events actually took place. They are all part of the mythology. The earliest writings did not happen for decades after the events allegedly took place. That is more than ample time for legends to be formed.

What is your explanation of these events? Were these men “hallucinating”? Were they lying?

Legends.

Also, there are multiple claims in many different writings of the early Jewish religion which seem to foreshadow the coming of this man, and the effect he would thereafter have upon “the whole world.”

Stories.

I doubt you have read the Catechism, or you would know—

The Church claims that there is no salvation outside herself, yet this does not limit those who, in various ways, are not Catholics. It merely means, positively put, that all salvation comes from the Church, through God’s grace.

The Church makes no claims of any person in Hell – although she does claim some to be in heaven. She entrusts all souls to the mercy of God, and hopefully prays that all men can and will find salvation. Nevertheless, Hell remains a real possibility for those who continually reject God’s grace.

In other words, the Church tries to blow both hot and cold from its mouth. On one hand it claims that there is no salvation outside the Church, on the other it tries to “lessen” the blow by claiming that no one is supposed to speculate about it, it is really in God’s hand. If it is really in God’s hand, then the claim that the Church is the sole holder to the kays of the Pearly Gates is sheer nonsense.

Speaking for myself, I do not reject God’s grace. How could I? I am simply unconvinced that there is anything behind the legends.

 

[R_Daneel]

How noble of you… and yet your “compassion” is just a product of the purposeless universe, which has eventually – and determinately – led to chemicals being released in your brain whenever you are presented with various stimuli.

Do you not see that, without a grounding in the absolute, there can be no “ought” or moral value? There is only the illusion of such, which are just chemicals being released causing you to think and feel a certain way.

Obviously, you hold some esteem for “truth” and believe it is somehow good for mankind. Thus you try to educate all religious people’s dark, feeble, and infantile minds. Yet what reason do you have for thinking truth is “good” in the first place?

There is no basis for morality outside the abolute. Every recourse you could possibly give, will in fact amount to nothing more than a subjective feeling, which, in any other case concerning what is “true” you reject as mere sentimentalism.

You reject spiritual/emotional experiences as being worthy of evidence for God’s existence, because you think feelings cannot give us any accurate view of reality. Do you not see that your “compassion” is a feeling as well? Why do you think it can lead you into some knowledge about how things “should be” (i.e. that it is good to know the truth, good to liberate oneself from ignorance)?

As with everyone who denies the existence of the Absolute (and I’m not even talking about the Christian God), your entire worldview is a contradiction.

This has nothing to do with the question at hand. I am not interested in derailing the thread. There are many which deal with your assertions and prove them wrong.

 

[The_Exodus]

This has nothing to do with the question at hand. I am not interested in derailing the thread. There are many which deal with your assertions and prove them wrong.

Of course – evade the entire reason for your posting in the first place. I do, however, understand that this is a difficult question to come to grips with. Nevertheless, if you are as honest about seeking truth as you claim to be, the difficulty can be overcome.

If the reason you are here, is because you feel “compassionate” and wish to educate people, I’m here to be “compassionate” back, and educate you.

If there is no God, your feelings are nothing more than subjective phenomena. They have no meaning, value, purpose, import, significance, et al. You are nothing more than an mass of biochemical reactions, that somehow, absurdly, perceives its own existence, though it cannot even be certain that it exists.

If I wanted to get rid of a tree, I wouldn’t chop off its limbs. I would go for the root. Likewise, you should consider, if the reason you are here is because you think your emotions justify you being so, you have no basis to stand on. You are literally standing on nothing.

Best to go right to the root.

 

[The_Exodus]

In other words, the Church tries to blow both hot and cold from its mouth. On one hand it claims that there is no salvation outside the Church, on the other it tries to “lessen” the blow by claiming that no one is supposed to speculate about it, it is really in God’s hand. If it is really in God’s hand, then the claim that the Church is the sole holder to the kays of the Pearly Gates is sheer nonsense.

You are quick to dismiss things as nonsense that you cannot personally make sense of. This is a quality of an arrogant and closeminded mind. Yet have you tried to understand?

The Church is the way of salvation, because God has entrusted her with that power. It is no more in the Church’s power except insofar as God has granted – freely by his own blessing of grace – it.

Speaking for myself, I do not reject God’s grace. How could I? I am simply unconvinced that there is anything behind the legends.

Since grace does not necessarily command assent – though some forms of grace would – you are certainly free to reject it. But so far as that goes, I have no idea whether or not you are rejecting any light of truth that has been given you.

What I can say confidently though is that you are an inconsistent thinker, and have a contradictory worldview, in which you hide from the distressing questions which result from your apparent disbelief in God – i.e. the meaning of life and the basis for morality.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

EXACTLY! Now provide the same level of intricate details that are available on the moon landings to support the bible claims i will believe them.

here you go.

