Anti god arguments

Xian Arguments:

Anselm's

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must be necessary.
4. God exists

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

Descarte's

1. I exist
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept.
4. The concept must have come from God.
5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists.

Outright criticisms: As an imperfect being, you don't have the ability to create such a concept, imperfect beings create imperfect concepts, therefore the concept of god is imperfect.

Kant's

1. The summum bonum is where moral virtue and happiness coincide.
2. We are rationally obliged to attain the summum bonum .
3. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
4. If there is no God or afterlife, it is not possible to attain the summum bonum .
5. God (or the afterlife) must exist.

I feel inclined to agree with Nietzsche's take on Kant's morality of obligation: “It's idiotic.”

Dil's CounterArguments:

  Argument from Reducto ad absurdum

1. •  I exist
2. •  I have an idea of a supremely fantastical creature
3. •  As a mere mortal I would be unable to create such a concept
4. •  The concept must have come from the Flying Spaghetti Monster
5. •  To be a supremely fantastical creature, The Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist.
6. •  The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

1. Objects that are conceived must exist in reality
2. I can conceive of an invisible pink unicorn
3. Invisible pink unicorns must exist.

1. One cannot conceive of an entity more fantastical than The Invisible Pink Unicorn
2. The concept of The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists in human understanding.
3. Invisible pink unicorns don't exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4. The concept of an Invisible Pink Unicorn existing in reality exists in human understanding
5. If an unicorn exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is more fantastical than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as the state of being fantastical)
6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is more fantastical than The Invisible Pink unicorn, the entity that is most fantastical (logical self-contradiction).
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists in reality. (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

1. Boiling it down: God is great
2. God must exist.

More humorously:

1. I am great.
2. I must be god.

Argument from Incomprehension

1. We have finite minds.
2. God is infinite
3. A finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite
4. Religion claims comprehension
5. Religion is meaningless/false

1. God is infinite
2. Every part of god is infinite
3. We have finite minds
4. Finite objects cannot contain infinite items
5. Our minds cannot contain any part of god since every part of god is infinite
6. God is inconceivable
7. Religion is meaningless/false

Argument against perfection argument

1. Humans are not perfect
2. Our senses are imperfect
3. We have never experienced perfection
4. We have no way of determining if something is perfect
5. We cannot know if god is perfect
6. Argument from perfection is flawed on the premises which is not a premises, but a prediction/idea/abstraction

• Basing an argument on a prediction is not good enough.

1. People are imperfect
2. We create imperfect concepts
3. An imperfect mind cannot contain perfect concepts
4. Our concept of perfection is imperfect
5. We cannot know perfection
6. We cannot know if god is perfect

Moral Argument Refutation:

1. If God doesn't exist, morals will fall into decay (assumed premise to be refuted)
2. Godless people still have morals
3. God is not needed for morality (refutes initial premise)
4. Without God, nobody would be obliged to do good (assumed premise to be refuted)
5. Non-religious people still feel obliged to do good
6. #1 must be false from #2

Hume's argument (not mine):

1. The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction. For example, I am a married bachelor.
2. The resulting contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
3. It is possible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is not inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
4. Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God.