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

[warpspeedpetey]

I think there are lots of objections to God’s existence. I think though the two main assaults against God in the present time come along these lines:

1. The lack of evidence for God’s existence

i dont think there is any lack for evidence of G-d. the empirical evidence is the existence of the universe. we can go this route through the cosmological argument. which i am happy to defend.

but we need not go to metaphysics to have the best evidence of all. eye witnesses. we have several dozen books written over 1500 years, these books all describe the relationship of G-d and man. these books make dozens of Prophecies about a Messiah, and then other books descibe their fulfillment in Christ. these books were gathered together because they all verified this narrative, we call these books the Bible.

given this is the same evidence kind of second hand evidence that we have for the existence of the magna carta, the moonlanding and the American Revolution. it would be a double standard to reject them. further to reject them on the basis of incredulity, because they seem implausible, would be a logical fallacy. their plausibility says nothing about their actual occurence. simply not understanding the process by which they occured doesnt mean they didnt occur.

1. The problem of evil.

this is actually both the easiest and hardest one to deal with. its easy in that one can show its little more than the opinion of the proponent, its based on a house of cards. it doesnt stand to rational examination.

it is the hardest in that for people unaware of the philosophical ramifications of the argument, people who understandably tend to trust their emotions more than logic will hold to this like a life raft. incessantly repeating their emotional position instead of any rational support for it.

here are both a theological exposition on Suffering by Pope John Paul The Great, “Salvific Doloris”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

for a more technical rejection, i have devloped this refutation. this thread carries a discussion of it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=367987

for me, the most rational position is belief.

 

[AlbertBall]

in the end. we win.

Worm food for the win lol!

 

[AlbertBall]

Out of curiosity why are you participating in a Catholic philosophy forum if it’s pointless?

Because i find it extremely interesting how rational people can have irrational beliefs. I will never understand why by posting on a forum filled with people that don’t have irrational beliefs, will i?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Worm food for the win lol!

i cant help the nature of the universe. we die. it lasts a long ‘time’.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Because i find it extremely interesting how rational people can have irrational beliefs. I will never understand why by posting on a forum filled with people that don’t have irrational beliefs, will i?

and yet we keep showing you the logical fallacies of the position, for me the definition of a rational man is one who follows logic, even when it hurts a chersihed belief.

 

[AlbertBall]

i cant help the nature of the universe. we die. it lasts a long ‘time’.

We die, we’re dead. There is no “time” like before we were born.

 

[AlbertBall]

and yet we keep showing you the logical fallacies of the position, for me the definition of a rational man is one who follows logic, even when it hurts a chersihed belief.

Only to the uneducated

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We die, we’re dead. There is no “time” like before we were born.

how do you know?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Only to the uneducated

are you saying that you are so educated that you dont have to bend to the demands of logic? im not, and i know people with phd’s who arent.

so why dont you?

it couldnt be that you have a cherished belief, could it? maybe logic doesnt matter because you are protecting that cherished belief?

 

[The_Exodus]

It depends on what you mean by that. Science is perfectly sufficient to explain where humans came from and what their reality consists of (including the way their minds work).

Explaining a process does not describe what reality “consists of.”

It’s not sufficient to tell us what we should do with our lives, but that’s so obvious that it’s not even worth mentioning.

Hence it is not sufficient to tell us what reality consists of. The only way we live is through making choices with regard to meaningful, existential phenomena. We are not robotic processes. We are humans, who strive to attain goals, none of which science has anything to say about.

I guess, but it’s built on a “metaphysical foundation” (those assumptions mentioned earlier) that are increasingly confirmed through experiential evidence.

Agreed.

Neither do I need an “accurate picture of reality.” I just go where the evidence points. Whether that evidence indicates something that is “accurate” or not is only something I could ever know by measuring more evidence.

You fail to realize the implications. If we do not have the ability to accurately view reality in the first place, no amount of measuring will get us any closer. Our tool for measuring would be busted from the get go.

I agree that life has no “purpose” apart from the one that individuals choose to give themselves.

On what basis then can you presume to tell me I should not murder your family, if I feel so inclined to “give” myself that purpose?

These claims do not follow from your premises. I am perfectly capable of describing and speaking about something that does not have a conscious “purpose.” In fact, the universe works on consistent laws that we are perfectly able to identify and describe. These in no way imply the existence of an Intelligent Being of the kind you mean.

Can you please explain to me how there could originate a purpose from an unconscious/non-intelligent agent? In other words, how can life come about if there is no purpose/desire for life in the first place? Why do unconscious organisms desire their existence, or strive to be?

And we are by no means “perfectly able to identify and describe” the laws of the universe. How presumptuous a thought, considering the infintely minute amount of knowledge we have of the ENTIRE universe – a thing so vast we cannot comprehend the smallest atom of it.

