And the award for "Most Convincing Argument for the Non-existence of God" goes to....

I go the same way… LACK OF EVIDENCE… but I take it from another angle. I can’t perceive in our world any order, morality or logic that follows a higher beings established direction. I see random and man made events only. No rhyme or reason from the heavens.

People do “evil” and are not punished… murderers get away… good people lose. In this state of affairs I cannot see universal notions of justice or law… except those that men impose upon themselves. Add this to lack of other evidence … and voilá … one more athiest.

 Miracles and supernatural events proven or experienced in a regular basis by different people ? Why only people of Faith ? Is God only present to those who beleive ? How can a real diety be limited by faith ? You present nothing substantial and only claim "we cannot deny". I have never seen a miracle. Supernatural events don't necessarily mean god exists either.... they are just "beyond natural". 

As for joy and love and happiness... drugs and sex do the same. So these are things our brains "message" us.

Richard Dawkins’ exposition of the facts of evolution: a truth so beautiful, simple and transparent – yet one not even remotely alluded to in any scripture that I know of.

Why not? If there was a god, evolution would surely be one of its most striking achievements?

The scriptures were clearly written by ignorant people – ignorant about cosmology, ignorant about biology, ignorant about geology, jeesy chreesy, were there any -ologies they weren’t ignorant about? Heck, collectively, given the diversity of conflicting opinion about god’s nature, we can conclude they weren’t even too hot on theology.

Now, of course, this speaks to the scriptures (and their authors) and not any underlying truth, but without the scriptures why invent a god?

An aside; a theory: Unicorns do exist.

Consider the river-horse, you know the one, we call it the hippopotamus. Okay, it doesn’t look much like a horse – blame the greeks.

Consider the rhinoceros, which looks like a river-horse and has a horn, you know, like a horned-river-horse, but doesn’t live in rivers, you know, like a horned-horse.

Someone, unfamiliar with what the greeks might call a horse, was given the task of doing an illustration for Ye National Geographic. Hard pressed by an impending deadline our illustrator opened Photoshoppe and cut and pasted a horn onto a perfectly good representation of an Equus caballus. And thus a myth was born.

In part two, I shall explain the Pink Unicorn…

Most seem to assign certain expectations to God. If there was a God, the world would be a better place to live, He wouldn’t let all this evil happen, and let people who do evil get away with it.

That sort of logic will never work.

So if God doesn’t meet the expectations of man then He doesn’t exist. Not a fair assumption.

Now, looking at the scriptures we find paths to God. When Jesus was asked “where is the kingdom of God?” He answered:

**Luke 17:20: Jesus said:

The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. **

As you can see from this God can not be reasoned, He can only be experienced. Talk the rest of your life about what God should be or not should be and it will prove nothing.

Love

Infinitely more evidence for unicorns than God…

Lekatt: keep reading them scriptures. There are more than you think.. But don’t let any of the crazy stuff Jesus said mess up your beliefs.

’Zilla, thinking of another post I just made… Does the appendix count as proof The Big Guy doesn’t exist? I know I wouldn’t pull a shitty trick like that on my main sentient creation.

I put this with the “mysterious ways” explanation… phrases of effect to justify the unjustifiable: That God has no direct effect on our lives.

If the Kingdom of God is within me… why don’t I feel anything ?
Standard Answer: Because you lack faith…

Standard Question from Standard Answer: So I need faith to feel God ?
SA to SQ from SA: Yes.

Nice circulur argument that goes nowhere except to stop people from thinking about it.

“So if God doesn’t meet the expectations of man then He doesn’t exist”
The expectations come from some of the major religions. Certainly several of them describe God as being both benevolent and all-powerful and it’s not unreasonable to use that as a basis for argument. Naturally if you have different assumptions you need different arguments. For instance if you assume that God is omnipotent but indifferent to humans then that would explain the universe better. But even here you have the problem that there is no evidence for the existence of such an entity.

I think Lekatt is forgetting that the believers are the ones telling us all the things God “should and should not be”.

Hehe.

The enormity of the situation
lies in the believing,
like you did in Santa,
a child’s first god,
the primer of lie.

From an old poem by yours truly…

“Things we cannot deny” are called axioms, which are propositions that logically must be accepted, even in the act of denying them; to deny an axiom would be a self-contradiction.

I not only **can **deny your three propositions, but I emphatically do.

I’ve never seen one bit of evidence supporting the idea of a god, but if I were inclined to believe, the Christian god would be last in line because he has to be the most incompetant god I’ve ever read about. He’s all powerful, but is vain enough to require that we “worship” him. He is all-knowing, but couldn’t forsee the obvious when he stuck that tree in the middle of Eden and told a couple of unknowlegable innocents not to mess with it(letting a vastly more intelligent and savvy serpent into the garden to screw with them was just icing on the cake, imho). He is perfect, but had to reboot the whole damn world(killing ghod knows how many innocent children and animals in the process). He goes from being the revenge-minded defender of Jews to the peaceful lover of all mankind overnight, without any explanation, unless you count the son of a carpenter making vague claims. Any god of reasonable intelligence should be able to handle a simple press release, right?
Of all things in this world that violate the K.I.S.S. rule, religion is way up there, with Christianity ahead of the pack by a nose.

No, they’re not. Axioms are things which we cannot deny; however, it does not follow that things which we cannot deny are also axioms.

