The most forceful reasons that make you say there is no God?

[Monarchist]

Friends, let me ask you to define the single strongest reason for your atheism. There's no need for me to distinguish between atheists and theists here, since the former obviously outnumber the latter. One might just as well address the entire sub-forum as atheists, since the theists don't much bother anymore.

I want you to tell me, in summary, what makes you so absolutely convinced of your negation of theists' teaching that God exists. Agnostics, too, might explain the reason for their non-stance. Why are you neutral, in terms of epistemology, aggies?

Here are some things which make me doubt the existence of God (since I my belief in God is based in reason, it must be challenged by proper reason):

1. I have not seen, heard, or experienced God objectively, except by my own desire in prayer, which may be called psychosomatic (from the inner desire). Since God is said to be a spirit of pure truth (in fact, the Spirit of truth), it is likely that one should feel God's presence moving as a singular being, when God does move within you. Since this movement has not been experienced in my heart, it seems that either I am not ready or that God does not exist.

This emotional argument is very strong for me, because I am primarily a romantic person. Seeing/tactile feeling is believing, after all.

2. I have certainly never seen, nor heard of one atheist who was converted by a vision, only arguments. Since real experience is more valuable than abstract logic, it seems that either atheists ignore things before their eyes/refuse to report them, or that God does not exist.

Every serious, monotheistic religious vision I have heard of has come from a person who was a saint, or already a believer. Since God is said to possess a certain love for humanity by which God wishes the absolute good for all humans, it seems queer indeed that God should not make an overpowering display of Presence to those who most need it. If God is truthfully called loving, it would be justice and mercy indeed to appear to atheists.

3. The specificity with which all things are pigeon-holed in time and space seems to suggest a totally-closed universe. There seems to be nothing which isn't affected by time and space. In order for a being to be God, it must be eternally-real and infinitely-composed, else it does not fill all things. Since eternity and infinity seem foreign to our temporal senses, it seems that God does not exist.

A horse-saddle, in which we begin at the center of the dip and attempt to progress up either side, is the result of a closed Universe. Whenever we move up toward the mane of the horse's head, we slip back into the dip; contrarily, whenever we move toward the horse's tail, we slip back into the dip. Outside time and space we have experienced nothing, though our imaginations point to things outside time and space. Either each man's imagination is a reflection of a divine, immaterial reality from which we receive the imagination, or the divine, immaterial reality is imprinted on existence by the imagination.

These reasons are based entirely on my limited, subjective, and decidedly unscientific experience of life.

[justicar5]

I find nothing in my knowledge of the world that speaks of anything more than this world excisting, no demons, no angels, no dragons, no buddhas. All the evil we see is people, all the good, also people, beauty in nature, wonder? The universe itself.

I find nothing that speaks of god being real, and I have looked, all the way from being a baptist, to reading the gnostic gospels and the apochrypha, to discordianism, I found no god or gods in any of them.

[Sphere]

A sensibly posed question which deserves a matching response. I'll stick to talking about a personal God who intervenes in human affairs, as there isn't much to say about a God who just created our universe and left, as the existence that sort of God is almost exactly the same as the non-existence of God. And in any event, such a discussion would require a detailed knowledge of the beginning of the Universe, which no Homo Sapien has. But enough of that, on the the real question, which I will answer with my own set of questions, but I will show mercy and stick to only one line of argument which I think holds the most sway to me.

If there was no God how would you expect different religions to be dispersed across the Globe? What would their historical evolution look like? How would you expect them to be continued from generation to generation? In other words what in the history of religion would be different if there wasn't a God?

Even a person of faith has to admit that human beings have displayed an extraordinary ability to invent supernatural beings that do not exist, indeed it seems to be part of our nature. I would be quite surprised if our cousins the Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisova''s did not have similar dispositions. I would be even more surprised if out of this plethora of disparate, tribal, contradictory, ethnocentric versions of the supernatural one of them turned out to be true. That seems absurd enough to dismiss on face value.

Now if some mountain tribe in Laos had a prophet that preached that Gods chosen people were actually in Israel, or some Native American tribe had visions telling them that a desert merchant from Arabia was the last true prophet then we might have something to discuss. But as is, the history of religion points quite clearly to there being no God behind any of it, on the contrary it contains at every point the dirty finger prints of man.

