Q: What are the three most compelling arguments for the existence of gods - concise answer, name it if it has a formal name. And what are the most straightforward refutations of these arguments - concise answer.
Grok: Arguments for the Existence of Gods:
1. Cosmological Argument:
Description: The argument posits that everything that exists has a cause, and there must be a first cause or "uncaused cause" which is God.
Refutation: The universe might be eternal, negating the need for a first cause, or the cause could be an impersonal force rather than a personal deity.
2. Teleological Argument (or Design Argument):
Description: The complexity and apparent design of the universe suggest a designer, akin to how a watch implies a watchmaker.
Refutation: Complex structures can emerge from natural processes (evolution by natural selection), and the universe might not be precisely "designed" for life, considering most of the cosmos is hostile to it.
3. Ontological Argument:
Description: Proposed by Anselm, it argues that God is the greatest conceivable being; existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone, hence God must exist.
Refutation: Existence isn't necessarily a property that can be predicated in this manner; the argument might commit the fallacy of assuming that because something can be thought, it must exist.
Straightforward Refutations:
Cosmological: Challenges the necessity of a personal first cause by suggesting naturalistic explanations like the Big Bang or an eternal universe.
Teleological: Points out that apparent design can result from natural selection and physical laws without a designer.
Ontological: Criticizes the logic by arguing that "existence" isn't a property like "redness" or "largeness" that can be part of a definition.
These arguments and their refutations highlight the ongoing philosophical debate about the existence of deities, showing that each argument has its strengths but also faces significant challenges.
Space and time are very much connected, and cannot be separated. Using general relativity discovered by my uncle Albert, All objects travel through spacetime at c=299,792,458 metres per second but since objects move through the spacial dimensions x y and z, it moves slower through the time dimension t when velocity through x y or z is higher.
To simplify matters, let's forget y and z, and make a graph of v of t /v of x. When v of x =0, v of t =c. When v of x =c, v of t= 0. The graph should resemble a circle, being
(v of x)²+(v of y)²=c².
I've done some trigonometry to prove the graph of a sphere, involving v of x, v of y and v of t, the graph would be
c²=(v of t)²+(v of x)²+(v of y)². Following this pattern to its logical conclusion,
c²= (v of t)²+(v of x)²+(v of y)²+(v of z)².
There are two possibilities when regarding spacetime, either that it is this infinite grid that maps the entire universe in xyzt or that it spans as far as matter does and is expanding as matter and energy moves away from the origin. I will assume the second possibility for now, but I will get back to the first.
Time to go off on a tangent and discuss causation.
We infer that one event causes another when we repeatedly and consistently observe one following the other. This observation is constant conjunction. The causal principle is the idea that every effect must have a cause. It is justified empirically by method of induction. We are yet to discover any effect without a cause, however there is no logical reason why a block of iron cannot pop into existence in front of me and not have any cause for having done so. There is no reason as to why a huge surge of energy cannot come into existence without cause, and in fact, there is evidence in favour of it. In a vacuum, virtual particles appear and disappear, suggesting that energy can come from nothing.
There is evidence for the big bang, with cosmic microwave background radiation or cmbr, as well as red shift and blue shift to suggest that the universe is expanding from a singular point.
So before the big bang, was there matter or was there not? If there was no matter in the universe, then there might have been no spacetime, and therefore no events could occur, let alone occur one after the other. With no spacetime, nothing can come into being, as that would require time to exist. The universe does in fact exist. This suggests that spacetime was present before the big bang, and had always existed. Therefore if all of the premises are true, then an infinite regress is not only possible but necessary for the existence of anything.
Now let's discuss the first possibility of spacetime, that it is an infinite grid in x y and z. Therefore, it ought to have an infinite t axis. This suggests an infinite regress.
There are some criticisms of an infinite regress, such as some infinities being larger than other infinities, however consider the infinite set of odd numbers and the infinite set of all integers, which is definitionally twice as large. Georg Cantor had done a lot to prove this claim, hence the arguments of Aquinas and Ghazali regarding infinity plus one or planetary motion fail to rule out an infinite regress
Start with observations about how universe works and from this try to explain why it exists. also known as the first cause argument for the existence of God. Fundamentally, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the existence of the universe requires an explanation, which must be God.
Aquinas’s First Way: the unmoved mover
In Aquinas’s First Way, he concentrated on the existence of change, or motion, in the world.
Everything is both in a state of actuality (how it is) and potentiality (what it might become).
All things that are moved (the potentiality becomes the new actuality) are moved by something else, things can’t move themselves.
