# And the award for "Most Convincing Argument for the Non-existence of God" goes to.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882 "2003-11-07T13:59:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/121 "2003-11-11T03:36:23Z")
If there was a god who was omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (as claimed) then there would be no possibility of doubt. It would be as unarguable as an active volcano in the middle of town. Belief without proof is a refuge for the irrational, as gambling is for the innumerate. As belief in the traditional god declines belief in replacement irrationalities rises. Humans are fundamentally (haha!) irrational beings. Rationality is hard mental work and most people just can’t be bothered, far easier to let someone else tell you what to think. ---
**Author:** ![Somnambulist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@Somnambulist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Somnambulist)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/122 "2003-11-11T07:52:20Z")
AndrewT nailed it. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/123 "2003-11-11T09:20:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flonks \* > Apart from that: Imagine, 500 years ago somebody told you that there is something like electricity, but you can’t see it, you can’t smell it, you can’t hear it, and since there are no devices you don’t have any evidence of it and you can’t measure it. With your arguments you would say that you can’t believe it, right? Uh, I think they had lightning 500 years ago. Besides which, the analogy is silly because if nobody knew what electricity was, there would have been no concept of electricity to even discuss whether one believed in it or not. > [@](#): > > I find the argument rather stupid, that something we can’t measure with the current state of the art of science **cannot** exist. Which is why I don’t make that argument. It would be foolish to say _anything_ that isn’t currently understood _can’t_ exist. But I can certainly make the argument that there is currently no evidence for God, and that I don’t have to believe in God until such time as evidence exists. ---
**Author:** ![flonks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@flonks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flonks)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/124 "2003-11-11T10:51:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **Of course it proves absolutely nothing except that a nutter can write a book in which he makes one absurd supernatural claim after another. I would hardly consider that a legitimate cite.** I already told you twice that the existence of God can’t be proven. You seek cites for a philosophy. I gave you a cite for other people who hold that philosophy, but philosophy can’t be proven. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > **Flonks: Who is to say that God’s existence or presence cannot be measured? Certainly not the people who wrote the scriptures upon which all regious beliefs are ultimately based.** The miracles can’t be measured because they don’t occur on human order. God doesn’t respond to scientific demands. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*Which is why I don’t make that argument. It would be foolish to say _anything_ that isn’t currently understood _can’t_ exist. But I can certainly make the argument that there is currently no evidence for God, and that I don’t have to believe in God until such time as evidence exists. \*\* There is no evidence _in which you belief_. But there is evidence for other people. Like, 500 years ago, lightning was evidence for some people that elecricity exists, for others it wasn’t. You can’t prove the existence of God because the very concept of God transcendents matter and scientific measuring as we know it at this point. ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/125 "2003-11-11T11:57:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flonks \* > \*\*You can’t prove the existence of God because the very concept of God transcendents matter and scientific measuring as we know it at this point. \*\* Well, yes, but only if you choose to define the concept of God this way. However, please note that this is NOT the way that God has been defined for most of human history, and it’s only recently that people have turned to this particular form of sophistry after it became obvious that the traditional concepts of God were both self-contradictory and not supported by scientific evidence. Yes, it’s very convenient to avoid the burden of proof by saying that the very concept of God transcends matter and scientific measuring as we know it at this point. Too bad this isn’t the concept of God that most people, whether believers or atheists, are talking about in the first place. You _did_ actually read my original post, right? Barry ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/126 "2003-11-11T13:22:37Z")
Lightning may or may not have been evidence 500 years ago that lightning exists, but those who left well enough alone and simply _believed_ in it’s supernatural properties were eventually found to be wrong, while those who studied the _evidence_ ultimately found out the truth of the matter. In this material world blind faith gets you nowhere. People using facts, measurements and logic build the churches that other people using faith worship in, and it simply couldn’t work the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/127 "2003-11-11T18:10:17Z")
Nice post, **AndrewT**! Just when you think everything has been said and done in these religious debate threads, something like this comes along. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/128 "2003-11-11T18:52:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flonks \* > There is no evidence _in which you belief_. True. There _is_ evidence, but it consists entirely of ancient stories by unknown authors (that were very likely allegorical at best, fantasy at worst), “happy feelings” (for want of a better phrase) by believers, and dubious anecdotal accounts of things of the nature “gee, I found a good parking space, so God must have caused it”. You’re right - I don’t believe the evidence, because it is not believable. > [@](#): > > But there is evidence for other people. It’s not objective evidence. > [@](#): > > Like, 500 years ago, lightning was evidence for some people that elecricity exists, for others it wasn’t. I find this analogy unconvincing, since electricity is measurable, while God ostensibly is not. > [@](#): > > You can’t prove the existence of God because the very concept of God transcendents matter and scientific measuring as we know it at this point. It’s all well and good to say “we don’t know everything yet at this point”, but that does not entitle you to just make stuff up and consider it factual merely by your assertion. I could just as easily say the Invisible Pink Unicorn transcends our current ability to measure Her, but it doesn’t make you believe in the IPU, does it? Let’s change your analogy a little bit, and imagine that this fictitious time-traveler goes back 500 years, but instead of telling them about electricity, he tells them that lightning is caused by magic pixies flying through the sky. Should they believe him simply based on _his_ say-so? Why not? Since electricity is not fully understood at that point in history, are they required to simply believe _any_ explanation offered, merely on the off chance that _maybe_ it will turn out to be true? Can you see why the rational default position _must_ be to assume nothing until there is convincing evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/129 "2003-11-12T01:31:26Z")
Thank you, **Somnambulist** and **Debaser** , you’re very kind. I note that the religious types have ignored me, as usual. ---
