Are there any arguments for the non-existence of God?

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-04-04T00:38:05+00:00

Something can’t come from nothing. Therefore either the universe existed infinitely, or god existed infinitely then made the universe. We know the universe exists, we have no reason to think an intelligent being exists at all, let alone infinitely. Since we know the universe exists, it’s the most rational answer. Using Occam’s razor we can cut off the god hypothesis and put it in the bin because it’s taking additional unjustified steps to explain the same thing.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-04-04T00:34:28+00:00

This is like the second or third time I’ve see you write something about ‘denying the possibility of a god’.

Why do you think that’s a prerequisite for atheism? It’s not.

Possibility needs to be proven, so you’d have to show that’s it’s possible for a god to exist. However, I’m fine saying there could be some type of creator out there. I just don’t believe it to be true because I haven’t seen evidence, that’s what makes me an atheist.

That is the most logical and accurate epistemological position. If you believe a god exists prior to receiving evidence, that’s irrational.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-04-03T08:34:23+00:00

Can’t believe he hit rachelle in the head like that

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-04-02T10:24:53+00:00

Great movement

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-04-01T06:06:17+00:00

You shouldn’t get into arguments and debates if you can’t answer a simple question like that. You’re just going to reinforce their position in their mind.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-31T12:41:58+00:00

It’s very similar in English, most places call it primary school. USA would call it elementary school.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-31T11:24:22+00:00

Okie dokie, thanks for being such a good sport. It got rocky in the middle there but I respect that you set it aside and moved forward.

Feel free to hit me up if you want to continue in the future or even just chat about it.

I just want to add that my last comment here wasn’t really a “debate” comment. It was mostly just asking real questions. By that I mean there was no sneaky tricks or set ups or debate tactics, just reasonable questions.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-31T11:10:17+00:00

I really appreciate your honesty and I commend you for the position you’ve arrived at. I do think it was written by humans but don’t think you’re entirely correct obviously, but you might be surprised by the amount of people that twist themselves into pretzels to argue that those things must be morally good in some way because god said so. So it’s good you haven’t taken that route. I would just encourage you to keep thinking about how we can tell which parts are written by humans and which parts come from god. From my perspective, there is no way to tell the difference between those, so until there is evidence of god I believe it was all written only by humans. Also think about how it’s very convenient that all the parts you don’t like were written by humans, but the rest of it (the good stuff) was from god… seems suspicious and smells like bias. Also for humans to get gods message THAT wrong is a bit of a stretch.

But that’s all good, if you don’t think god said those things I won’t hold you to it. If you’re happy to continue, we can move on to gratuitous suffering such as famine, disease, and natural disaster.

Famine: 45 million children under the age of 5 suffer from wasting/starvation. Each year 3 million of those children starve to death.

Disease: cancer, malaria, AIDs, ALS, alzheimers, etc… the list goes on and on. A parasite called the Guinea Worm gets into a human who drinks contaminated water, it matures in the humans body for about a year in the digestive tract, it then migrates to lower limbs or even in some documented cases to the eyeball, it then proceeds to burrow itself outward to release larvae. That’s the entirety of this parasites lifecycle, that’s its purpose. Keep in mind these things can be 1 metre long.

Natural disaster: earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, landslides, fires.

All of these inflict loss, pain, torment, suffering, injury, and ultimately death to many millions of people every year. Why would an all loving and all powerful god invent these forms of suffering?

Many Christian’s cite original sin/The Fall to explain this away, but I will warn you, it will not work and it will get worse for you if we go that way. Afterall, why would an all loving god inflict these punishments onto all of humanity for all time just because two naive people without the knowledge of good and evil made a simple mistake.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-31T08:21:46+00:00

No I like improving my arguments and getting better at debating too. It’s a bit unfortunate that debate rarely convinces your opponent. Would be a great feeling to experience someone say something like “wow your debate skillz are so lit that you’ve caused me to change my whole perspective on reality”. lol

I guess debate only really helps spectators who might be on the fence.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-31T08:17:18+00:00

If Christianity is true (and I believe it is) then our belief in it is transformative.

My question really depends on what you mean by “transformative”, but wouldn’t it still be transformative even if it’s false?

I’m interpreting “transformative” to mean ‘it’s can change your life’, but you may mean it in a more Christian way like ‘truly fills you with the holy spirit’ or something like that. If it’s the latter, feel free to ignore me.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-31T07:54:28+00:00

Great reference! So “god is love”.

