# My best argument for the non-existence of God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 8, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615 "2005-07-08T17:43:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/141 "2005-07-12T00:49:31Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > Since you cannot prove what you assert, you are engaged in “belief” also. > [@r~](#): > > The laws of nature hold true. They can be reproduced; they can be used for prediction. It is just a matter of understanding them. While most see the truth in this statement, it is impossible to prove something to someone that chooses not, or simply cannot, understand. You win. I cannot prove to you that there is a force that holds your atoms together, or you to the earth. I cannot prove to you that there is a force that underlies your very existence. I cannot prove you exist. I will accept your definition, I only believe it. Please forward your bank account to me. I am r~ ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/142 "2005-07-12T00:54:21Z")
Where in Nigeria should I send it to? ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/143 "2005-07-12T01:01:14Z")
**cosmosdan** > [@](#): > > If certain concepts of God don’t make sense to you then ask questions. Seek answers. If it still doesn’t make sense then abandon that concept of God. And what if I have no need for any concept of a god or gods? Can you not see that you are customizing your god to fit your beliefs? Free will may apply to someone who chooses between right and wrong. Free will does not apply to innocent victims of say 9/11. Of course they would have willed to just go home to their loved ones at the end of the day. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/144 "2005-07-12T01:40:39Z")
> [@Ex Machina](#): > > If God is perfect and always was perfect, then why did He suddenly, at some point in His eternal existence, desire company or worship. This sounds like an imperfect being to me. > Loneliness, or vanity, or even whimsy, doesn’t sound like the trait of a perfect entity to me. They sound like the projected traits of imperfect human beings. > So why? Thats a bunch of assumptions. Is your point that your statement doesn’t make sense? I agree. It sure doesn’t. Your statement has nothing to say about the existance of God. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/145 "2005-07-12T02:47:36Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > And what if I have no need for any concept of a god or gods? Ain’t free will great? God is just a word. There are lots of ideas about God that I reject or don’t understand. Use another term. It doesn’t matter. Do believe there is truth? You can resist concepts of God but eventually the truth will assert itself and “I don’t need that” or “I don’t believe that” will be a denial of what is. You already have things you believe for your own personal reasons. Life will challenge those beliefs. > [@](#): > > Can you not see that you are customizing your god to fit your beliefs? Since they are my beliefs I don’t see how that is avoidable. It’s a natural part of the process. I “see” God through the filter of my unique human viewpoint and experience. The important thing is that I recognize that and realize I have much to learn. > [@](#): > > Free will may apply to someone who chooses between right and wrong. Free will does not apply to innocent victims of say 9/11. Of course they would have willed to just go home to their loved ones at the end of the day. But through our choices we have the ability to relieve or prevent the suffering of others, even the victems of 9/11. What is are the limit’s of our potential? How will we discover them? We can talk about suffering that is not about choice, such as natural disasters. I don’t mean to trivialize anyone’s experience but think about it. Imagine for a moment we are immortal spirits rather than these physical bodies. Everything that happens in this physical world is only fleeting. Just a passing experience with the potential to teach us. Thats what Jesus taught when he said don’t place your treasure in the things that time can corrupt. He asked us not to fear those that have the power to kill the physical body, but to hold in awe, and devote ourselves to, the eternal. ---
**Author:** ![Ex\_Machina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Ex\_Machina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ex_Machina)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/146 "2005-07-12T02:55:03Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Thats a bunch of assumptions. Is your point that your statement doesn’t make sense? I agree. It sure doesn’t. Your statement has nothing to say about the existance of God. Maybe not. But it has a lot to say about your foolish belief. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/147 "2005-07-12T03:42:47Z")
**cosmosdan** > [@](#): > > Imagine for a moment we are immortal spirits rather than these physical bodies. Everything that happens in this physical world is only fleeting. Just a passing experience with the potential to teach us. Wouldn’t that be immortal spirits that occupy physical bodies? And I’ve heard that umpteen times. And just because it’s romantic and you hope it’s true and it just “feels” right, it has no basis in fact. Anyway, I’m going to treat my fellow human beings as if this is all there is. And that makes life most precious. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/148 "2005-07-12T04:09:36Z")
> [@Nature's Call](#): > > If by ‘not physical’ you mean ‘has no effect on the physical world’ then the debate is meaningless. The point where the non-physical moves anything in the physical would be indistinguishable from a physical object - and it is this phenomenon (by whatever words one uses to describe it) that is the real subject of debate. The influence God may or may not have on this physical world is just as unprovable as God’s existance. Was the influence of the sun essntial to the life of man long before our ability to understand and explain it? > [@](#): > > There is no doubt the concept of God exists. > There is no doubt people feel moved, comforted, dedicated to this concept. > There is no doubt that God “might” exist. > There is no doubt that many people “need” God. > There is no doubt that at least _some_ of the descriptions of God are manufactured to fill this need. > There is no doubt that one can “grow up” with a belief that’s not true. > I submit it’s highly probable that some of these manufactured