Hello everyone,

So considering the enormous number of terrible arguments theists try to use in favor of a god, I think it's time to address some of them, and quite rightly point out why these arguments fail very badly, and with some examples too.

Fellow agnostics and atheists, feel free to add in some of yours as well. Theists, pay attention and learn from these, so you can (hopefully) present better arguments in the future

Let's get down to it.

1) ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY

This is one of the most common arguments used by theists, and as a former theist, this was one of the arguments I liked to make reference to. But it is incredibly flawed in a number of ways. It goes a bit like this.

"look at everything around you.. the starts, planets, atoms, universe.. literally anything. It is incredibly complex. Too complex to not have been created" ... or "it is too complex to arise from nothing"... and the logic that follows is that there must be a god. A god must have created this.

Unfortunately, this logic doesn't explain complexity. It only shifts it one step higher. Let me explain.

A God, if it exists, is also a thing. this god is said to be even more complex, with holy books saying we can never understand this entity. Its ways are above our ways. Whether or not it has a form or shape, the very concept of what it is supposed to be, makes it undeniably complex.

If we need a reason to explain why the very complex universe exists, then we also need a reason to explain why an even more complex god would exist.

You cannot answer the question of complexity with more complexity. That'll only move the question upward. Why does a more complex god exist. Why can a more complex god exist?

He/She/It just is, is not a viable answer, as that can also be applied to the universe.

So yes, the universe is complex. A god, if it exists, would also be incredibly more complex than the universe. If we point to a god to explain the complexity of our universe, then we must also point to something else to explain the complexity of this god.

2) ARGUMENT FROM ORIGIN (UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING)


The origin of the universe is another embarrassingly terrible argument used for the existence of a god. Weirdly enough, it highlights the double standard many theists have. It is also often used in combination with the argument from complexity. Here's how it goes.


The universe came into existence 14 billion years ago. The universe cannot come into existence from nothing. Therefore, it must have been created. Therefore god exists. This argument is again flawed for a number of reasons.

1) There's no evidence to believe the universe came from nothing. The big bang, is an event that talks about the expansion of the universe, and not its existence from nothing. The big bang was an event in time, not a point in time. Think about it this way.

If you build a chair today, the chair, as it is defined, comes into existence today, sunday the 30th. However, you will agree with me that the materials for the chair have been in existence long before today. Just because the chair started existing today, and didn't exist yesterday, doesn't mean it was created from nothing. It only means it was created from "a different something"

2) It pushes the problem upwards again. Let's assume the cause of the universe was a god. Where did that god come from? Most theists believe that the god is eternal. But how? Why? I've seen no evidence to believe that if a god existed, it could not have been caused by something else too. And of course I understand it pushes the question upwards again, and that's exactly the point.

There's no reason to believe that if a god exists, it also wasn't created, or caused by something else. This brings me to my last point for today, the argument from first cause.

3) ARGUMENT FROM FIRST CAUSE

This is one argument that has been used multiple times in favor of a god. It goes a bit like this

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes, so therefore, there has to be an uncaused first cause, which is God"

This is also flawed for a number of reasons. But one major one is this.

An uncaused first cause does NOT equal a god. While a god can be an uncaused first cause, There is no reason why it MUST be.

An uncaused first cause, by definition, is simply something that was not caused. That's all there is to it. Nothing there necessitates it to be defined as a god, especially in the context that a god is defined these days.

Nothing necessitates the uncaused first cause to be a "conscious disembodied mind" or whatever other definition of god theists may desire to use. An uncaused first cause does not equal a god.

2) The idea of an uncaused first cause is just as absurd as an infinite regress of causes. Because it leads to the question "why is there anything at all" An uncaused first cause would still be a thing. And we're left asking the question "why does this thing exist the way it is?" And if our only answer to the question is "it just is", then you need to understand that that same phrase can be applied to anything, Including the universe.

Simply put, it is very possible to claim the universe is the uncaused first cause, and not a god, and simply say "it just is"

I'll leave it at that for now on this subject.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying a god does not or cannot exist. As an agnostic, I'm more than open to the idea in the presence of sufficient proof.

However, the arguments often put forward, like the ones stated above, do nothing to support the existence of a god, as they could be used to justify other things in place of this "god"

I hope theists who use these sort of arguments can learn from them. I'll also be making reference to this thread whenever arguments like these are used in the future.

MaxInDHouse, Aemmyjah, TenQ, and other people I've forgotten to mention, please take note of these. Criticisms and opinions are of course always welcome.

I think this point that you are mentioning you should actually use it against atheists because all these things are things that you people see and blindly refused to accept so I think we should use this point for atheists not theists
All the stuff you mentioned is common sense

Even scientists who set out to unravel mysteries of the Earth finally gave up and started talking about "An intelligent architecture..." Hinting at aliens and similar propaganda

You end up not having a strong background or stand by saying you not denying the existence of God. With this, I know you just want to write some fine English language.