So to believe that you have discovered the true God, well I guess thats only human. But I won't be indulging in such thinking myself.

[Poach]

Allow me to begin by stating that I am a weak atheist (which, for those who may not know, means I do not believe in the existence of God due to lack of any appeciable proof of his existence, as opposed to a strong atheist who actively believes God cannot possibly exist).

I suppose my first, foremost and most obvious reason would be that there's no convincing proof of God's presence. Now, people argue vague notions like the complexity of life is proof of his existence, but that is a leap of faith, that is an assumption based on one's own opinions, not cold hard proof. There is no quantifiable proof that God exists, there is only assumption based on the opinion that certain things require his existence.

Secondly, I would take major issue to God's schematic of the human being, as well as the Angel. If God is the creator from which all things are derived, why did he create a full one third of his angels with the character traits and personalities that would lead them to fundamentally disagree with God's management of existence and turn to rebellion in an attempt to alter such methods? In addition, why did God create, within the schematic of the human being, the conditions by which greate swathes of humanity cannot easily come to accept God without quantifiable proof that he intentionally witholds? It seems to me that God fully intended for Hell to come into being, and fully intended to condemn a great many of us to end up there by virtue of our very design.

Finally, ofcourse, there is Science and it's discoveries that directly contradict the Bible. Now, I am willing to accept that the Bible is a product of it's time and, as such, would gloss over or fabricate certain things in order to expediate it's acceptance amongst a much simpler mankind, but why was it then left as such? If God is up there, he must surely know that his chosen people have largely advanced past his Holy Book, and his lack of intervention is causing the number of the faithful to dwindle. Is it not time for a Second Coming? An updating of the Holy Book? It is hopelessly outdated, but religion has nothing else to work with, and to the modern man it seems more and more as if religion is a relic of the past that modern science has replaced.

I must therefore conclude that God does not exist or God does not care. Both of those answers lead me to the additional conclusion that worship of said being is wrong because he either does not exist or does not care.

[Monarchist]

Though there are many points I would love to answer, this thread ought to exist as a sort of compendium. Atheists need to air their dirty laundry and thoughts just as much as real people.

[The Dude]

There is no certainty or conviction. There is just likelihood and probability. I recognise the plausibility of some arguments for theism, but I remain with my position that god is still a premature conclusion. As a species we're still in our stages of infancy. Everything that led up to who we are today, ranging from the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia through to the Romans up towards the Middle Ages and the Renaissance was, I think, child's play and a mere paving the way for our potential as a species.

I don't dare to assert anything to be true about the universe. We're such an absolutely miniscule spec of insignifance on the timeline of existence that the only way to justify an antropocentric world view (which is inherent in every monotheistic religion at least) is to be a young earth creationist. And that's a route of believing things despite evidence to the contrary.

If I think about the future of mankind I expect, and hope, that we will have many millennia ahead of us still. Probably dozens, hopefully hundreds or thousands. There's no telling where our journey will end, but I think that what we will know a mere thousand years from now will trump anything that we know today. I understand that even today, people -want- answers. And if there aren't any, then yes, there are some likely theistic theories that make sense given what we know. But as I said, it's still a premature conclusion. To speak in the words of Nicolas of Cusa, we have to commit to a Docta Ignorantia. Learned ignorance. What we don't know is so infinitely greater in amount than what we do know, and this is what we have to learn.

Once we know that we know nothing, that justifies either total belief in god, or the total absense of it. Neither thing deals with anything that we can get to know in our lifetime. What does, is religion. And religion can be condemned or supported for moral reasons, which are very imminent. And so I often turn against religion, not for reasons of atheism but from a sociomoral standpoint. Anything that impedes our quest for knowledge is, I think, a betrayal of our potential as a species. With the same zeal I'll just as easily condemn anything else that impedes that search in the same way, be it contemporary media or corporate monopolism and its influence on politics.

[Jack04]

I think I'd probably tick all the boxes, to be honest.

Even as a child I was never particularly attracted to religion, though that may be as much a result of my parent's lack of any religious belief as it was due to myself. I've never felt the need to believe in some higher power, nor felt that I have been under the influence of one.