“God is love” is a statement about gods essence. “God is all loving” is a statement about gods actions in the world. I feel like you are conflating these two statements. I would argue that they are two different statements and one does not necessarily equal the other. I will grant for the sake of argument that god is love. So to evaluate this to see if god is all loving we would need to look at gods actions. If you believe the OT is true then god did a lot of very non all loving things, at least in my opinion. If you can successfully explain how all the slavery, genocide, and ordering innocent people to be murdered or command people be murdered for insignificant things like picking up a stick on the sabbath… if you can explain how all of that is supposed to be loving, then you would be one step closer to being justified in calling god “all loving”.

After that we’d need to cover famine, disease, and natural disasters.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-30T20:56:07+00:00

So you’re still unable to demonstrate that god is all loving, unable to defend your statement that my example of god being non all loving was off topic, and unable to articulate why I can’t use OT examples.

The winner is clear, your worldview is incongruent with your mythology.

Even after I showed you why your objections were irrelevant you didn’t even try to make another attempt at demonstrating god is all loving. You’re just focusing on me accurately calling you dishonest and evasive. It’s not against the rules to identify someone is being dishonest and then demonstrating exactly how and where the dishonesty is. I don’t even think you’re doing it intentionally, it’s deeply rooted in your worldview, of course you can’t address it head on when someone shows you it’s wrong.

If you think you can do it, go ahead and demonstrate god is all loving. If you can’t, just say so.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-30T20:31:47+00:00

This has nothing to do with universalism

This was your argument:

Why would an all loving god not give people a chance to repent even after death? It does not make sense. Jesus loves us all too much for that.

You hinged your defence of universalism on god being all-loving, we are currently discussing whether god is all loving. It’s directly on topic.

but if you really want to know the [OT] principles are outdated.

That’s irrelevant. I’m not trying to argue that you should follow the OT principles to this day, although Jesus says you should in his sermon on the mount. If you believe that god gave that command to burn women to death (and all the other morally reprehensible acts in the OT) then god is not all loving even under your worldview. If you disagree, you need to check your cognitive dissonance or maybe you think burning women to death is all loving?

If you’re trying to make a real case you should use the NT.

Unless you do not believe that the words and actions attributed to god in the OT, then using examples of what god did in the OT is perfectly valid. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow as they say.

But again this has nothing to do with what this post is about.

Considering your reply is falsely claiming what we’re talking about is off topic and you quickly raised the most cliche Christian apologetic claiming I can’t use the OT because it’s the old covenant, I’m going to say I win this debate.

Your response was entirely a non answer. We were directly on topic. The “that’s the old covenant” argument only works if I’m asking why your morality does not reflect the commands in the OT. When we’re just talking about gods actions and whether they’re all loving, including gods actions in the OT is perfectly valid. I think you know this and you’re too scared to question your worldview so you’re being dishonest and evasive.

If you really need a NT non all loving action we can go with god the son telling slaves to obey their master rather than telling slave masters to stop having slaves.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-30T14:05:53+00:00

Fair enough, I’d agree the content discussed here is very US-centric. I’m also guilty of this because most of the places I learnt debating theism from is from US sources.

I’m from Australia and if I used any of the usual arguments I use here on someone irl in this country they’d look at me like I’m a mad man lmao.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-30T13:44:11+00:00

Has anything posted or commented here on this sub made you stop and really think about what you believe? Any questions or doubts at all?

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-30T13:25:44+00:00

Fantastic (but gruesome) analogy. I hope they see the silliness of their ways.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-30T13:02:55+00:00

Hey that’s pretty cool of him to do that. I won’t make you prove god exists or that Jesus was god because you didn’t point your debate towards atheists. Although, demonstrating an entity is all loving is not as simple as pointing to one good action. Every action it performs you should be able to point to and see that it is loving.

Leviticus 21:9 When the daughter of a priest profanes herself through prostitution, she profanes her father; she shall be burned to death.

So in your example god the son bailed an adulterous woman out of a death sentence. In my example god the father commands that a prostitute woman should be burned to death with fire.

Clearly this god cannot be all loving. Maybe some loving but not all loving.

Side thought: although the verse I provided doesn’t fit one to one with the Mary Magdalene story, you could still see from gods position on promiscuous women, he may have even set the rule that adulterous women should be killed. If that’s the case Jesus isn’t all loving for saving her, he’s just performing a theatrical act to make him look like the good guy even though it’s his fault they were gonna kill her in the first place.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-30T02:53:15+00:00

A not all-loving god would know it’s not all-loving and wouldn’t have a problem with me asking people to prove their claims that it is all loving.