God is real.

psucc:
You end up not having a strong background or stand by saying you not denying the existence of God. With this, I know you just want to write some fine English language.

God is real.

Seriously the op just wanted to post something today...

preciousee17:
I think this point that you are mentioning you should actually use it against atheists because all these things are things that you people see and blindly refused to accept so I think we should use this point for atheists not theists
All the stuff you mentioned is common sense

Even scientists who set out to unravel mysteries of the Earth finally gave up and started talking about "An intelligent architecture..." Hinting at aliens and similar propaganda

psucc:
You end up not having a strong background or stand by saying you not denying the existence of God. With this, I know you just want to write some fine English language.

God is real.

It seems as though you both did not read through anything I wrote, because you both seem to be reiterating the same things I've already addressed.

preciousee17:


Seriously the op just wanted to post something today...

No, not exactly.

He's totally right..

And totally wrong at the same time..

The thing is..

You people are all too prideful, theist and atheist alike. Couldn't you all just find a common ground to agree on? Like this

Simply put, it is very possible to claim the universe is the uncaused first cause, and not a god, and simply say "it just is

Like the OP mentioned about the Something From Nothing argument.
Yes, we can agree that the materials of the chair have been in existence before the chair was ever made but hey...
It's still boils down to where the materials come from and the loop continues until infinity.

Then you darling theists will just stop midway and say ah, I can no longer do this, everything has an intelligent design hence the proof that God did it (but you forget that in our natural world, some things are still in perpetual disorder. Whose to say the disorder is not order and the order not disorder?)... Whence does this God come from? Ah the loop didn't end, you choose to simply ignore it. Still as this OP rightfully mentioned, same can be applied to just anything.. so argument continue...

Make una leave the thing rest. Being religious does not equate being stupid and the same is true for being irreligious but una no dey let us infidels rest with una wahala. Even daring to call us fools when there's many crazy ideas littering your religious manuals.

Oya, I don tire. Too lazy for long epistles but my own is you theists and atheists should either enter ring and fight it out for our entertainment or you should quit all these unnecessary e-fights.
Chai

My own 50cent.

correctguy101:


No, not exactly.

He's totally right..

And totally wrong at the same time..

My own 50cent.

Hi there. I'd like to know in what aspects I am wrong.

correctguy101:


No, not exactly.

He's totally right..

And totally wrong at the same time..

The thing is..

You people are all too prideful, theist and atheist alike. Couldn't you all just find a common ground to agree on? Like this



Like the OP mentioned about the Something From Nothing argument.
Yes, we can agree that the materials of the chair have been in existence before the chair was ever made but hey...
It's still boils down to where the materials come from and the loop continues until infinity.

Then you darling theists will just stop midway and say ah, I can no longer do this, everything has an intelligent design hence the proof that God did it (but you forget that in our natural world, some things are still in perpetual disorder. Whose to say the disorder is not order and the order not disorder?)... Whence does this God come from? Ah the loop didn't end, you choose to simply ignore it. Still as this OP rightfully mentioned, same can be applied to just anything.. so argument continue...

Make una leave the thing rest. Being religious does not equate being stupid and the same is true for being irreligious but una no dey let us infidels rest with una wahala. Even daring to call us fools when there's many crazy ideas littering your religious manuals.

Oya, I don tire. Too lazy for long epistles but my own is you theists and atheists should either enter ring and fight it out for our entertainment or you should quit all these unnecessary e-fights.
Chai

My own 50cent.

Pride - noted.
Blatant stupidity also makes people to discard arguments...

Wilgrea7:





It seems as though you both did not read through anything I wrote, because you both seem to be reiterating the same things I've already addressed.

I'm not saying anything oo bro.
I'm only saying that these are the reasons you should believe in God. Finish.

preciousee17:


Pride - noted.
Blatant stupidity also makes people to discard arguments...

For your mind...

With this back and forth?

Smh

preciousee17:


I'm not saying anything oo bro.
I'm only saying that these are the reasons you should believe in God. Finish.

The reasons you've listed are directly related to complexity, which I addressed literally in the first point.

Whether or not scientists point to aliens or some other form of life, the question remains. What led to those forms of life? Whether you appeal to gods, aliens, or any other possibility, the question of complexity remains. So therefore, neither gods, nor aliens are a credible answer to the argument from complexity

Wilgrea7:


The reasons you've listed are directly related to complexity, which I addressed literally in the first point.

