Proof of God's Non-existance

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something does not have a cause, it has no cause.
(2) I say the universe has no cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has no cause.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) I cannot conceive a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) Check out the creationists. Aren't they simple?
(2) No God could have made them so simple.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that bat ugly?
(2) No God could have made it so grotesque.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM EVOLUTION
(1) If creation is false, then evolution is true, and therefore God does not exist.
(2) Creation can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I don't believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO NOT believe in God! I DO NOT believe in God! I do not I do not I do not I DO NOT believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.

Thanks, I noticed the link earlier but it's much more convenient to read it straight off the page. Now I can have proof that God does not exist as well as the proof that it exists which I read earlier. It comforts me to know that God does and does not exist.

Originally posted by dj2becker
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something does not have a cause, it has no cause.
(2) I say the universe has no cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has no cause.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) I cannot conceive a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
...[text shortened]... in God! I do not I do not I do not I DO NOT believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.

Copycat.

Originally posted by Halitose
Copycat.

Stole a---Rat?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Stole a---Rat?

Hey! That's my job...

ARGUMENT FROM EVOLUTION
(1) If creation is false, then evolution is true, and therefore God does not exist.
(2) Creation can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

This one reminds me of that kid's fable, The Emperor's New Clothes. In fact, the ID cultural movement in the US has some strong parallels to that story.


ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I don't believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

This one is a parody of sorts of Prof. Ted Drange's Argument from Non-Belief.

Two of many originally pasted by dj2becker
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that bat ugly?
(2) No God could have made it so grotesque.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM EVOLUTION
(1) If creation is false, then evolution is true, and therefore God does not exist.
(2) Creation can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

Ah. How nice.

The first argument above sounds just like the most common support of Intelligent Design (and/or attack on evoluntionary theory) that I've heard: "Look at ___. Isn't it beautiful and/or complex? That could never exist on its own. Therefore, evolution is wrong, and an intelligent designer (aka God) made it."

The second one is merely hilarious because of the absurdity of (1): who believes that "If creation is false then evolution is true." ?? Evolution has no connection to creation, and there's certainly nothing to suggest that they can't both be wrong.

Originally posted by echecero
Ah. How nice.

The first argument above sounds just like the most common support of Intelligent Design (and/or attack on evoluntionary theory) that I've heard: "Look at ___. Isn't it beautiful and/or complex? That could never exist on its own. Therefore, evolution is wrong, and an intelligent designer (aka God) made it."

The second one is merely hi ...[text shortened]... on to creation, and there's certainly nothing to suggest that they can't [b]both be wrong.[/b]

I suppose the only reason why they can't both be wrong is because no wise-ass has come up with a reasonable alternative to the two theories of origin. If you do, go claim the prize from Ted Turner, I hear it's a lot of cash!

Originally posted by dj2becker
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something does not have a cause, it has no cause.
(2) I say the universe has no cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has no cause.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) I cannot conceive a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
...[text shortened]... in God! I do not I do not I do not I DO NOT believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.

Do you really believe in that kiddo?

God indeed works in mysterious ways..
....oh hold on.. that means... what was that again..
(2) Therefore, GOD exists!

Hallelujah..!!

Originally posted by RatX
I suppose the only reason why they can't both be wrong is because no wise-ass has come up with a reasonable alternative to the two theories of origin. If you do, go claim the prize from Ted Turner, I hear it's a lot of cash!

Even if your statement were true that doesn't mean that they can't both be wrong.

Originally posted by telerion
Even if your statement were true that doesn't mean that they can't both be wrong.

Ok. There just ain't another perspective (are we created or self-existing?) anything else proposed is on the lunatic fringe (uh... we're not really here, uh... we just think we are, just ask frogstomp, he'll enlighten you).

* Starting stopwatch on frogstomp's stomping about and throwing dust in the air and flashing his mirrors, again... *

(flippancy disclaimer .......... in fine print)

Originally posted by RatX
Ok. There just ain't another perspective (are we created or self-existing?) anything else proposed is on the lunatic fringe (uh... we're not really here, uh... we just think we are, just ask frogstomp, he'll enlighten you).

* Starting stopwatch on frogstomp's stomping about and throwing dust in the air and flashing his mirrors, again... *

(flippancy disclaimer .......... in fine print)

Why would believing we might not really be here be more on "the lunatic fringe" than believing an all-knowing, all-powerful being (that we cannot verify is here) decided to create us for no particuarly reason?
Since we cannot actually know the nature of the world around us (we are limited by the perceptions forced upon us by our senses), we do the best with what we can...but we can never actually know what the world is like.

Originally posted by echecero
Why would believing we might not really be here be more on "the lunatic fringe" than believing an all-knowing, all-powerful being (that we cannot verify is here) decided to create us for no particuarly reason?
Since we cannot actually know the nature of the world around us (we are limited by the perceptions forced upon us by our senses), we do the best with what we can...but we can never actually know what the world is like.

decided to create us for no particuarly reason?