The mover is moved by something else, which is moved by something else and then something else.
This cannot go on for infinity because there would be no first mover so nothing would have started moving at all.
So, there must be a first mover.
This first unmoved mover is God.
Aquinas’s Second Way: the uncaused causer
Aquinas’s Second Way is similar to his first, but it focuses on the concept of change.
Nothing can be its own efficient cause because it cannot have existed before itself.
Things that are causes must themselves be caused, otherwise the effect would be taken away.
We cannot go back to infinity (infinite regress is impossible) because there would be no first cause so all later effects couldn’t have happened.
Therefore, there must be a first efficient cause that is not instead caused.
The first uncaused causer is what everyone understands to be God.
Aquinas’s Third Way: contingency and necessity
Everything in nature is contingent, it relies on something to have brought it into existence.
If we trace back, nothing existed, but then nothing could have begun to exist because nothing can come from nothing (everything has to come from something)
Therefore, there needs to be a being that isn’t contingent: a necessary being.
Necessary beings could have their necessity come from another being.
But this cannot go back to infinity.
So, there must be a being that has its own necessity which causes other beings.
This is what people call God.
Gottfried Leibniz
Leibniz raised the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’, questioning why anything exists at all. He offered a form of the cosmological argument, based on his Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that everything which exists must have a reason or a cause for its existence. According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason:
If something exists, there must be a reason why that thing exists.
If a statement is true, there must be a reason why that statement is true.
If something happens, there must be a reason why that thing happens.
Whether or not we know the reason why something exists, or is true, or happens, there still must be a reason, known or unknown. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternal or not – we still need a reason for it.
Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument
Can we make the jump from Aquinas’s observations to the Christian God? The effect cannot immediately point towards a particular cause because causation is a psychological concept, we cannot make links that are beyond our experience – we could imagine anything to create the universe: a stupid God, a committee of Gods, a demon etc. God is just one of a large number of possible hypotheses.
Is it plausible for anything but a transcendent God to create the universe? Aristotle, Aquinas: need a necessary being that would have to transcend the rest of the universe to exist in a unique, all-powerful way.
When we look at the world, we have only the effect to look at – the cause is hidden from us. He uses the example of a pair of scales with one end hidden from view: we can see that the other end outweighs it, but we have no means of knowing by how much.
It isn’t necessary to suppose that everything has a cause
Just because everything in the universe has a cause or reason to exist, doesn’t mean the entire universe has a cause or reason to exist (just because you can explain the cause of 20 particles of matter doesn’t mean you can explain the cause of the group of the particles)
Bertrand Russell: just because every human being has a mother, doesn’t mean that the human species as a whole has a mother.
BUT modern science suggests there is a definite beginning to the universe
Hume: Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?’ Why could we not accept that the universe is eternal and the cause of all the things in it rather than looking to God for an explanation
Bear with me, I'm going to talk about the Cosmological Argument like everyone else (i.e. pretending I'm the first one to do such a thing in human history). Firstly, the premise of speculating about the nature of the beginning of the universe is a pretty pointless endeavor. Perhaps the idea of endless regression is nonsense (mostly, I think it's just hard to imagine, which, it will be noted, is not the same as being untrue), but it doesn't change the fact that the idea of the universe being created seems impossible.
I'll repeat:
It is impossible for Time and Space to have been created.
Creating is a verb which requires time and space. How can you create something without Time in which to create it? How can you create something without Space in which it can exist or not exist?
If indeed any uncaused cause exists, there is no reason to believe that such a thing would be unrestricted by time and space and certainly no reason to believe that it CREATED time and space. You can't create time and space anymore than you can create a married bachelor. It's a logical contradiction on the face of it.
That's not even mentioning the stuff about "Perfection" which is so patently ridiculous, I'm genuinely surprised that more people aren't embarrassed by it.
Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ: "Does The Universe Have a Cause?"
Fantastic talk by Alex J. O’Connor (CosmicSkeptic) about a flaw in the ontological argument. I’ve previously made posts about the cosmological argument and how it’s used by theists to support the idea of a god, but this is an angle that I never considered.
I highly recommend you take the time to watch this video, or at least until the 23 minute mark (after that he takes questions and has an open discussion with the audience). I also recommend that you go follow Mr. O’Connor on social media under the name CosmicSkeptic. He’s an incredibly smart guy who runs a youtube channel with awesome content, and I’m sure he’ll be making even more of a name for himself as time goes on.
An overview post of this talk to come soon, but until then, here’s the original video.
