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..
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…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>