Whether or not scientists point to aliens or some other form of life, the question remains. What led to those forms of life? Whether you appeal to gods, aliens, or any other possibility, the question of complexity remains. So therefore, neither gods, nor aliens are a credible answer to the argument from complexity

No don't get me wrong, I'm not even trying to convince anyone with the point I made.

I'm saying that the reasons you pointed out in your post are the same reasons you should believe in God.

I asked someone if he has experienced sleep paralysis and a bundle of atheists came and started saying things that its scientific and can be explained...
We say it's spiritual, they say it's scientific.
We pray and it gets cured, they take drugs and it goes.

Two explanations to the same matter, you choose the one you prefer to believe in.
Same thing with your post and points. Two explanations to the points, you believe the angle you choose to accept it from.

Moreover, scientific stuff is full of corrections and uncertainties. But religious (Christianity for instance) is always complete — no later adjustments except for the other hypocrisies here and there that claim to be Christians and every new understanding/knowledge is still brought out from the old unchanging Bible...

But scientific stuff tend to see errors and later correct it (I'm not saying it's bad).
What is bad is the hypocrisy (not even you, other people that tend to argue). They claim that the events written in the Bible are fake and didn't really happen and stuff like that even when other historical documents apart from the Bible show prove... But they believe that there are millions of galaxies and stuff like that (when they have not gone there or seen it with their eyes), wait oo, they also believe in photoshopping, but they don't believe that the government bodies can Photoshop documents and disperse to us, but they believe the government can fabricate religious stories and send to us.

The funniest thing about the whole matter is that there are people who unravel truths but those truths never make the News Headlines, instead you'll keep seeing bullshit everywhere.
This battle is not about me vs. you, there are people that dictate what the world should see and hear and it affects every single information (not just religious).
The battle is between the Masses vs. the Truth.
Dm me on WhatsApp and I'll give you a video evidence of what I'm saying.

Have you read the book 1984
That's what is happening literally.

Sorry it's long, but please read well before replying.

The OP is not criticizing the Existence of God nor the credit of creation.
The OP is not sentimental in his argument.
The OP is not against theism in his argument.
The OP tried to maintain neutrality even as his opinion tilted a little towards agnosticism.

I am not agreeing with his opinion.
I am not disagreeing with his opinion.

My concern is that theists and the likes who may be too myopic to read his post with logic and unsentimentality , will throw tantrums, castigate and abuse his views without any logical justification. And this is evident in the replies that followed so far.
If argument is to be made against a point, it Should be constructive.

And Mr Correctguy101 must have forgotten that what is right and what is wrong is never absolute. It is relative and most times based on individual perception. And it is somewhat erroneous to be assertive that something is wrong or right.

Bluezy13:
The OP is not criticizing the Existence of God nor the credit of creation.
The OP is not sentimental in his argument.
The OP is not against theism in his argument.
The OP tried to maintain neutrality even as his opinion tilted a little towards agnosticism.

I am not agreeing with his opinion.
I am not disagreeing with his opinion.

My concern is that theists and the likes who may be too myopic to read his post with logic and unsentimentality , will throw tantrums, castigate and abuse his views without any logical justification. And this is evident in the replies that followed so far.
If argument is to be made against a point, it Should be constructive.

And Mr Correctguy101 must have forgotten that what is right and what is wrong is never absolute. It is relative and most times based on individual perception. And it is somewhat erroneous to be assertive that something is wrong or right.

Valid point.

Terrible arguments put foward by atheists against the existence of God lies in breaking the logical law of identity which states that if you do not know the identity of a thing you can't say anything categorically about it.

Theists argue that God exist because they have read their holy books which helps them affirm that.
Atheists on the orher hand have refused to read the same holy books how will they possibly know what theists know?
Yet they categorically argue that God do not exist thereby breaking the simple logical law of identity. Hence, their arguments are always terribly bad.

If a science book teaches me that matter is anything that has mass, i will have to read the same science book first, in order to aquire the prerequisite knowledge to counter the argument, or i can't say anything categorically about whether matter has mass or not.
But atheists arguments aren't so.
Yet they come out boldly to say what they don't know thereby not being sincere to themselves.

As for agnostics who claim to steak to the law of logical thought, you will soon notice that they usually deviates from their point of view at the end of their argument and ended up with the same fallacious conclusion with atheists that there is no God, and you begin to wonder, are they spirits too like atheists?

paxonel:
Theists argue that God exist because they have read their holy books which helps them affirm that.
Atheists on the orher hand have refused to read the same holy books how will they possibly know what theists know?
Yet they categorically argue that God do not exist thereby breaking the simple logical law of identity. Hence, their arguments are always terribly bad.

