Christian Arguments for God’s Existence - Refutations
-
Christian Arguments for God’s Existence - Refutations from Non-Christians. This thread is dedicated to refute some of the theological arguments commonly put forward by the christians to support the reality of their God, by exposing the logical fallacies inherent in these arguements. They will be dismantled point by point showing that these arguements are based purely on presumptions/presupposition and errorous cognitive function and epistemology.Thus their belief in God which is based on such shaky ground is unreality. The refutation to each of these arguements will be presented in each post.
-
Well.. where are the posts ?
-
1.The Authority of the Bible When asked to prove that God exists, the Christian will point to the Bible and say it is the best proof of God’s existence. The problem with this is that if we ask a Hindu, a Taoist, a Sikh or a Jew the same question they too will point to their respective holy books as proof of the existence of their gods. Why should we believe the Bible but not the holy books of all the other religions? Using the Bible to prove God’s existence is only valid if we already accept that it alone contains God’s words. However, we have no evidence that this is so. In fact, as we will demonstrate later, there is strong evidence that the Bible is a highly unreliable document. 2. The Existence of the Universe In their attempts to prove God’s existence Christians will sometimes say that the universe didn’t just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God. There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain we do not ask, “Who is making it rain?� because we know that rainis not caused by someone but by something — natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. When we see smooth stones in a river we do not ask, “Who polished those stones?� because we know that their smooth surface was not caused by someone but by something — natural causes like the abrasive action of water and sand. All of these things have a cause or causes but this need not be a being. It is the same with the universe — it was not brought into being by a god but by natural phenomena like nuclear fission, gravity, inertia, etc. However, even if we insist that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps the Hindu God, the God of Islam or one of the gods worshipped by tribal religions created it. After all, Christianity is not the only religion to claim that there is a creator god or gods. 3. The Argument from Design In response to the above refutation the Christian will maintain that the universe not only exists but that its existence shows perfect design. Here is, a Christian might say, an order and balance in the universe which point to its having been designed by a higher intelligence and that this higher intelligence is God. But as before there are some problems with this argument. Firstly, how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? Perhaps it was the gods of non-Christian religions who designed and created the universe. Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect itto need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design could be used to prove that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim. Next, we would have to ask whether the universe is really perfectly designed? We must ask this question because it is only natural to expect a perfect God to design a perfect universe. Let us look first at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn’t rain at all and millions die because of drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides and volcanic eruptions have caused havoc and death for centuries. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? ese and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God. Now let us look at animate phenomena. At a superficial glance nature seems to be beautiful and harmonious; all creatures are provided for and each has its task to perform. However, nature is utterly ruthless as any biologist or careful observer will confirm. To live, each creature has to feed on other creatures and struggle to avoid being eaten by other creatures. In nature there is no room for pity, love or mercy. If a loving God really designed everything, why did such a cruel design result? But the animal kingdom is not only imperfect in the ethical sense; it is also imperfect in that it often goes wrong. Every year millions of babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, are stillbornor die soon after birth. Why would a perfect creator God design such terrible things? So if there is design in the universe, much of it is either cruel or faulty. This indicates that the universe was not created by a perfect all-loving God. 4. The First Cause Argument Christians will sometimes say that everything has a cause, that there must be a first cause and that God is the first cause. This old argument contains its own refutation because if everything has a first cause then the first cause must also have a cause. There is another problem with the first cause argument. Logically, there is no good reason to assume that everything had a single first cause. Perhaps six, ten or three hundred causes occurring simultaneously caused everything. And as before, even if we accept the necessity of a first cause, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? None.
-
To begin such a debate, there must be some ground rules. E.g neutral position , biblical position or scientific position. After that, given that u mentioned epistemology, it is crucial that the definitions of 'God' or 'Knowledge' and 'Truth' be properly defined or there wont be any substantial debate but just turning into an anti-Christian troll flame thread. Arguments for and against the existence of God has raged on since the beginning of time by Philosophers, scientiests, theologians and the likes. What makes your argument more convincing then the said great sayers of their time ? It's either u believe or you don't. Sometimes u become a disbeliever through discovery and vice versa. Hence it is important that we define the rules of combat first.