Primarily though, in recent years, I've found the complete lack of any fundamental evidence for such an omniscient, omnipotent diety which makes the idea so uncompelling. Beyond the principle of a non-supreme creator (someone who "flicked the switch" to start this universe off but no more) I find the idea of some higher being a bit too fanciful and - to be quite frank - not really worth my time. I can only be certain of this life, I don't feel that pandering to some diety, of whose existence I see no evidence, is a good use of that life. As someone involved (even at only an early-ish stage) in science, I also find the ways in which some religious beliefs directly contradict scientific evidence to be a cause for concern, which is something that puts me off massively the religious point of view.

I do also feel that, as humans, we are almost limitlessly incapable of understanding the fundamentals of this universe (or multiverse) as a result of the very directed way in which our brains function. It is almost impossible for a human to imagine an event without cause and yet quantum mechanics seems to imply that such events can happen (see spontaneous photon decay into particle/anti particle pairs with no apparent cause), the creation of something from nothing (again, something which is entirely possible as long as certain conditions are met) and most fundamentally of all, the potential nature of both spatial and temporal infinity. I feel that whilst we are incapable of understanding such things, turning to a "higher power" is something of a cop-out.

[B5C]

There is many scientific evidence that breaks most of the tenants of major religions. Also I have seen corruption in the Church can cause evil things. Look at the Bush Administration George Bush Jr was the most religious person on the White House. He believed that going to war and freeing people was part of God's plan. Also why would a nice and good God create an parasite to live in a eyes of kids in Africa.

"Science does not make it impossible to believe in God. It just make is possible to NOT believe in God."- Steven Weinberg

[Biggreenfellow]

For starters, I will never accept any organized religion to be true, because these are organized BY people, and their highly subjective take on things. Just look at the bible; it's not the work of God, it's the work, and interpretations, made by man.

Now, the existence of God himself, that's another matter. I do not not believe in God. I just think it's highly unlikely/improbable that there is a God, because there is no evidence, whatsoever, to support it.
Secondly, I think it's not likely that there is a God that designed us, because of modern day science, and the fact that we, as an animal species, are hardly the pinnacle of design. We are ravaged by disease, handicaps, etc. It makes no sense. Either there is no divine designer, or he's pretty crappy at it.
Finally, I don't believe there is a God that sees us as 'his children', in favour of other animals, since there is nothing that makes us superior to other animals. Sure, we have our intellect, but we lack wisdom (just look at the way we ravage our only planet, or how we kill each other). Where other animals seek balance, we seek to conquer and dominate everything, right up to our own destruction. If there is a God that made us into his own image, I really, really don't want to meet him.

[Khassaki]

Gods serve no purpose other than making people who are frightened of the unknown feel better. When these gods were created for the first time a couple thousand years ago, our understanding of the universe was much more limited, and so gods fulfilled the need to explain and make known those things which were at the time unknowable. Now that we have practical answers for all of the questions we pose, gods no longer have a place or fill a need, and so are being discarded as irrelevant across the world.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Speculating on Metaphysics without the right negativistic approach is a recipe for disaster. Do you know why Metaphysics do not follow the rules of reason and why there is a negativistic theology?

[Vir Triumphalis]

1. If God created the Universe who created God?

Theists don't ask themselves this question. They just say "I believe in God for this reason...". This question is probably the biggest dilemma that theist face because if there is someone who created the creator, then who created the creator of the creator? This paradox can never be proven. This paradox can only be answered in very few words: there is no God.

2. Science has debunked Theology and Religion.

Science has debunked Theology and Religion. Theology and Religion is based on beliefs ,blind faith and lack of evidence, while Science is based on reason and facts.

[Modestus]

Religion.

[The Dude]

1. If God created the Universe who created God?

Theists don't ask themselves this question. They just say "I believe in God for this reason...". This question is probably the biggest dilemma that theist face because if there is someone who created the creator, then who created the creator of the creator? This paradox can never be proven. This paradox can only be answered in very few words: there is no God.

They ask themselves this question all the time and the answer is the cyclic motive of creation. What they propose is that god -cannot- be created since an almighty being who was created would by definition have to be created by something mightier, but since god is existence, he is the mightiest by necessity. Therefore god creates, and it is return to god that all created things desire.

