# Arguments for the non-existence of God. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2011, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084 "2011-12-05T02:16:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/21 "2011-12-05T14:01:06Z")
A belief in what humans are capable of from a philosophical point could be a counter. Author Clark (sci-fi writer) postulated 3 ‘laws’ as I remember them. 1: What is said to be improbable is in fact possible 2: even things that are said to be impossible are highly probable and 3 technology at a high level is indistinguishable to magic. If so then humans are capable of everything, and if so we are at the level of any god that can be imagined. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/22 "2011-12-05T14:08:43Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I’m not questioning god, I’m questioning your faith. Specifically, if you admit that god is untouchable by human reasoning, how can you possible claim that your faith is correctly held? Trying to stay with the OP here. The God I know wants a relationship with us above all else. So the way we find God is to desire such a relationship. As such trying to counter God’s existence by using evidence or logic logically doesn’t make sense as God (the God I’m talking about) does not want to be found that way. Also it is illogical for someone to have to learn logic to find God, that would be unfair as not all can in their lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![GoodOmens](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@GoodOmens](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoodOmens)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/23 "2011-12-05T14:17:15Z")
> [@TATG](#): > > Any God worth its salt would be rational, moral, and powerful enough to prevent evil. There is evil. So there is no God worth its salt. This feels too much to me like the “no true Scot” argument. Many peoples’ conception of God is omnimax, but we have no reason to believe that God must have those traits. God could be weak, dumb and malicious, but still God. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/24 "2011-12-05T14:29:21Z")
> [@Interrobang](#): > > God could be weak, dumb and malicious, but still God. At some point this becomes absurdity though, right? There musts be some quality required for “God” to have any meaning. A powerless, undetectable, unknowing God is no different than, well, you or I. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/25 "2011-12-05T14:36:13Z")
> [@TATG](#): > > I find the whole “atheism is the most rational belief state” thing rather tiresome, even if true. Theists have had their fun, I want my fun too. I thus seek interesting arguments for the non-existence of God. Not necessarily good ones, Gods or arguments, mind you. There are a few that I’m aware of: [Argument from non belief](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief) ([another resource](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/nonbelief.html)) [Non cognitive argument against god](http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/) [Properties arguments](http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/incompatible_properties_arguments/) [Perfection argument](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ryan_stringer/perfection.html) [Arguments from evil](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil-logical.html) [And here’s a bunch](http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/) The main problem with them is that ‘God’ isn’t very well defined, or that the definition is apt to shift. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/26 "2011-12-05T14:37:07Z")
Not a logical argument, exactly, more a literary/aesthetic one: God (any gods I’ve encountered, not just the Christian god) _always_ sound like the kind of thing a human mind would make up - the kind that happens in stories. Since there’s no evidence provided to distinguish the story of god from other stories we _know_ to be fictional (let’s say … Noddy stories) , we should act as though they _are_ fictional. Sure, we can learn moral lessons from Noddy’s adventures, but they’re ultimately human moral lessons - Noddy has no special secret wisdom to teach us, how can he? Same-same for god. Note that the idea of the Christian god, as presented in most arguments, is largely internally incoherent. Which points to more than just a fictional character - it points to a fictional character with multiple, widely-differing authors. Yes: Jehovah is the _Dune_ prequels of the deity world! ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/27 "2011-12-05T15:33:00Z")
My argument is not so much an argument for no-God, but an argument against faith in a God. 1. Human beings are inherently fallible creatures. Historically, we have been mistaken in our beliefs about things in the _material_ world so often that it appears that mistakes are the rule, not the exception. E.g., world is flat, spirits cause disease, masturbation causes blindness, women are less intelligent than men, cats are evil, etc. 2. Given this, let’s take 30 seconds to ponder how accurate we probably have been in our assessments about matters in the _immaterial_ world, assuming that such a world exists. I’m thinking it’s even worse than our error rate in the material world, which is really saying a lot. 3. People should question the wisdom in believing any unfalsifiable ideas that have largely been informed by ancient stories. It takes a certain amount of hubris to think one’s own beliefs in the immaterial just happen to represent The Truth while everyone else is wrong, and it takes self-imposed naivety to blindly accept that stories written by primitive men are unsullied by primitive biases and ignorance. Therefore, someone who truly embraces the principles of humility and honesty, and is fully cognizant of man’s fallibility, should inherently second-guess beliefs that are the product of religious indoctrination. Humanity’s penchant for Getting Things Wrong should always be in the back of their mind. Unfortunately such uncertainty is incompatible with faith. In fact, it errodes it. 4. God supposedly created a humanity that is prone to Getting Things Wrong, but that is also capable of being self-aware enough to realize its own fallibility and act accordingly (via self-doubt). Therefore, it would unreasonable for God to demand that humans be faithful to Him. Although it is within humanity’s power to faithful, to do so we have to fight against our God-given ability to reason. It also means we can’t be humble or honest with ourselves\*. Ergo, we should not have faith in God. - Which ironically is what the Christian Bible advises…when it’s not also advising us to act like children. ---
**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:** [December 5, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/28 "2011-12-05T15:33:43Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > A belief in what humans are capable of from a philosophical point could be a counter. Author Clark (sci-fi writer) postulated 3 ‘laws’ as I remember them. 1: What is said to be improbable is in fact possible 2: even things that are said to be impossible are highly probable and 3 technology at a high level is indistinguishable to magic. > > If so then humans are capable of everything, and if so we are at the level of any god that can be imagined. That would be Arthur C. Clarke, and the “laws” are: 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/29 "2011-12-05T16:10:10Z")
> [@TATG](#): > > I thus seek interesting arguments for the non-existence of God. Not necessarily good ones, Gods or arguments, mind you. The best non-good argument is that we don’t really **need** God to exist, do we? ---