-
5. Miracles Fundamentalist Christians claim that miracles are sometimes performed in God’s name and that this proves he exists. This is an appealing argument until it is looked at a little more closely. While Christians are quick to claim that because of their prayers the blind could see, the deaf could hear and crooked limbs were straightened, they are very slow in producing hard evidence to back up their claims. In fact, fundamentalist, evangelical and born again Christians are so anxious to prove that miracles have occurred at their prayer meetings that the truth often gets lost in a flood of wild claims, extravagant boasts and sometimes even conscious lies. However, it is true that things which are unusual or difficult to explain do sometimes happen during religious events — but not just for Christians. Hindus,Taoists, Buddhists all claim that their God or gods sometimes perform miracles. Christianity certainly does not have a monopoly on miraculous happenings. So if miracles performed in God’s name prove that he exists, then miracles performed in the name of the numerous other gods must likewise prove that they exist too. Fundamentalist Christians try to deny this fact by claiming that when miracles occur in other religions they are done through the power of the Devil. Perhaps the best way to counter this claim is to quote the Bible. When Jesus healed the sick his enemies accused him of doing this through the power of the Devil. He answered by saying that healing the sick results in good and if the Devil went around doing good he would destroy himself (Mk 3:22-26). Surely the same could be said for the miracles performed by Hindus, Jains, Jews or Sikhs. If the miracles they do result in good how can they be the work of the Devil? 6. The Argument for God’s Necessity Fundamentalist Christians often claim that only by believing in God can people have the strength to deal with life’s problems and therefore that belief in God is necessary. This claim is apparently supported by numerous books written by Christians who have endured and overcome various crises through their faith in God. Some of these books make highly inspiring reading so the claim that one can cope with problems only with God’s help sounds rather convincing — until we look a little more deeply. If this claim is true, we would expect that most non-Christians in the world to lead lives of emotional distress, confusion and hopelessness while most Christian through their faith in God would be able to unfailingly deal with their problems and never need to seek help from counsellors or psychiatrists. It is clear however, that people from non-Christian religions and even those with no religion are just as capable of dealing with life’s crises as Christians are — sometimes even better. It is also sometimes true that people who are devout Christians lose their faith in God after being confronted with serious personal problems. Consequently, the claim that belief in God is necessary to cope with and overcome problems is baseless. 7. The “Try and Disprove� Argument When Christians find they cannot prove their God’s existence with doubtful facts or faulty logic they may switch tactics and say that perhaps you can’t prove God exists, but you can’t disprove it either. This of course is quite true. You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist — but you can’t prove that the gods of Taoism, Hinduism, African spirit worship and a dozen other religions don’t exist either. In other words, despite all the hyperbole, the extravagant claims and the confident proclamations, there is no more evidence for the existence of the Christian God than there is for the gods worshipped in all the other religions. 8. The Testimony After everything else has failed the Christian may finally try to convince us that God exists by appealing to our emotions. Such a person will say, perhaps quite truthfully, “I used to be unhappy and discontented but after giving myself to God I am happy and at peace with myself.� Such testimonies can be deeply moving but what do they prove? There are millions of people whose lives became equally happy and meaningful after they embraced Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam. Likewise, there are no doubt many people whose lives have not changed for the better after they became Christians — the same weaknesses and problems sometimes remain. So this argument, like all the others, does not prove the existence of the Christian God.
-
Originally posted by Ghostpel:
1.The Authority of the Bible
When asked to prove that God exists, the Christian will point to the Bible and say it is the best proof of God’s existence. The problem with this is that if we ask a Hindu, a Taoist, a Sikh or a Jew the same question they too will point to their respective holy books as proof of the existence of their gods. Why should we believe the Bible but not the holy books of all the other religions? Using the Bible to prove God’s existence is only valid if we already accept that it alone contains God’s words. However, we have no evidence that this is so. In fact, as we will demonstrate later, there is strong evidence that the Bible is a highly unreliable document.
2. The Existence of the Universe
In their attempts to prove God’s existence Christians will sometimes say that the universe didn’t just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God. There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain we do not ask, “Who is making it rain?� because we know that rainis not caused by someone but by something — natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. When we see smooth stones in a river we do not ask, “Who polished those stones?� because we know that their smooth surface was not caused by someone but by something — natural causes like the abrasive action of water and sand.
All of these things have a cause or causes but this need not be a being. It is the same with the universe — it was not brought into being by a god but by natural phenomena like nuclear fission, gravity, inertia, etc. However, even if we insist that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps the Hindu God, the God of Islam or one of the gods worshipped by tribal religions created it. After all, Christianity is not the only religion to claim that there is a creator god or gods.
3. The Argument from Design
In response to the above refutation the Christian will maintain that the universe not only exists but that its existence shows perfect design. Here is, a Christian might say, an order and balance in the universe which point to its having been designed by a higher intelligence and that this higher intelligence is God. But as before there are some problems with this argument. Firstly, how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? Perhaps it was the gods of non-Christian religions who designed and created the universe. Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect itto need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design could be used to prove that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim.