God isn't simply some singular individual who exists apart from things and creates them in a distanced way, he is all things in a certain way. Most theistic philosophies are forced to lean towards pantheism, some more heavily than others, and you can see that different religions can have a common philosophy about what god is. There have been countless attempts at describing god, or adequately naming him such as Non-other, Prime Mover/Unmoved Mover, Non-being, etc. But since all of these linguistic attempts at describing something endless with finite terms have fallen short, a lot of theists simply figure that this in itself is proof that there is something out there that our language and minds can't grasp.

In other words, the mere fact that we our minds are capable of referencing something that we cannot understand means that this has to necessarily exist, since we can't reference things that in no way are.

What I've just said is pretty much a massive hodgepodge of theistic thinking and there's certainly a lot more to be said, but ancient and medieval philosophy and theology are absolutely drowning in attempts to explain what god is. The only fact that you think this has never occurred is because you haven't researched it enough.

2. Science has debunked Theology and Religion.

Science has debunked Theology and Religion. Theology and Religion is based on beliefs ,blind faith and lack of evidence, while Science is based on reason and facts.

Science hasn't debunked anything. Science deals with immediate causes, theology deals with first causes. In other words, science can explain how a plant grows, but not why a plant grows. Science is forced to deal exclusively with material things, but to reference Thomas Aquinas: science talks about material being, theology/ontology talks about Being itself.

[B5C]

Science hasn't debunked anything. Science deals with immediate causes, theology deals with first causes. In other words, science can explain how a plant grows, but not why a plant grows.

Science did tell us why plants grow. They grow to have sex and create more plants.

[The Dude]

Science did tell us why plants grow. They grow to have sex and create more plants.

Why do they do that?

[Vir Triumphalis]

Science hasn't debunked anything. Science deals with immediate causes, theology deals with first causes. In other words, science can explain how a plant grows, but not why a plant grows. Science is forced to deal exclusively with material things, but to reference Thomas Aquinas: science talks about material being, theology/ontology talks about Being itself.

Science has debunked creationism, miracles, etc. Theology and Religion are interrelated to Metaphysics. The Being is nothing but an illusion and sophistry. In the words of David Hume, "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion"

False. Science deals with the natural world. That is it. Science can not answer philosophical questions nor should it aim to. That is not the purpose of science. It is atheists who have created the false dichotomy of Science Vs Religion.

Science will always be the enemy of Religion unless Religion only deals with morality which is highly unlikely in the near future. If that happens, then Science and Religion would coexist.

[Hilarion]

Science has debunked creationism, miracles, etc. Theology and Religion are interrelated to Metaphysics. The Being is nothing but an illusion and sophistry. In the words of David Hume, "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion"

Science will always be the enemy of Religion unless Religion only deals with morality which is highly unlikely in the near future. If that happens, then Science and Religion would coexist.

You must not be familiar with the history of science. The Greek philosopher and naturalist Thanes, often regarded as one of the founders of Western scientific tradition, described the world as "full of gods." Descartes, Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were all firmly devoted to religion, some viewing God as essential to their studies. Even the skeptic Hume was not hostile to the concept of God. Your quote is taken out of context; Hume was not attacking religion, but ontological arguments for God's existence.

[43rdFoot]

Science hasn't debunked anything. Science deals with immediate causes, theology deals with first causes. In other words, science can explain how a plant grows, but not why a plant grows.

Why do plants need a reason to grow? Can it not be simply because they do?

Life is just a natural development, a constant and somewhat self sustaining series of chemical reactions. Plants grow for the same reason a fire continues to consume wood. They act because that is what they do.

[CamilleBonparte]

1. If God created the Universe who created God?

Theists don't ask themselves this question.

They don't? Have you read any apologetic material whatsoever, or are you just making an assumption? The very first apologetic text I ever read dealt with this question. Nothing created God, God exists outside of time and space. He is infinite. There is no need whatsoever to posit a creator for God.

2. Science has debunked Theology and Religion.

False. Science deals with the natural world. That is it. Science can not answer philosophical questions nor should it aim to. That is not the purpose of science. It is atheists who have created the false dichotomy of Science Vs Religion.

Thats what happens, thats not an answer as to why it happens.

Exactly. This is as far as science can go. "Science" is not a world view.