In other words, “A implies B” does not mean that “B implies A.”

The square root of 2 is an irrational number. This is absolutely undeniable, but it is not an axiom. It is the logical consquence of some axiomatic statements, but it is not itself axiomatic.

Oh really.

Coincidences and random occurrences happen all the time. A one-in-a-million event will happen to seven people in New York, and over six thousand people worldwide. When the outcome is positive, we call it a miracle. When the outcome is negative, we call it bad luck, and/or look for someone to sue. Our choice of label doesn’t change the fact that it’s merely a coincidental event and nothing more.

Think about it. Out of a thousand people who get cancer, a handful will get better without any sort of treatment, while on the other side a handful will die no matter what anybody does. Then there’s a huge mass in the middle for whom the progression of the disease will be slower or faster and who may or may not die depending on various factors.

Now distribute the available treatments and approaches to treatment, from aggressive surgery and chemotherapy to closing your eyes and wishing really hard (i.e. prayer). The continuum of possible outcomes intersects with the continuum of possible actions to form a matrix. Some of the people receiving aggressive treatment will die anyway. Some of the people who get no medical treatment will get better. It’s simple statistics.

Naturally, the individual who gets better without medical intervention will perceive his recovery as a miraculous event, seeing as he has “beaten the odds.”

But if you’re going to make the two phrases — miracle, and beating the odds — synonymous, then you have to include all the unlikely but negative events as well. Say, you’re walking down the street and a brick falls out of a skyscraper and crushes your head. The probability of this happening to somebody is miniscule, so by getting your skull squished, you have “beaten the odds.” Is it a miracle?

Here’s an even better example: Your daughter is dying of a rare type of organ failure. If she doesn’t get a heart transplant within six weeks, she will die. The odds are against you.

And then, unexpectedly, the transplant team calls: A heart has suddenly become available. It’s a match. Your daughter’s life is saved. Of course, you consider this a miracle.

Twelve hours before you get the call from the transplant team, in a playground two states away, a group of kids is in a playground. One kid falls off the jungle gym and falls face-first on a fence post, impaling himself through the mouth and neck. He is rushed to the hospital, but there is nothing anybody can do. His weeping parents have no knowledge of you or your daughter or her need for their son’s heart, but encouraged by the doctors at the hospital, they agree that his organs can be harvested, and then prepare to remake their shattered lives.

Is this a miracle?

Using similar reasoning as above: Unexplained events occur all the time. Sometimes they are merely coincidental and require no explanation. (Example: You’re at home. Something reminds you of your best friend. You think about your best friend for a moment. The phone rings. It’s your best friend. My goodness, you think, I must be psychic. Naturally, you have no recollection of the ten thousand times you thought of your best friend and the phone didn’t ring.) Sometimes no explanation is immediately available; the weak-minded immediately leap to a supernatural version of events, while more rational people reserve judgment. (Example: Flight 19 disappearing over the ocean south of Miami.)

The only reason we think supernatural events occur is that we do not like unanswered questions and are willing to hold any explanation as being superior than no explanation. As a thoroughly pedestrian example, look at the enduring debate over the contents of Marcellus Wallace’s briefcase in Pulp Fiction. There’s absolutely no way to tell from the movie what’s in the case, but viewers have concocted all manner of elaborate and internally consistent hypotheses in order to provide themselves any answer, rather than the correct one, which is that there is no answer, by the filmmakers’ design.

Some do. Some are assholes. I’m an atheist, and I’m a pretty happy guy.

You do come close to being right here, though:

Actually, God is a name we’ve assigned to the phenomenon of nagging unanswerables. We ask why it rains, and until we understand meteorology we have a rain god. We ask why the ground shakes, and until we understand plate tectonics we have earth gods. We ask why we are here and what our purpose could be, and because there is no way to answer we invent a religion to satisfy our deep need for an explanation. It’s not too great to understand; it’s just that the truth is unsatisfying.

This didn’t sound stupid before I tried to rewrite it and lost my train of thought. :smack:

It’s because you have faith, such intense faith, in the material world that you don’t feel anything within you.

You can never find what you don’t look for, now can you.

Love

Lekatt is not forgetting, believers know as little about God as skeptics. I can’t remember the last time I heard a “God fearing believer” quote the beautitudes. Many, many years ago churches used to teach the path, now they just build buildings and cram people in them.

Believers were taught by believers and believers wrote the sacred texts while God said nary a word.

Love

Keep it simple, yes, God is Love. How is that for simplicity.

Of course, you can use any name that suits you for the Creator of all things, God is just a more common one in the west.

You hint that the Bible is fact instead of the work of over zealous believers. God doesn’t write on paper. He writes on the hearts of mankind, His will is love one another. He touches us where we will remember it, in the depths of our emotions and being.

Love

God is an emotion?
How silly.

And many other things. Like vengence.

That is assuming such a Creator exists.

What is the most convincing argument for the non-existence of elves?

How is that question really any diffrent from the OP’s?

“God” is simply a hypothesis with no empirical support. I think that for me, the most compelling reason to at least set the hypothesis aside for the moment is its superfluousness. Thus far, our scientific investigation of the universe has found nothing that would necessitate such a hypothesis.

The theodical question is also a pretty tough hurdle, IMO.

Name one.

Name one.

Unknown and unknowable.

For me, it’s lack of evidence coupled with a healthy dose of Occam’s Razor.