descriptions have flourished and evolved to the point where they have adherents that were not privy to the original manufacturing. > With the host of decriptions of God out there, how can one “know” which - if any - is NOT manufactured? This is great. I’ve never seen it put this way and appreciate this observation. In reading a lot about different beliefs I asked myself this same question. How do I seperate tradition and myth from the truth? I came to the conclusion that whatever I believe is my responsibility and mine alone. No man, group, or religious tradition will tell me what is the truth. Only the dictates of my own conscience and experience. In that regard I respect others right to make the same determination. > [@](#): > > You rightly say “to give up the search” doesn’t mean “it’s not there to be found.” But don’t ignore the implicit “it’s not found yet.” The mere possibility of the existence of God is as meaningful as the possibility of life on other planets. Not nessecarily. Aside from the manufactured beliefs and the influence of emotion, we do not know how the spirit of God may be moving within the hearts of mankind. As I said, were the properties of the sun meaningful to us before we understood them and were able to measure them? > [@](#): > > If I say to you, “I have met a Martian and his name is Frexliton. He wants us to live in this manner.” You have every right to disbelieve me. If it goes no further than this, then who’s right? who’s wrong? It doesn’t matter. If, though, I say “Come on over and meet Frexy” now we’re closer to the point of this debate. You show up and you can’t see him (he’s invisible) you can’t paint him (he’s incorporeal) etc. In the end, if your introduction to Frexy is indistinguishable from not having met him (ouch, there goes my brain again) then what’s the point of the claim that I’ve met a Martian? The claim itself? The only point I might see is to get someone else to consider the possibility and seek the answers for themselves. What are the limits to the potential value of that kind of questioning and seeking? How can we progress in anything without it? > [@](#): > > Personally, I happen to believe that there is something more than meets the eye in this universe of ours. If the question under debate is the mere theoritical possibility of God existing: I agree, it’s possible - maybe even probable. But that is not an interesting debate. The interesting debate to me is"If God _is_, then what are the qualities of God, or ourselves for that matter. How do the pieces of this cosmic puzzle fit together and how does that change our day to day, moment to moment? > [@](#): > > To put it bluntly: To say “You can’t disprove God’s existence” cannot be used as the basis of an argument that “God’s name is Jehovah. He created the world and everything in it. He loves you and he wants us to behave this way.” It is this type of claim that is under debate. This claim has not been proven - and must be proven - before on can plant the flag of “truth” into the claim. Proven to whom? Everyone? Perhaps it need only be proven to the individual. None of us needs the approval of others to form a conviction and act upon it. I believe what Jesus {and others} taught was that we can connect to that something more through an internal voice he called the Holy Spirit. He described it as the way to all truth, and the only way to gain knowledge of God and God’s will. I don’t think the termnology we use to express that matters that much except when we allow tthe termnology to be the thing that seperates us. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/149 "2005-07-12T04:17:13Z")
> [@Ex Machina](#): > > Maybe not. But it has a lot to say about your foolish belief. It says nothing at all about _my_ beliefs. You resorting to insults about things you know little or nothing about does say something. Try and figure out what that is. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/150 "2005-07-12T04:33:46Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > Wouldn’t that be immortal spirits that occupy physical bodies? > And I’ve heard that umpteen times. And just because it’s romantic and you hope it’s true and it just “feels” right, it has no basis in fact. > Anyway, I’m going to treat my fellow human beings as if this is all there is. And that makes life most precious. I don’t prefer the term occupy but it’s not important. I wasn’t presenting anything as hard fact. It’s part of the things we just don’t know. You seemed to be saying that the possibility of God wasn’t really logical because of certain things. I was only offering plausible possibilities. I think the truth is bound to be logical. By all means, choose what is meaningful to you. I hope most people do that. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/151 "2005-07-12T04:41:18Z")
**cosmosdan** > [@](#): > > By all means, choose what is meaningful to you. I hope most people do that. Well ya know, I wish most would too. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/152 "2005-07-12T12:16:21Z")
Let me see if I understand this. **Ex Machina** has a perfectly good argument against the existence of god. By “perfectly good”, I mean likely to work against street preachers. Also, religious upbringings. However, many dopers here subscribe to the “We can’t see god, or prove his existence in the least, but we will still call ourselves christians” camp. They have no interest in disproving his model, because they don’t subscribe to the model of god that he is discussing. Is that right? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/153 "2005-07-12T12:30:34Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Let me see if I understand this. **Ex Machina** has a perfectly good argument against the existence of god. By “perfectly good”, I mean likely to work against street preachers… Is that right? And that, right there, is where you’re wrong. People have been pointing out, _ad nauseum_, the many ways in which **Ex Machina** ’s argument fails. It’s not just subtly flawed; it’s **fundamentally** flawed. Heck, it defies basic common sense! So no, it’s not a “perfectly good” argument by any stretch of the imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615/154 "2005-07-12T12:37:02Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Let me see if I understand this. Scott, you have quickly and almost coherently demonstrated that you do not understand this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-best-argument-for-the-non-existence-of-god/311615.md?page=7)