Arguments against God

“I don’t consider myself an agnostic; I claim to know that God doesn’t exist.” An interview with Louise Antony, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and the editor of the essay collection Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life.

Advertisements

One thought on “Arguments against God

  1. Pleasant guy. I think about this often, and I think a large part of me is thrilled by philosophy for this matter alone. I’m atheist, obviously, but not stubbornly. If certain variables were changed I could be a theist. In my blog I write that I am certain there is no god, if what god is, is the creator of existence. I state this because to create existence there would first need to be “nonexistence”, which makes no sense. See link.

    http://subjecttoreason.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-im-7-on-dawkins-atheist-scale.html

    But if what someone meant by god was not the creator, I would not know what they meant. If they meant god was something like a man making a robot. Gathering materials, melting and bolting, laying circuitry and powering, all to provide it autonomy- If this it what is meant, that god is what put all the small bits from the universe in a place and little by little ended up with with what we are now, then sure, that could be god. But then, why not just call it nature, or evolution? Why attribute a personality? Are we really so narcissistic that we HAVE to have a purpose?

    I think, that if we attributed a purpose we devalue and we make mess of existence. If we had a purpose, then there would be an end to that purpose, and for what purpose? See where I’m going? It would be an onslaught of never ending problems. Imagine playing Super Mario and there was infinite levels. You would never save the princess. Your purpose would never be met.

    Something this demonstrates clearly is: There cannot be a beginning, because if there was no purpose before, then there is no catalyst for the “first” purpose. This means that there is an infinite number of purposes ahead and behind.

    I think it clearer to say that things that have properties interact with other things that have properties, continuously forever, without a “why” or a purpose. To propose a “why” or a purpose(intent) is a human thing, not a universal thing.

    Sorry for carrying on. My brain just continued spilling. I do hope it’s enjoyable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s