**Author:** ![Starrman10](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Starrman10](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starrman10)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/130 "2003-11-12T03:01:35Z")
If there is a god, let him STRIKE ME DOWN NOW!!! ---
**Author:** ![Starrman10](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Starrman10](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starrman10)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/131 "2003-11-12T03:03:05Z")
See. ---
**Author:** ![dakravel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@dakravel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dakravel)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/132 "2003-11-12T06:37:47Z")
While I’m not going to say much on the existence or non-existence of God, but stuff like, “There’s no God 'cause bad things happen to good people” or “There’s no God because I told God I’d believe in him if he gave me a sign and he didn’t give me a sign” and other such comments don’t fly at all. Those comments somehow imply that you can understand God’s mind, will, and his plan, which is not the case. Say your kid is getting a shot, and it causes him pain and he cries. He asks why you’re making him suffer, and you say, “Because it’s good for you”. You try to explain how virii work and what the shot is doing for him, but he doesn’t buy it and still feels your subjecting him to unnecessary pain. He can’t understand your reasoning, and so he thinks he’s suffering because of your whimsy. Whether or not God exists, we would not be able to understand what was going through his mind at all. Which is why the reductio argument that says God doesn’t exist due to the presence of “suffering” doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/133 "2003-11-12T08:00:17Z")
Then try this on for size, **dakravel** -There’s no god because no evidence to date has come up that even _hints_ that there is a god. There is no god because the universe runs just the same whether there is one or not. I am not saying that I don’t know whether there is a god or not-I am saying that there is just as much evidence of a god as there is that Superman exists. I’ll tell you what, though. You tell me honestly that you are unsure as to the existance of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Superman, and that you cannot deny their existance, and I’ll give just as much credence to whatever god you can come up with, even though his existance is much more unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Noone\_Special](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/noone_special/32/2863_2.png) [@Noone\_Special](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noone_Special)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/134 "2003-11-12T10:50:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dakravel \* > \*\*While I’m not going to say much on the existence or non-existence of God, but stuff like, “There’s no God 'cause bad things happen to good people” or “There’s no God because I told God I’d believe in him if he gave me a sign and he didn’t give me a sign” and other such comments don’t fly at all. Those comments somehow imply that you can understand God’s mind, will, and his plan, which is not the case. > Say your kid is getting a shot, and it causes him pain and he cries. He asks why you’re making him suffer, and you say, “Because it’s good for you”. You try to explain how virii work and what the shot is doing for him, but he doesn’t buy it and still feels your subjecting him to unnecessary pain. He can’t understand your reasoning, and so he thinks he’s suffering because of your whimsy. > Whether or not God exists, we would not be able to understand what was going through his mind at all. Which is why the reductio argument that says God doesn’t exist due to the presence of “suffering” doesn’t work. \*\* The day that The Supreme Being deigns to show up, introduce Himself, and try to explain my suffering to me, I will believe in His existence as my children believe in mine… otherwise, I will believe in Him as much as your child might believe in an entity not present at his shot - but her father **tells** her that of course the entity exists! (and mandated the shot) Dan Abarbanel ---
**Author:** ![Xerxes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/d2c977/32.png) [@Xerxes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xerxes)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/135 "2003-11-12T11:28:22Z")
“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?” …Epicures, 300 B.C. In a nutshell. ---
**Author:** ![dakravel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@dakravel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dakravel)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/136 "2003-11-12T17:56:54Z")
I’m not debating the existence or non-existence, I’m simply stating that arguments like, “There’d be no suffering if there was _really_ a God” don’t work. ---
**Author:** ![dakravel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@dakravel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dakravel)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/137 "2003-11-12T18:00:49Z")
I’m not debating the existence or non-existence, I’m simply stating that arguments like, “There’d be no suffering if there was _really_ a God” don’t work. I’m not promoting the idea of a God, so don’t bring up other things like that, I’m _only_ saying that arguments like below don’t work. > [@](#): > > “The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?” This reductio argument does not work. We can not understand the will of the God/Gods. Same thing I said in my previous post. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/138 "2003-11-12T18:34:32Z")
It’s not a reductio argument. It’s a perfectly valid question. If evil exists then it can only exist by God’s will. So why does God want evil to exist? And the “mysterious ways” argument is not an answer but a shrug. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/139 "2003-11-12T19:19:55Z")
The existence of suffering doesn’t disprove God. The obvious _randomness_ of suffering disproves an _omnibenevolent_ God. God might exist, and simply be a nasty stinker. But an all-loving God cannot be reconciled with the meaningless suffering. The comparison to a child getting his jabs doesn’t work; you can explain to a kid why the shots are necessary. God hasn’t explained to us why it’s necessary for 10,000 people to die in a Typhoon in Bangladesh. (Personally, I find the comparison obscene. Childhood immunization has, as its goal, a benefit to all: the reduction of disease. The Typhoon has no perceptible benefit, only harm.) Trinopus ---
**Author:** ![Starrman10](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Starrman10](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starrman10)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882/140 "2003-11-12T22:27:17Z")
"I’m not debating the existence or non-existence, I’m simply stating that arguments like, “There’d be no suffering if there was really a God” don’t work. " I find that the ‘mysterious ways’ argument usually comes up when there is some kind of contradiction. When god sends an angel to pull a baby out of a car wreck it is quite clear that he is loving and saw to the child’s safety. When I ask why god didn’t just stop the car wreck from happening and why another child across town was killed by wolves he suddenly becomes a mysterious entity that we cannot understand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-the-award-for-most-convincing-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god-goes-to/211882.md?page=8)