How to Argue against the Existence of God

Edited by Santory3, KateHoran, Adelaide, StrawbewwryPie and 3 others

Nothing can be proven not to exist . Even if you cannot hear, see or measure something, it does not mean that it does not or could not exist (practical example are black swans that were long thought not to exist until their discovery in 1697). You can, however, argue about the probability of God's existence. As faith is a very personal matter, such debates will most likely severe the relationships between believers and non-believers.This article is a stub and requires additional attention in order to keep the forum fair and balanced.

Edit

Steps

1. 1
Do not try to debate or argue against god's existence. You can only reason a person out of something they initially have reasoned themselves into. Faith cannot be reasoned.

2. 2

Do not use the age-old debate arguments such as "how could an omnipotent allknowing god allow such evil as pedophilia or the Jewish holocaust" etc.Each religion has their own version on God's reasons or simply state that God's reasons cannot be understood but should be accepted, as tests of faith etc. Debating this leads no-where.

3. 3
As there are hundreds of religions on Earth and each has a slightly or extremely different description of God's meaning and message, question raises: is it probable that just one of the religions has got it right and the others are driven by false beliefs? Will eating pork lead to hell or other lost place? About 40% of the worlds population (Muslims, Jews and Hindus) believe so (33% of world's population is Christians of all sects).

4. 4
Theoretically speaking, if God existed, such a divine force would make priests and churches obsolete as they no longer would need to guide us on how God wants us to live our lives. An existing God would surely be powerful enough to guide us without the middle-men.

5. 5

Religious people often pull science into the debate, claiming that it cannot be taken seriously as the theories and formulas change continuously. As a counterargument one can say that science acknowledges it's mistakes and welcomes new information after it has been accepted by a decent number of the community, where the holy scriptures have not changed and state rules so different from present morale that even fundamental believers cannot follow all the rules of their religion (such as the stoning of people who work on sabbath). There is of course the counter-counterargument that a god may exist even though man would have written the holy books. But would an omnipotent divine force allow such falsifications of it's words?