**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:** [December 5, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/30 "2011-12-05T16:12:30Z")
Please give a description of the “god” I am supposed to disprove. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/31 "2011-12-05T16:27:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Please give a description of the “god” I am supposed to disprove. “Created the universe and decides whether each of us spends the afterlife suffering in hell or enjoying paradise in heaven.” ---
**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:** [December 5, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/32 "2011-12-05T16:32:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > “Created the universe and decides whether each of us spends the afterlife suffering in hell or enjoying paradise in heaven.” That describes his actions, not his being. “Describe a cat” “The cat jumped on the couch” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/33 "2011-12-05T16:38:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That describes his actions, not his being. > “Describe a cat” > “The cat jumped on the couch” Hmm. Okay, how about _“bearded guy who created us in his image and likeness and decides whether we spend the afterlife in heaven or hell,”_ then? ---
**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:** [December 5, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/34 "2011-12-05T16:41:58Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Hmm. Okay, how about _“bearded guy who created us in his image and likeness and decides whether we spend the afterlife in heaven or hell,”_ then? Let’s see. Bearded guys exist-no problem there. Could you tell me where he can be found, how old he is, how big he is etc.? ---
**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:** [December 5, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/35 "2011-12-05T16:48:46Z")
Even easier-Bearded guys are by current definition human, and having him create himself is a paradox. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/36 "2011-12-05T16:49:40Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > If God exists, God must either be caused, or be uncaused. If God is caused, then it cannot be an uncaused cause, and so we have reached a contradiction with most definitions of God. Therefore God is uncaused. If God is uncaused, then, there being no constraints imposed by a cause upon the caused, the properties of what is caused is unconstrained. Therefore if God exists, its properties are completely arbitrary. Constructing a correctly weighted statistical measure is beyond the scope of this proof, but roughly speaking God is as likely to be a teapot as a thousand hydrogen atoms, as likely to be an all-powerful being as a quantum field, as likely to be a jelly bean as a hula hoop. Less roughly speaking, the set of Christian Gods (and other similar propositions) is measure zero. Therefore God does not exist. The argument assumes that all constraints on X are imposed by a cause of X. Depending on what you think numbers are, numbers (and other abstracta) may be counterexamples to this principle. But also, can’t constraints come from effects independently of causes? For example, if a teapot appears in the middle of nothing for no reason whatsoever, aren’t there constraints on it imposed by its effects on things? (BTW I like your argument and I don’t remember ever hearing it before.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/37 "2011-12-05T17:08:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Let’s see. > Bearded guys exist-no problem there. > Could you tell me where he can be found, how old he is, a big he is etc.? Apparently he, uh, art in heaven, at least most of the time; some folks say his voice was once heard in the desert, calling out from amidst flaming shrubbery that wasn’t burning up, which is a neat trick; AFAICT, he can change size easy as do pillar-of-smoke-and-pillar-of-fire tricks. He’s said to be older than the solar system; I’m not sure by how much. > [@](#): > > Even easier-Bearded guys are by current definition human, and having him create himself is a paradox. Well, I said humans were created _in his image and likeness;_ he’s not a human, he just looks like one. Specifically, he looks like a bearded guy – well, most of the time – but has powers that bearded guys who are mere humans lack. If the sticking point is the word _“guy,”_ then swap in, uh, _“entity who usually looks like a bearded guy,”_ I guess. (Would it disprove the existence of Superman to describe him as a guy with superhuman strength? Or more-than-human strength? I doubt it, but I’m not sure; eh, drop the _“guy”_ part.) ---
**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:** [December 5, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/38 "2011-12-05T17:26:39Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Apparently he, uh, art in heaven, at least most of the time… That’s not describing where to find him-that’s only adding another term that needs to be defined. “Where is the cat?” “The cat is in Bollololland” “Where is Bolololand?” ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/39 "2011-12-05T18:18:18Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The argument assumes that all constraints on X are imposed by a cause of X. Depending on what you think numbers are, numbers (and other abstracta) may be counterexamples to this principle. But also, can’t constraints come from effects independently of causes? For example, if a teapot appears in the middle of nothing for no reason whatsoever, aren’t there constraints on it imposed by its effects on things? > > (BTW I like your argument and I don’t remember ever hearing it before.) The only constraints I can think of are ones that we would usually take for granted in the declaration of X’s existence, ie, for example, that the teapot has stable self-preserving properties, such as being composed of ceramic rather than mercury. I think it’s fair to implicitly assume in such a proof that when we say “teapot” we don’t mean “self-destroying teapot,” though I agree that both kinds of teapot are possible. For parsimony I purposefully left out of the proof that there are self-consistency constraints like the above, but I _think_ they are trivial. You have a good point about numbers, but I think the constraints on numbers are imposed by humans, in that the set of all groupoids or magmas or however general you want to take it, is unconstrained. Humans constrain the set by imposing that they be abelian, associative, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Untoward\_Parable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/51bf81/32.png) [@Untoward\_Parable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Untoward_Parable)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084/40 "2011-12-05T20:21:21Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > This argument would be equally valid if I replace “God” with “you” and use it to prove that you don’t exist. Sorry but no that doesn’t follow. I think therefore I am. My consciousness is real any way you slice it. Things I observe have evidence to support their existence in that I can observe them and so they are infinitely more likely to exist than anything that has no evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/605084.md?page=3)