Before you spit out more unsubstantiated claims of Christianity, read a little of the Bible. It explains plenty on the nature of the world (which is yet to be refuted) and the purpose of man.

"Create us for no particuarly < (what's that) reason? This is what you've unfortunately come to - science can't answer all our questions, we can't even truly know the nature of the world around us as "perceptions" can't be trusted etc and so forth.

Go watch the matrix again...

Originally posted by dj2becker
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something does not have a cause, it has no cause.
(2) I say the universe has no cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has no cause.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) I cannot conceive a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
...[text shortened]... in God! I do not I do not I do not I DO NOT believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something does not have a cause, it has no cause.
-on what authority does what you (a mere mortal) say become reality
(2) I say the universe has no cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has no cause.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) I cannot conceive a perfect God.
-God conceived you, he's more than you are, so the creation cannot fanthom it's creators; heck you'll be lucky enough to conceive a minutely small part of him, after studying him for a life-time.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence
-how do you determine that "the missing quality" is existence, and not one of the other ones. because to have missing qualities means you exist is just that you don't have all of the perfect qualities, and by the way, he is perfect, cause the bible says; "Taste and see that God is good.".
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
not necessary for what end???
Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."'
To live longer than that you will need His Spirit to content with you for longer, and that is only possible if God is necessary.
My own view directed to you is this, you are like a child, who does not know what it takes to stay alive, and does not know the container they're in (of family, home, study-provisions etc) necessary to be made so that you can exist. But as time goes by you and you get your own kids, you come to love your parents for who they are because you now know that "Heck they were necessary".
Now as man, we shall never be parents, but always children of God, so we will never ever know what it actually takes/necessitates to have a thriving human race living on a planet. All it takes is one big astroid the size of the sun that whams right into the earth and blows us away. but for all these millions of years, they have all been diverted.
Think out of the box, not just within it.
,
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) Check out the creationists. Aren't they simple?
(2) No God could have made them so simple.
-I assume that is your own opinion, anyway let me let you in on a little secret. The strong are not the arrogant and brash, it is the meek that are strong. Anybody can decide to force their will on somebody, but it takes strength to hold your horses, and do what is right, even though all your innards are telling you to wrench his soul out of him. That is what true strength and character is.
A lot like our God, whom david asked in Psalm 8:4
"what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" but instead of just wiping out the nuisance of the human race, he re-strains himself.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that bat ugly?
-beauty is in the eye of the beholder, relative to a bat man is ugly, and relative to a bat, a bat is beautiful. Can you prescribe to a bat what is beauty???
(2) No God could have made it so grotesque.
-The definition of grotesque is a mind-set ingrained within you, and differs from culture to culture, there are many things I call OK, and you call grotesque, and besides that, how does our view of the world match up with the creators view. If it's beauty lies not in it's looks but elsewhere, or does it mean that every ugly person on earth should be shot, because they were not created by God somebody else must have made them. Beauty lies in the whole not in the parts my friend. A typical example look at the most beautifull woman you can find, after you find her, lift up her skirt, she will have one of the not so beautifull features on her, but heck who cares.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM EVOLUTION
(1) If creation is false, then evolution is true, and therefore God does not exist.
-automatically?? or could they both be wrong??, and what happens when evolution is false, is creation true. Anyways if evolution is true, let it explain the source of all the physical matter and particles that then combined themselves together to form a human being or a rock, or the neighbours dog?. And howcome if all came from the same "goo", they suddenly can't interbreed anymore.
(2) Creation can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
-pretty shallow reasons if you ask me, just because you lack understanding of the innards of a computer, the computer automatically ceases to be true and hence vanishes and ceases to exist?? Your comfort is irrelevant to truth, cause a truth that bends with feeling is usually a lie.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
-have you ever heard of free will. God is so good, that he gave man free will as God repeated over and over again through moses, "I have placed before you both life and death, choose life so that you and your descendants may live." If you choose death it is your will.
Anyways let me tell you a little secret about how special we as human beings are. We are one of the few creatures of God, that have a COMPLETELY free will. No spirit has authority over man, and man has no authority over another man, except the authority You give to another man or spirit over your life. That's how free you are.
(2) I don't believe in God.
-by choice
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO NOT believe in God! I DO NOT believe in God! I do not I do not I do not I DO NOT believe in God!
-you choose
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.
-and unless you choose differently death shall be your reward, and you go straight to the pit of hell. hahaaa

Originally posted by dj2becker

ARGUMENT FROM EVOLUTION
(1) If creation is false, then evolution is true, and therefore God does not exist.
(2) Creation can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

Not exactly: creation and evolution do not exclude one another at all logically. I hope you do actually see that, and that is has nothing to do with 'creationism'. But that topic has been done to death here, so I won't bore you all any further.