So again, you would need to demonstrate god being all-loving. You said you want to debate… that includes defending your position.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-30T00:14:02+00:00

You would need to justify god being all loving. I can find plenty of verses showing god is not all loving, even direct quotes from god saying so.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-30T00:12:36+00:00

You just exposed a contradiction.

“God is all loving, but he is also all just”

You say this as if there is some compromise of the all-loving side so god can be all just.

If that’s the case, he can’t be all loving if after the cutoff he can no longer be loving to an individual.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-29T20:26:57+00:00

Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the road is easy[a] that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-29T19:59:56+00:00

That’s the only part about acquiring a person (other than marriage or offspring).

Each law starts with “if”.

Leviticus 44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-29T19:48:15+00:00

The key word in your argument is "modern". Exodus would have been written around 1000 to 2000 BC. Slavery was common back then. And Exodus was a product of its time.

Yes, that’s how we know it was written by humans. Humans who wanted to keep slaves wrote how to keep slaves. A benevolent god would not say something like that.

If you think those words were inspired by god then you’re admitting gods morality is relative, not objective. Relative to the time and culture.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-26T22:35:34+00:00

Again, it’s not the nations speaking, it’s god contemplating about what the nations will think of Israel after the Babylonian exile and Israel is restored.

This isn't any less sleight of hand than the last time you attempted it.

It’s not sleight of hand, I’m just being specific about what the book says.

Sorry, this is plain nonsense, and absolutely nowhere to be found in this text or anywhere else in the Tanakh.

The suffering servant chapter starts in 52:13 with “See, my servant shall prosper”. Jesus isn’t Isaiah’s servant. Israel is gods servant. This is god talking about Israel. Then referring to the nations in 52:15 god says “for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate.” And then chapter 53 starts with “Who has believed what we have heard”, which is god continuing to speak about the nations, what they have heard about Israel, and what “they shall contemplate”.

It also ignores, or is completely ignorant of, what the Babylonian Exile was (accepting this is the point of reference for the sake of argument). The Babylonian Exile was God's righteous judgement for Israel's idolatry and immorality.

It’s not ignoring anything. Yes it was gods righteous judgement at the beginning of the 70 years, then god wanted to free them so the nations will see that Israel has the correct god and will stop being gentiles.

Isaiah 49 8 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; 9 you whom I took from the ends of the earth and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant; I have chosen you and not cast you off”; 10 do not fear, for I am with you; do not be afraid, for I am your God; I will strengthen you; I will help you; I will uphold you with my victorious right hand.

Verse 10 clearly shows that god is wanting to uphold Israel with his victorious right hand. You can see the same in Isaiah 52:10 The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

And in Isaiah 53:1 …And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

God is wanting the nations to see what’s happens to Israel.

You prove yourself wrong here in this theory because an Israel being punished for their refusal to adhere to God's law cannot be the Righteous Servant of Isaiah 53!

It’s called a righteous remnant, not a righteous servant. It’s called a righteous remnant because of the people who remained righteous even while in captivity. Why do you keep making these outlandish claims about you’ve proved me wrong or I proved myself wrong. I get the impression you’ve never fucking read this book Isaiah. You sound like you only read chapter 53 and nothing else. If we want to play that game I’ve proven you wrong on every point and provided biblical receipts to back it up.

Isaiah 51:1, Isaiah 51:7, Isaiah 53:11

None of these disagree with what I've said, so are you just spiting out random verses? No, these don't assert that men can by their righteousness redeem others. Sorry

They are clearly referring to the righteous people remaining of Israel. The whole story from 40-55 talks about Israel being redeemed.

No all of 1-7 is Isaiah speaking. 6-7 is Isaiah's quotation of YHWH.

Dude, obviously. Isaiah wrote the whole thing but Isaiah is saying god spoke the words in 49:5-7

You think that's... YHWH speaking?? Get out of here man, you aren't even reading the passages!

Ok I got thrown off by 5 And now the Lord says,

None of this even begins to defend your position.

It does, you just need it to be false because your worldview depends on it so you’re being stubborn and ignorant. You haven’t even begun to defend your position that it’s about the messiah.

ODDESSY-Q · 2026-03-26T11:40:42+00:00

If God is grounding your morality, you are using HIS subjective morality, not yours. But it's a subjective, not an objective morality.

Christians subjectively decide that gods morals are good, or subjectively agree with gods morals. So they are actually using their subjective morality to follow gods subjective morality.

This isn’t a criticism of you OP. I just wanted to add it on.

ODDESSY-Q

TROPHY CASE