9/100 days of productivity (10.1.17)
//
Came home early from school to get some work done, all we’re doing is revision rn for the mock exams. My first one is tomorrow, History, I need to revise more as I’m not ready yet ahh! Wish me luck! Here are my philosophy notes I did today, I’m so proud of them lol
//
I talked to an old friend for the first time in nearly a year today, it felt so nice I’ve really missed her, yeah that was my highlight! What did you do today?
Debates about the existence of deities have shaped philosophy, science, and culture for centuries. While theism remains prevalent worldwide,
Published: May 23, 2025
Arguments Against God’s Existence: Key Philosophical Debates
Debates about the existence of deities have shaped philosophy, science, and culture for centuries. While theism remains prevalent worldwide, a growing number of individuals find the case for atheism—disbelief in gods—compelling. This article explores the major philosophical arguments atheists use to contend that no deities exist, breaking down key debates and examining why many find atheism convincing. For further reading, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Cosmological Argument and Its Critiques
The cosmological argument posits that everything that exists has a cause, and that this chain of causation must ultimately lead to a first cause—often identified as God. Proponents argue that the universe’s existence requires an explanation beyond itself. However, atheists challenge this argument on several grounds:
Special Pleading: If everything requires a cause, why is God exempt? This exception appears arbitrary.
Infinite Regress: Some philosophers argue that an infinite regress of causes is not logically impossible, undermining the need for a first cause.
Alternative Explanations: Modern cosmology offers naturalistic explanations for the universe’s origins, such as quantum fluctuations, that do not require a deity.
For a deeper dive, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Cosmological Argument.
The Problem of Evil
One of the most influential arguments against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent deity is the problem of evil. If such a god exists, why does unnecessary suffering occur? Atheists and many philosophers argue that the existence of gratuitous evil is incompatible with the traditional concept of God. Key points include:
Logical Problem: The existence of evil appears logically inconsistent with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
Evidential Problem: The sheer amount and variety of suffering in the world make the existence of a benevolent god unlikely.
Theodicies: While some theists propose justifications (theodicies) for evil, such as free will or soul-making, critics argue these do not account for natural disasters or seemingly pointless suffering.
For more, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Problem of Evil.
Pascal’s Wager and Its Limitations
Pascal’s Wager suggests that believing in God is the safest bet: if God exists, believers gain everything; if not, they lose nothing. Atheists and critics highlight several flaws in this reasoning:
False Dichotomy: The wager assumes only the Christian God is possible, ignoring the multitude of deities humans have believed in.
Belief as a Choice: Genuine belief cannot be willed simply for pragmatic reasons; belief is not a mere wager.
Ethical Concerns: The wager encourages belief based on self-interest rather than evidence or sincerity.
For a critical analysis, see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Pascal’s Wager.
Arguments from Lack of Evidence
Many atheists argue that the absence of compelling evidence for any deity is itself a strong reason for disbelief. This position is often summarized as: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Key aspects include:
Burden of Proof: The burden lies with those making the claim (i.e., that a god exists), not with skeptics.
Analogy to Other Claims: Just as we do not believe in unicorns or fairies without evidence, atheists see no reason to believe in gods without proof.
Empirical Standards: Scientific and philosophical standards demand evidence before accepting extraordinary claims.
For more on this approach, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Atheism and Agnosticism.
Arguments from Logical Contradictions
Some atheists contend that the concept of God, as defined by many religions, is logically incoherent. Examples include:
Omnipotence Paradox: Can an all-powerful being create a stone so heavy that even it cannot lift it? If yes, then there is something it cannot do; if no, then it is not all-powerful.
Omniscience vs. Free Will: If God knows everything, including future human actions, how can humans have free will?
Incompatible Properties: Attributes like omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience may be mutually incompatible when examined closely.
For further reading, see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Omnipotence Paradox.
Why Many Find the Case for Atheism Convincing
Atheism’s appeal often lies in its commitment to reason, evidence, and intellectual honesty. Many find that the arguments for theism do not withstand critical scrutiny, while the arguments against the existence of deities are robust and multifaceted. The willingness to question deeply held beliefs and demand evidence is seen as a virtue by many atheists and secular thinkers.
For those interested in exploring these debates further, reputable resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy offer comprehensive overviews and in-depth analyses. The philosophical conversation continues to evolve, inviting all to engage with the evidence and arguments on their own terms.
==
Faith and evidence are opposites. You only need faith not only in spite of a lack of evidence, but because there is no evidence. Or more precisely, because there can be no evidence.
If they had evidence, they wouldn't need faith. If faith was any good, they wouldn't need to pretend they had evidence.