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t know why the people you’re arguing with cannot understand this fundamental point, which you explain excellently here.

thank you. this often feels like a thankless job. i appreciate that soemone understands the argument.

that said,

you have to understand that non-theism is a cherished position, a faith no different than any other. it doesnt matter if they must accept a logical fallacy top keep it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Simple, because the more sources you happen to have the less likely is the mistake or the unintentional error of the sources. It does not invalidate the “equal evidence”, rather it makes the evidence more reliable.

umm…yes, any way you put it, any excuse you use. asking for more evidence for one thing than another does violate the principle of equal evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It depends on what you mean by “legit”? He is a competent stage magician, but his claim that his performances are of “paranormal nature” is unfounded. Any good stage magician can do the same tricks without resorting to “paranormal” claims. That, of course does not “prove” that he is a liar, but makes it very probable indeed.

i was being funny

Incredulity is a far cry from healthy skepticism. Any investigator must stay properly skeptical of the claim being investigated, that is the basic stance of staying objective. There is a very good reason why all the claims of any kind are subject to a double-blind testing mechanism. Even when it comes to the effect of an insofar untested drug, neither the patients, not the administers of the drug are aware who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo. Again, no one accuses the administers of the drug to willfully skew the results, it is the way to eliminate unintentional errors.

there is no such thing in logic, as “healthy skepticism” there is a logically fallacious argument called an argument from incredulity"

double standards and the “extraordinary evidence claims” are fallacious. youve already admitted it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not impossible, rather very improbable.

as you dont know how they were done, you havent the foggiest idea if they are improbable.

All of these have been proven to be impossible. There is no reason why to even look at such claims. And the Biblical claims are of this kind.

first what do you mean by “proven impossible”? what is your standard of evidence?

second, how do you know the claims in the Bible are of that kind?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

One cannot compare the claim that a car crashed, something that happens 1000’s of time a day. To the claim that someone rose from the dead, something that had NEVER been recorded by modern means.

you seem to be under the impression that empirical evidence should be our standard.

if so surely you can show us the experiment where empiricism is verified?

if not then i dont think that a standard of evidence that cant meet its own test is a good standard.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hang around a bit. That premise will be rejected. Things will be said to pop magically into existence for no reason at all.:hypno:

The arguments about the divinty of Christ seem rather pointless. If someone denies the existence of God, what’s the point in arguing with them whether Jesus is God?

thats ok, im strapped for that argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Obviously you are not a mathematician. I am. So better not try to speak of mathematical concepts. You only reveal your ignorance.

you dont seem to be either, if you dont know he is right.

the odds dont change from toss to toss, they dont have any memory.

maybe you should just let him talk. on atheist boards if a theist mentionns numbers they get that routine.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

One cannot compare the claim that a car crashed, something that happens 1000’s of time a day. To the claim that someone rose from the dead, something that had NEVER been recorded by modern means.

we do have a record of it happening in the various books of the Bible. what does “modern” have to do with it? you are assuming that modern means cant be fooled. prove it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Buddy, you are pathetic.

he isnt the one trying to backpedal on a pior admission.

 

[AlbertBall]

you seem to be under the impression that empirical evidence should be our standard.

if so surely you can show us the experiment where empiricism is verified?

if not then i dont think that a standard of evidence that cant meet its own test is a good standard.

The results do the talking.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The results do the talking.

so, to clarify.

there is no experiment that verifies empiricism?

you simply want us to accept your faith in a self-refuting standard?

 

[AlbertBall]

so, to clarify.

there is no experiment that verifies empiricism?

you simply want us to accept your faith in a self-refuting standard?

NO… so, to clarify.

**The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. **

 

[BVM_1221]

A Catholic apologetics group at my parish is going to be discussing the existence of God this week, and I’m wondering what the most prevalent reasons are for not believing in God. I know there are a lot of non-believers on this forum, so in the spirit of understanding, please share the major reasons for you not believing in the Catholic concept of God. Also, what are your rebuttals to the more common arguments you hear for the existence of God?

I do NOT mean for this to be a debate about the existence of God, but just so that I can learn what the other side is thinking. Thanks.

If my own experience is any indication, I get the impression that the #1 reason people do not belive in God is the question of why a God of infinite good allows bad things to happen. Did God cause earthquakes and all the other natural disasters. If not, why didn’t He prevent it?

Is this really the best of all possible worlds, and is everything in it a necessary evil?

Atheist Mark Twain commented that if God existed, he was a malign thug.

Why do bad things happen to good people? For many people, this is more then enough reason not to believe in the existence of God. The Church needs to explain this more clearly then it has to date. :sad_yes:

This comment is NOT intended to start a debate. I am just noting what many people say to me about the existence of God. Especially newcomers to AA. (I have 25 years sobriety in AA):coffeeread:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

NO…

so you believe in the logical contradiction of a self-refuting standard of evidence?

if this is the case then why should anyone take you seriously?

so, to clarify.

**The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. The results do the talking. **

i must really have you in a corner to get that kind of reply.

the results of *what * do the talking?