What makes you think the universe is rational to begin with? It is obviously at complete odds (from a Naturalist point of view) with the essence of man. For man lives for and finds fulfillment in meaning, something the universe knows nothing of. If we are only here due to random nature interacting through various chemical processes not driven by anything, our existence is an absurdity, and everything about ourselves is a contradiction to that purposeless universe from which we came.

 

[tonyrey]

David Hume subjected the evidential and providential arguments for God’s existence to devastating criticism in his Dialogues on Natural Religion, to the point it was sufficient to change entirely the views of as great a thinker as Kant (who afterwards believed these arguments, despite their former long prestige and persuasive authority, were worthless for proving God’s existence).

Hume’s arguments have since been refuted - but to do that here would be off the topic.

Hume proposed the evil and suffering in the world and nature demonstrated the vacuity of appeals to an intelligent God designing a world that was good and morally just.

Most contemporary philosophers of religion agree that the existence of evil is not inconsistent with the existence of God. Ironically the very factor that Hume dismisses out of hand is the cause of much of the misery in the world:
“Not by chance surely.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

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 you did not mean for this to be a debate about the existence of God, then you put anyone bold enough to answer in the position of being banned for answering you.
There are numerous posts and comments going on here that are begging for a rebuttal, but no athiest can even try to offer a rebuttal to them now, under this ban that is meant to be Temporary, for the Forseeable Future? Whatever that really even means, because it does not even make sense!

 

[ManOnFire]

After all of this debate, it still boils down to the fact there there are generally 2 types of people in the world: Those who have humbled themselves to primarily sacrifice for family and friends first and self second, and those who place self first and others second.

I was a science major. Intellectuals and scientists can’t get past: “The more I know, the less I understand.” It would be far too humbling for any sane person to admit that all of those hours of learning didn’t really get you any more success in True life. The history of the world will be more affected by those who have kids. Most of the rest is just entertaniment and amusement for self. There are still a few people out there who follow the Catholic God’s Covenant for behavior where deep, romantic love lives, where sacrifice for family will change your entire perspective and possibly lead you to an epiphany, where all of this love giving and sacrifice leads one to truly appreciate the 5% of the day in selfishness.

 

[cranster]

Explaining a process does not describe what reality “consists of.”

You fail to realize the implications. If we do not have the ability to accurately view reality in the first place, no amount of measuring will get us any closer. Our tool for measuring would be busted from the get go.

Can you please explain to me how there could originate a purpose from an unconscious/non-intelligent agent? In other words, how can life come about if there is no purpose/desire for life in the first place? Why do unconscious organisms desire their existence, or strive to be?

And we are by no means “perfectly able to identify and describe” the laws of the universe. How presumptuous a thought, considering the infintely minute amount of knowledge we have of the ENTIRE universe – a thing so vast we cannot comprehend the smallest atom of it.

What makes you think the universe is rational to begin with? It is obviously at complete odds (from a Naturalist point of view) with the essence of man. For man lives for and finds fulfillment in meaning, something the universe knows nothing of. If we are only here due to random nature interacting through various chemical processes not driven by anything, our existence is an absurdity, and everything about ourselves is a contradiction to that purposeless universe from which we came.

What I find interesting is if according to Dawkins we are the product of a blind watchmaker then doesn’t that necessarily make us blind watches? If we are the sum of the purposeless, directionless ingredients of primordial soup cobbled together by dumb luck then how could we possibly think that we have the tools to accurately view and comprehend reality?

Give the blind watch some education, and a few degrees and watch it arrogantly proclaim that anything it can’t observe doesn’t exist all the while not comprehending it is nothing more than a blind watch.

 

[AlbertBall]

After all of this debate, it still boils down to the fact there there are generally 2 types of people in the world: Those who have humbled themselves to primarily sacrifice for family and friends first and self second, and those who place self first and others second.

I’m not sure what the way one treats their family and friends has to do with anything? Some theists treat their family and friends well, others don’t. Some atheists treat their family and friends, others don’t?

 

[ManOnFire]

I’m not sure what the way one treats their family and friends has to do with anything? Some theists treat their family and friends well, others don’t. Some atheists treat their family and friends, others don’t?

“Some” and “some” apply to almost any group. Religious people are more willing to sacrifice to HAVE more kids. Secularized people have less. The U.S. census does not track stats concerning birth rates among religions. I found this from The Economist’s moreintelligentlife.com article: moreintelligentlife.com/story/faith-equals-fertility

“According to the World Bank, the nations with the largest proportions of unbelievers had an average annual population growth rate of just 0.7% in the period 1975-97, while the populations of the most religious countries grew three times as fast.”

What if academia and ego were actually acting as a microevolutionary filters? Only the strong survive I guess.