If all you need to know a deity exist is by reading books, how many theistic gods are you worshipping then, Because We have hundreds of “holy books”.
Quran
Bhagavad Gita
Tanakh
New Testament
Theogony
Etc

Maynman:

If all you need to know a deity exist is by reading books, how many theistic gods are you worshipping then, Because We have hundreds of “holy books”.
Quran
Bhagavad Gita
Tanakh
New Testament
Theogony
Etc

therefore you have hundreds of books to read before you can debunk the idea of a deity, and you have not even started reading one.
With that, is it not more reasonable to remain neutral focusing on your atheism or agnostism and stop bothering theists about their beliefs in their deities and let them be, since it is not possible for you to read all their holy books?

The last time i check, theists don't really bother you atheists or agnostics about your beliefs, they allow you be, because they know nothing about what books have inspired you people into atheisms or agnotism

1. The Most hilarious one is trying to say that God exist because I exist.

paxonel:
therefore you have hundreds of books to read before you can debunk the idea of a deity, and you have not even started reading one.

How many books did you read before you picked one deity?
is it not more reasonable to remain neutral To all deities?

Workch:
1. The Most hilarious one is trying to say that God exist because I exist.

what is more hilarious is when you fail to understand that if theists are talking about God, they see him as a spirit and nothing more.
So if you say spirits don't exist because you don't see them, that doesn't mean that spirits are not real in their minds.so long their minds exist.

Remember, it is their minds we are talking about here, not your own mind. I see no reason why you are killing yourself over the thoughts of another person's mind as if you are sharing his mind with him, why not face yours?

The word spirit can also be defined in dictionary as a vital principle(not necessarily a body form) that supports life functions and events such aa karma.

For the fact that one has experience the statement YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW that it is real, is enough reason to have it in his mind that there is spirit being behind this principles. Then there are books in support of their thoughts from other people who experience the same thing, so you don't blame people for thinking what they think by countering their thoughts through being an atheists, you will only end up loosing woefully.

I used to ask some atheists, since they started countering theists on NL, how many theists have they succeeded in converting into atheism?
You will see that there is no such thing.

If truly anyone will be converted from one idea to another, he will not need to be countered or bashed. He will convert on his own having seeing reasons by himself

Maynman:

How many books did you read before you picked one deity?
is it not more reasonable to remain neutral To all deities?

because i didn't read all books, then i should drop the one i have read?

It does not follow now.

You have not read any one so you don't have any comment on anyone.
But me, i have read one, so i can comment on the one i have read

You see?

paxonel:
because i didn't read all books, then i should drop the one i have read?

It does not follow now.

You have not read any one so you don't have any comment on anyone.
But me, i have read one, so i can comment on the one i have read

You see?

Why do you conclude on only the one you read out of hundreds?
“therefore you have hundreds of books to read before you can worship the idea of any deity”.
Listen to your advice na, is it not more reasonable to remain neutral To all deities?
You haven’t read all books but you think the one you have read is the correct one?


I have also read about greek gods.

Maynman:

Why do you conclude on only the one you read out of hundreds?
Listen to your advice na, is it not more reasonable to remain neutral To all deities?
You haven’t read all books but you think the one you have read is the correct one?

I did not read to contest whether the one i have read is the correct one as much as others did not read to contest whether their own is the correct one.

We know only what is correct by how it apply to reality

I have also read about greek gods.

why do you choose to read about Greek gods, is it to affirm superiority of atheism over Greek deities?

paxonel:
I did not read to contest whether the one i have read is the correct one as much as others did not read to contest whether their own is the correct one.

You are supposed to read hundreds of books before you conclude on which one is the correct one na.

“therefore you have hundreds of books to read before you can worship the idea of any deity”.

Listen to your advice na, is it not more reasonable to remain neutral To all deities?
You haven’t read all books but you think the one you have read is the correct one?

paxonel:
We know only what is correct by how it apply to reality

So I do not need to read hundreds of books again

Maynman:

You are supposed to read hundreds of books before you conclude on which one is the correct one.

No!
I don't need to conclude which one is the correct one.
When apply the one i read to reality and i see that it is applicable, then I'm ok and satisfied
But you atheists have a great deal.
You will have to read all the hundreds of the existing holy books for you to be able to debunk the deity idea.

Remember, the word deity as it relate to atheism implies all the dieties, not just only one

paxonel:
No!
I don't need to conclude which one is the correct one.
When apply the one i read to reality and i see that it is applicable, then I'm ok and satisfied

You have to read hundreds of books and apply it to see if others are also not applicable.

Listen to your advice na, is it not more reasonable to remain neutral To all deities?
You haven’t read all books but you think the one you have read is the correct one and most applicable?

paxonel:
Remember, the word deity as it relate to atheism implies all the dieties, not just only one

Theism is more related to all deities, not just only one.
Theist, How come you are worshipping one deity?