No evidence of a god

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Parent debateThis argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.
Argument againstThis argument is a “con” argument in the debate Does God exist?.
Keywords: God[ edit ].


In our common experience, we don't perceive God; history is not influenced by any kind of providence, but is the result of human actions; nature is indifferent, with failures (species that have disappeared without descendants, bushy development, etc.). To support the idea of God, religions offer only uncertain reasoning, irrational "faith" (which contradicts the faith of other religions) or subjective, more or less illusory experiences (mystical experiences). The hypothesis of God is therefore gratuitous.



Arguments forJustifications

  • Argument forIt's up to the person who advances a thesis to prove it.
  • Argument forNo experiment proves the existence of God
  • Argument forAwakening experiences show that there is no god
  • Argument forThere are no "back worlds" where God would stand
  • Argument forIf God existed, there should be clear evidence of it.
  • Argument forGod is too complex a hypothesis
  • Argument forGod is a useless hypothesis
  • Argument forArguments in favor of the existence of God are just as much in favor of the existence of parody religions.

Arguments againstObjections

  • Argument againstNothing proves the non-existence of God
  • Argument againstAbsence of proof is not proof of absence
  • Argument againstGod's existence is revealed in sacred texts
  • Argument againstSome people say they have experienced God
  • Argument againstMany people believe in God, including famous scientists
  • Argument againstGod's existence cannot be grasped through evidence
  • Argument againstThe universe is not self-sufficient

Parent debateParent debate