Question

What are the strongest arguments against the existence of a deity?

Answer 1

Depends how you define the deity. If it's all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, then the problem of evil.

Answer 2

that's not a valid question. you won't find hardcore atheists in the science section of this site. be it math or biology, if you go deep enough, you will find answers that aren't yet explained.

you may choose to believe in things only if they are thoroughly proven right through one thing you believe in (like the rules of nature). or you may believe in two things that can't coexist while believeing in a third thing that connects the two things (like god). that's up to you. asking for arguments against a god is no valid question, neither mathematically nor biologically.

Answer 3

I agree with Schliefspur that this isn't a valid question... but not because of his/her reasoning. It goes back to logic...

We assume things to be untrue until proven true. Thereby the burden of proof lies on those that believe in a specific deity. Because no such proof exists it is logically deemed untrue. However, this logic does pose a specific problem, unique to the question. Namely, that the proof of the deity might not allow for itself. And thus some argue that we cannot nullify this specific hypothesis WITHOUT proof that one doesn't exist. Generally leading scientists to stand aside and say--we aren't disproving a deity, or are we trying to disprove or prove one: this simply isn't a question we are actively trying to answer.

Answer 4

in terms of logic, your explaination is not thoroughly correct. the existence of god is an axiom, on which several supernatural things are explainable. if you don't accept the axiom, then you can't explain the paradise and stuff.

what you are forgetting, is that science is also based on axioms. these are more basic and accepted by nearly all people. but still - they are not explainable. simple example: "1 is a number." setting logic onto that base seems wrong to me, since logic applies to any system, be it scientific or not.

it's very interesting to observe the approach of various scientists onto that topic - I'd like to read more opinions!

Answer 5

logic is a rather fickle thing, especially when you let those pesky philosophers do their thing...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theory-development/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-linear/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionistic-logic-development/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-substructural/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-justification/

and the less dumb'd down version of the caveat I mentioned in my previous:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/

Answer 6

by "flutterle" i mean f i c k l e... which is what it said when i hit post O.o
apparently thats too close to a bad word for openstudy

Answer 7

Shiel, you begged the question by saying the axiom proves supernatural things. God axioms contain super-natural things, nature contains natural things. The question is whether there are supernatural things at all.