Next, we would have to ask whether the universe is really perfectly designed? We must ask this question because it is only natural to expect a perfect God to design a perfect universe. Let us look first at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn’t rain at all and millions die because of drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides and volcanic eruptions have caused havoc and death for centuries. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? ese and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God.
Now let us look at animate phenomena. At a superficial glance nature seems to be beautiful and harmonious; all creatures are provided for and each has its task to perform. However, nature is utterly ruthless as any biologist or careful observer will confirm. To live, each creature has to feed on other creatures and struggle to avoid being eaten by other creatures. In nature there is no room for pity, love or mercy. If a loving God really designed everything, why did such a cruel design result? But the animal kingdom is not only imperfect in the ethical sense; it is also imperfect in that it often goes wrong. Every year millions of babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, are stillbornor die soon after birth. Why would a perfect creator God design such terrible things? So if there is design in the universe, much of it is either cruel or faulty. This indicates that the universe was not created by a perfect all-loving God.
4. The First Cause Argument
Christians will sometimes say that everything has a cause, that there must be a first cause and that God is the first cause. This old argument contains its own refutation because if everything has a first cause then the first cause must also have a cause. There is another problem with the first cause argument. Logically, there is no good reason to assume that everything had a single first cause. Perhaps six, ten or three hundred causes occurring simultaneously caused everything. And as before, even if we accept the necessity of a first cause, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? None.
It still does not refute the existence of God.. or a God or Gods or whatever Supreme Being. It still also does not refute the existence of a Christian God. It merely suggests a possibility that perhaps there are more than one God. -
To each his own.
Ayah Pin has about 300+ followers. Its their right, and who am I to disagree.
-
well well well, the debate on the existence of god has been ongoing for the past 2 millenniums. If god exists, then surely all scientists in the world would have concurred and establish this fact and appear in science journals and textbooks.
To me, god exists in bible.
-
"......Well.. where are the posts ?...." Relax........ can only post 1 post in 5 mins lah ........... Trickling in slowing................... hehehehehe........... ahhahahahaha
-
lol.. k k. Anyways, at least cite your source from http://www.budsas.org/ebud/beyond/beyond01.htm and the Author A.L. De Silva.
:P
-
"It still does not refute the existence of God.. or a God or Gods or whatever Supreme Being. It still also does not refute the existence of a Christian God. It merely suggests a possibility that perhaps there are more than one God." I'm posting in a christian forum, of course talking about your christian God lah..... ....Definitely not talking about the Brahman and Tao leh..........which is much more sophisticated than the fairy-tale christian GOD..........need the Buddhist experts to dismantle. These refutations are suffice to dismantle the christian God which is a product of illogic.
-
You are not debating or refuting anything by cutting and pasting. I might as well cut and paste what others have said and in response to De Silva's work. -_-"
U might as well post this in the Buddhist Forum advising them how to reject evengalist. Because that is the whole purpose of the book.
Yes.. the Brahman and Tao... *clap clap* so sophisticated.
-
the bible couldnt even get the facts right. earth was not square and it is at least 6 billion years old from science perspectives.
-
christians say that Jesus died and rose from the dead and this fact is recognised by history as from the birth of christ onwards our calcendar calculate from 1 AD onwards while before the birth of christ our calender marks it as BC.
They say that only Jesus who is God can rise from the dead and all other religion God did not rise from the dead.
How do you rebute this argument?
-
<<<<>>>>>> In general, epistemology concern will the nature of knowledge and the means to knowledge. What is the nature of the christian's knowledge to their God, and the means to this knowledge?????? Answer: The Bible that is DEEMED to be Revelations from God or God's words. On what basis can you claim that what the prophets experienced is a 'revelation from God"??????? What exactly constitutes a 'Divine revelation' as opposed to just some purely mental, abeit rare, phenomenon?????? Answer: JUST ASSUMED to be... Many people throughout the ages (including today) had experienced some seemingly unexplainable mental phenomenon that can be interpretated variously as divine revelation or God manifestion to suuport their claim of God's existence. It depends on whether these people want to make it big or not. If they want to make it big, then we would have had much more 'religions' than the dozen we have now. Therefore, it is important to fully understand the nature of our mind. Without a good understanding of how the deepest nature of of mind functions, we can easily be FOOLed by our own mind. The christians, muslims...... etc, as ignorant as they are, have said that the buddhists are playing 'Mind Game" by "freezing" their mind through meditation. But, rather, i think that it is the chrisitian and muslim that are being Fooled by their own mind by refusing to look deeper into their mind in a manner uncontrived by their own presuppositions. Perphaps, they are too afraid to abandoned their 'holy' book which they assume as "divine revelation" In summary, for the christian (as well as the other abrahamic religions), their MEANS to KNOWLEDGE is based on HUMAN's SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of MENTAL EXPERIENCES within their LIMITED FRAMEWORK of HUMAN LOGIC complemented with ASSUMPTIONS. Assumption / presupposition is NOT EQUAL to knowledge or truth lah...... Dun invent your own equation lehhh............
-
"""....After that, given that u mentioned epistemology, it is crucial that the definitions of ‘God’ or ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Truth’ be properly defined or there wont be any substantial debate but just turning into an anti-Christian troll flame thread......"""""""" In general, epistemology concern will the nature of knowledge and the means to knowledge. What is the nature of the christian's knowledge to their God, and the means to this knowledge?????? Answer: The Bible that is DEEMED to be Revelations from God or God's words. On what basis can you claim that what the prophets experienced is a 'revelation from God"??????? What exactly constitutes a 'Divine revelation' as opposed to just some purely mental, abeit rare, phenomenon?????? Answer: JUST ASSUMED to be... Many people throughout the ages (including today) had experienced some seemingly unexplainable mental phenomenon that can be interpretated variously as divine revelation or God manifestion to suuport their claim of God's existence. It depends on whether these people want to make it big or not. If they want to make it big, then we would have had much more 'religions' than the dozen we have now. Therefore, it is important to fully understand the nature of our mind. Without a good understanding of how the deepest nature of of mind functions, we can easily be FOOLed by our own mind. The christians, muslims...... etc, as ignorant as they are, have said that the buddhists are playing 'Mind Game" by "freezing" their mind through meditation. But, rather, i think that it is the chrisitian and muslim that are being Fooled by their own mind by refusing to look deeper into their mind in a manner uncontrived by their own presuppositions. Perphaps, they are too afraid to abandoned their 'holy' book which they assume as "divine revelation" In summary, for the christian (as well as the other abrahamic religions), their MEANS to KNOWLEDGE is based on HUMAN's SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of MENTAL EXPERIENCES within their LIMITED FRAMEWORK of HUMAN LOGIC complemented with ASSUMPTIONS. Assumption / presupposition is NOT EQUAL to knowledge or truth lah...... Dun invent your own equation lehhh............
-
""""""""You are not debating or refuting anything by cutting and pasting. I might as well cut and paste what others have said and in response to De Silva's work. -_-""""""" I am helping De Silva to make his refutaions to the weak christian arguements more well known to the people, be they buddhists or non-buddhists. By the way, this is also the intention of De Silva. Care to post these responses to De Silva's work???????? Yah, though I may not have disprove the existence of God per se, at least the refutations by De Silva have shown that the christian arguements are TOO WEAK to STAND on ITS OWN. Their 'logical' arguements intended sell their case logically, ironically, contain too many logical loopholes. It is just like using a NET with the aim to catch WATER.
-
""""A.L. De Silva is an Australian convert to Buddhism, has written a book, Beyond Belief, designed to refute the arguments of Christian evangelists. I might as well start cut and paste Christian Apologetic's books based on historical and archaeological evidence, theological and philosophical arguments and scientific investigation. The list.... is quite long.... lol""""""""""""""" Care to post these christian apologetics here???????? Let me has an eye-opening experiences then...... Are these apologetics, based on so-called historical and archaeological evidence, theological and philosophical arguments and scientific investigation, the same in quality as those De Silva had refuted?????? Had they been refuted as well????? haahahahahha............ ehheheheheehehe............
-
even god and bible was created and written by man. this was and is still a irrefutable fact, whether they like it or not. like I said, god exists in bible the way superman exists in movies, cartoons and DC Comics
-
like what susan teo mentioned, the stories in the bible were too human to be divine, obviously written by man. on the genesis of evil, why lucifer have thoughts of betraying god when he was an angel in heaven? where did that came about when there was no evil in heaven? it is inherent in all of us, as long as we are not enlightened.
-
Yawn, sianzzzz~~! Cockado!
-
If there is a male God, there must be a femail God?
-
Hey Ghostpel,
Good work there. As an ex-christian myself, I agree with you.
I was so into the whole bible and religion thing in the past. It took a lot of courage and curiosity to start questioning the reliability and accuracy of the bible.
-
Originally posted by Bmax25:
If there is a male God, there must be a femail God?
you missed my article on God's wife liao...................
from Western Biblical scholars.....................God had a wife.................forgot her name liao................
God also shared this wife with other GODS.................
so the christian god is a wife-swapper............
-
Originally posted by Tcmc: