thebuffdon690
Mistral
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2024
- Posts
- 2,242
- Reputation
- 1,700
Introduction
This is the ultimate god doesn’t exist proof thread. I will be providing proof (mostly) here that it is not possible for a god to exist. This is also intended for users who don’t have a great understanding of the subject and want to learn more about it, as well as for the high iq atheist users who just want their biases confirmed JFL.
This was inspired by @mogstars recent low iq (JFL) thread on life is cucked if you’re an atheist. I’m tired of religious cucks on this forum waffling: Muh Atheist low iq, Muh Atheist have no morality or no sense of purpose JFL, still makes me laugh, and they give no proof for it either, just wafflers. People have been claiming this about atheism for as long as it’s been around, so these points are really nothing new and can be explained. I aim to try to stop these low iq threads. Or if they will continue at least have good arguments.
One thing to note is that I am writing this thread from an unbiased perspective (some may have a hard time believing this given my strong atheistic stances on this forum lol) but nevertheless I have obviously considered both sides of the argument before making this thread, and I came to the conclusion atheism > religion/deism. Don’t make the mistake of thinking this was a preconceived confirmation bias decision as I am well aware of these biases and try my best for them not to hinder my reasoning. If there was more proof god existed I would simply be making this thread but for the other side.
Another thing to note is that it shouldn’t matter if god doesn’t exist. People often fall into depression after losing their faith (just like I did). The thing is that atheism can give meaning, purpose everything that religion can. It just can’t give life after death. The thing is though imagine if everyone had the perfect life they wanted from birth to death, there wouldn’t really be a need for an afterlife. In my opinion the concept of an afterlife only exists because of evil, which is an intrinsic part of humans. People have a hard time accepting that and feel the desire for justice or an afterlife which can be devoid of any evil. Every human struggles with this no matter how much they will try to Larp. Just accept it the way it is.
The way I define god is in the traditional sense of omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. If you are unaware with those terms just Google them JFL I can’t be asked to explain it on here, but most should.
Brief discussion on religions
As some of you may know I used to be Muslim my whole life until I left It only last year. The aim of this thread isn’t to disprove religions but to disprove the concept of god as a whole. I happen to think Christianity is a decent religion and many users here are obviously well versed in it and believe it is real (obviously not including Old Testament atrocities, there aren’t really any good apologetics for those as well, as well as how confusing the trinity is). But aside from that it’s alright. My personal opinion on Christianity is that Jesus wasn’t resurrected, but there is a decent plausibility that he was resurrected, and is therefore god. I can’t be asked to go into that here though because it will just take up too much time.
It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that Islam is a false religion, but just in case it’s not here is a thread on Reddit (JFL) that does a really good job outlining hadiths and how they disprove Islam. Great apologetics from both sides with unbiased opinions. Most Muslims here will never have heard of these as they are usually hidden by our scholars (obviously). Hence why when you bring these up to Muslims they almost always have never heard them before: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/s/q47mxhmgdU.
The funny thing is tbh I sometimes think about how it would be hilarious if everyone argues over the main 3 Abrahamic religions and the one true religion is just one which no one follows or has heard about JFL, from like 2000+ years ago. Cracks me up thinking about it. But yeh I do think all religions are false.
Anyway I have considered most of the arguments for god (some more well versed than others) but I have a pretty good understanding of the apologetics for them and the counter arguments against them. Ones I have studied:
Fine tuning
Ontological
Cosmological
Contingency
Moral
Personal experience
Resurrection
Miracles
There’s way more but I can’t be asked to list them all here or go through with them, as this is a proof god DOESNT exist thread. If you wanna learn them more there are plenty of videos and sources online explaining them. Just be aware that there’s obviously still work being done on all of them and u shouldn’t use this as a baseline for your religious beliefs, which brings me into my first argument against god.
Lack of evidence?
You probably know that most religious people claim that gods existence is obvious (I don’t think they know what obvious means JFL) but they will usually cite fine tuning argument or Muh look at the trees bullshit for their so called evidence.
Well I’m here to tell you it’s not obvious at all, just because stuff exists doesn’t mean the concept of god (which humans came up with btw) is a real entity manifesting externally from its conceptual standpoint. This is a fallacy but either way, this begs the question of why does god make it so painfully hard to provide any knowledge of his existence (outside of religion)? I’m not referring to divine hiddenness here because this already presupposes god to begin with, this is more along the lines of lack of CONCRETE evidence, one which doesn’t take years of studying and scientific work to arrive at a conclusion, more from a critical thinking standpoint I guess.
It shouldn’t seem intuitive to people that just by looking around this somehow means that god is real. We have had stuff which has always mind boggled our intuition and still does to this day (take quantum entanglement as an example). This logically follows that it should be possible for god not to exist and we still have the universe we see today. This part obviously isn’t conclusive proof it’s just the starting point for further exploration of the subject.
Another point religious people like to bring up is that god has to exist because the universe couldn’t have been brought about accidentally. However this isn’t really true, and seems similar to like an appeal to intuition in them saying god has to exist because there is no evidence against the world not being an accident. But this is only judged by their own intuition, and any smart person will know our intuition is subject to many biases that are accounted for when coming to conclusions based on independent verifiable evidence. It is certainly plausible that it could have been accidental, especially given the time frame that evolution occurred on and the development of the universe as a whole. If we are talking about the Big Bang however things become a little more obscure, and it is certainly arrogant for someone to claim that this couldn’t have been accidental when we have no idea if that’s truly the case or not. Natural mechanistic forces are not dictated by any sort of agency like humans are dictated by agency, this means that it is possible (maybe not plausible though) that it could have been accidental.
Problem of evil
This is the most intuitively plausible argument against gods existence in general, and also in my own personal estimation, the main likelihood that god doesn’t exist. Certainly most religious people have doubts with this but usually tend to gloss over it, that is the religious mindset.
The general consensus in philosophy (as of right now) is that it is not logically impossible for god to exist given evil, but evidentially implausible that he would exist given the amount of evil we see in the world (according to atheist philosophers at least). Obviously it still plausible god would have reasons to allow evil to occur, such as overcoming the pain and being a better person on the other side or affecting someone else in that same manner. However it seems intuitively implausible that certain evils god would allow if he is all good as defined. This is where there is inherently more room for intuition, as evil is more of an intuitive understanding of a state of mental or physical being according to someone’s own perception than just an independent reviewed study (which we don’t really have much of anyway for this problem).
I won’t be tackling this problem from a scholarly perspective as it’s mostly just brain rot. The way I like to tackle this problem is sampling different case studies of evil across human history and assigning them a factor out of 10 based on their intuitive responses they trigger in humans. This is because there isn’t really any other good way of tackling this problem besides intuitive philosophical thinking. Obviously if you wanted to conclude whether god does exist for sure, you would have to sample case studies of every single human in history and also rank each of their individual experiences of evil out of a factor of 10. You would also have to have every single human ever complete this task, as to limit individual biases. A confidence test or an average of these would probably give you a likely estimate of whether god exists or not. Obviously this is impossible so we can try this on a much less scale. For example:
Not getting the cake you wanted for your birthday is intuitively evil, but on an extremely minimal scale of perhaps a 0.13/10. Obviously this is autistic as fuck and no one thinks like this but we are trying to logically deduce whether god exists so we have to think like this. Lmao imagine if god exists and he’s autistic, ultimate JFL
However impaling someone and then raping their dead body would have a much higher scale of around an 8.7/10 (intuitively). This would be different based on everyone’s different level of intuition but somewhere around there. This is why this experiment is SO SO hard. We have no way of knowing as humans who’s intuition is more plausible based on perceptions of evil. Certainly, a three year old child may think that the example I gave has an intuitive level of evil of about a 10, whereas Ramirez may think it is about a -1 (JFL RR). This is why I believe it is impossible for us to know for certainty why evil exists and what constitutes as evil based on mere perception, but we can always make a logical inference and be correct (hopefully). JFL just imagine In reality if evil was actually good and we were just progressing backwards morally instead of forward. This is definitely not impossible but highly implausible.
Now for most people, a 10 would probably be along the lines of the greatest evils of all time, say unit 731, holocaust, torture of Junko Furuta. These seem intuitively impossible to most humans as to be anything lower than a 10 on the scale, but let’s say a 9.5 just to be generous to the more desensitised scums on this forum JFL. It does seem intuitively impossible for an all loving god to allow something like torture of Junko Furuta to happen (btw if you’re gonna look this up be warned it’ll probably ruin your day), especially when it resulted in her death and there was no benefit to gain from it for her (or anyone for that matter). Most people who come across this would logically conclude that god is a scum who allowed an innocent girl to get brutally tortured for something like his own sadistic pleasure, which makes no sense. Another thing is this would also affect someone who is looking for answers to this problem. Imagine if they came across this story and got traumatised and then subsequently lost their faith in god. Seems like a pretty stupid and useless thing for god to do to allow that to happen. Obviously as time progresses and more evil occurs, this gives us a greater intuitive inference to make about whether god does exist or not, and for me it seems more implausible than plausible that he does exist based on this problem, albeit not impossible.
The common apologetic response to this argument is that god does allow it happen, because of human free will etc etc. let’s just assume that free will does exist for the sake of the argument (obviously not something we can ever know but still). The main thing for me is that this doesn’t take away from the intrinsic suffering of said person who is still experiencing the state of evil, just because someone else’s free will allows them to act on that decision. Suffering is still a mental state at the end of the day, and just because someone has free will this doesn’t really prove anything to do with the argument.
Argument from eternal consciousness
This is the argument from eternal consciousness against gods existence. This isn’t a scholarly work it’s just an argument that I made up myself JFL, but it does have a high intrinsic plausibility factor, according to me at least.
Argument is basically:
P1: Gods existence is either mechanically determined, or consciously determined
P2: if gods existence is mechanically determined, then god can’t exist (as defined)
P3: gods existence is mechanically determined
Conc: therefore god can’t exist
It’s important to note that this argument makes the case of gods existence being impossible due to a logical contradiction with his attributes, not an argument of simply trying to deduce whether god does exist or not based on understanding of reality (take fine tuning as an example), but that the concept of god itself is fundamentally impossible, be it deistic or theistic.
The argument is basically stemming from the contingency argument, which is usually the most plausible argument for gods existence according to majority of philosophers. If you want to research this before hand that would probably be a good idea. It comes to the conclusion that god must exist because there has to be a necessary foundation to reality, an eternal agent which has always existed and brought about the universe. Obviously there’s a lot more to it but it’s mostly brain rot. My personal opinion however is that it’s quite likely that this argument is true, at least a factor of 8 (which is very high).
The main thing I’m trying to tackle here is the nature of this necessary existence, because the contingency argument doesn’t tackle that. This is more of an argument for deism but who cares it still counts as god (not in the traditional sense but just in general) it can still be used for the theistic god as well, but I would use different arguments to disprove that. The main point is that this entities existence would only be governed by mechanism or by agency. My argument is that it cannot be governed by agency.
Obviously it’s crazy to think about how something has always existed and how that’s even possible, because it breaks our intuition, so this might be hard but bear with me: for something to be eternal, that must mean that it’s existence is governed by it’s own intrinsic nature, and nothing external to it. Now I don’t think that it’s possible for a conscious being to exist necessarily, as mechanism seems fundamental. For something to have existed eternally and be conscious seems like a major contradiction. Consciousness entails agency, basically meaning that the being in question is alive and able to make decisions. But how can this be the case with an eternal existence. Agency requires the precondition of a decision to necessitate its existence, but since this being has always existed, how is it possible for it to make the decision for itself to exist, as the choice for it to exist must be preceded by a decision to result in that choice and then subsequently it’s existence.
But if it’s eternal, it cannot make the decision to exist since it has always existed. This plausibly leads to the conclusion that it’s existence must be mechanical, as mechanism would entail it’s eternal state of existence, being governed by some mechanism which in and of itself means that this being has existed forever. Another thing is that if this being is conscious, it must have the ability to decide to cease existing, otherwise it’s not conscious or an agent. But obviously this is a contradiction if it’s eternal, it must have a mechanism which stops it from existing as it has to exist by necessity (it’s non existence is impossible in every possible state of affairs).
People may argue that gods existence is dictated mechanically, but it still has the conscious ability to do things. This seems more like special pleading though. If I just have given an argument as to why it can’t be conscious, then that means it’s not conscious JFL. And then ultimately the discussion becomes pointless because it’s impossible to know the true nature of this entity. This is an example of how our intuition can be broken with thought experiments like these, which is why a belief in god should never be rational in my opinion (at least for high iq thinkers I’m not talking about the average person here). People need god and will always need god, but we’re interested in whether this so called being actually exists in reality.
But my argument would be that this facilitates a lack of belief in a god, due to these reasons. But I’m interested to hear peoples opinions on this argument because I’ve never seen this discussed online before, so let me know your thoughts (from both sides). I’m open to anyone trying to disprove what I’ve said (obviously given good reason) as I’m intellectually honest and open to worldview changes.
This is the ultimate god doesn’t exist proof thread. I will be providing proof (mostly) here that it is not possible for a god to exist. This is also intended for users who don’t have a great understanding of the subject and want to learn more about it, as well as for the high iq atheist users who just want their biases confirmed JFL.
This was inspired by @mogstars recent low iq (JFL) thread on life is cucked if you’re an atheist. I’m tired of religious cucks on this forum waffling: Muh Atheist low iq, Muh Atheist have no morality or no sense of purpose JFL, still makes me laugh, and they give no proof for it either, just wafflers. People have been claiming this about atheism for as long as it’s been around, so these points are really nothing new and can be explained. I aim to try to stop these low iq threads. Or if they will continue at least have good arguments.
One thing to note is that I am writing this thread from an unbiased perspective (some may have a hard time believing this given my strong atheistic stances on this forum lol) but nevertheless I have obviously considered both sides of the argument before making this thread, and I came to the conclusion atheism > religion/deism. Don’t make the mistake of thinking this was a preconceived confirmation bias decision as I am well aware of these biases and try my best for them not to hinder my reasoning. If there was more proof god existed I would simply be making this thread but for the other side.
Another thing to note is that it shouldn’t matter if god doesn’t exist. People often fall into depression after losing their faith (just like I did). The thing is that atheism can give meaning, purpose everything that religion can. It just can’t give life after death. The thing is though imagine if everyone had the perfect life they wanted from birth to death, there wouldn’t really be a need for an afterlife. In my opinion the concept of an afterlife only exists because of evil, which is an intrinsic part of humans. People have a hard time accepting that and feel the desire for justice or an afterlife which can be devoid of any evil. Every human struggles with this no matter how much they will try to Larp. Just accept it the way it is.
The way I define god is in the traditional sense of omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. If you are unaware with those terms just Google them JFL I can’t be asked to explain it on here, but most should.
Brief discussion on religions
As some of you may know I used to be Muslim my whole life until I left It only last year. The aim of this thread isn’t to disprove religions but to disprove the concept of god as a whole. I happen to think Christianity is a decent religion and many users here are obviously well versed in it and believe it is real (obviously not including Old Testament atrocities, there aren’t really any good apologetics for those as well, as well as how confusing the trinity is). But aside from that it’s alright. My personal opinion on Christianity is that Jesus wasn’t resurrected, but there is a decent plausibility that he was resurrected, and is therefore god. I can’t be asked to go into that here though because it will just take up too much time.
It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that Islam is a false religion, but just in case it’s not here is a thread on Reddit (JFL) that does a really good job outlining hadiths and how they disprove Islam. Great apologetics from both sides with unbiased opinions. Most Muslims here will never have heard of these as they are usually hidden by our scholars (obviously). Hence why when you bring these up to Muslims they almost always have never heard them before: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/s/q47mxhmgdU.
The funny thing is tbh I sometimes think about how it would be hilarious if everyone argues over the main 3 Abrahamic religions and the one true religion is just one which no one follows or has heard about JFL, from like 2000+ years ago. Cracks me up thinking about it. But yeh I do think all religions are false.
Anyway I have considered most of the arguments for god (some more well versed than others) but I have a pretty good understanding of the apologetics for them and the counter arguments against them. Ones I have studied:
Fine tuning
Ontological
Cosmological
Contingency
Moral
Personal experience
Resurrection
Miracles
There’s way more but I can’t be asked to list them all here or go through with them, as this is a proof god DOESNT exist thread. If you wanna learn them more there are plenty of videos and sources online explaining them. Just be aware that there’s obviously still work being done on all of them and u shouldn’t use this as a baseline for your religious beliefs, which brings me into my first argument against god.
Lack of evidence?
You probably know that most religious people claim that gods existence is obvious (I don’t think they know what obvious means JFL) but they will usually cite fine tuning argument or Muh look at the trees bullshit for their so called evidence.
Well I’m here to tell you it’s not obvious at all, just because stuff exists doesn’t mean the concept of god (which humans came up with btw) is a real entity manifesting externally from its conceptual standpoint. This is a fallacy but either way, this begs the question of why does god make it so painfully hard to provide any knowledge of his existence (outside of religion)? I’m not referring to divine hiddenness here because this already presupposes god to begin with, this is more along the lines of lack of CONCRETE evidence, one which doesn’t take years of studying and scientific work to arrive at a conclusion, more from a critical thinking standpoint I guess.
It shouldn’t seem intuitive to people that just by looking around this somehow means that god is real. We have had stuff which has always mind boggled our intuition and still does to this day (take quantum entanglement as an example). This logically follows that it should be possible for god not to exist and we still have the universe we see today. This part obviously isn’t conclusive proof it’s just the starting point for further exploration of the subject.
Another point religious people like to bring up is that god has to exist because the universe couldn’t have been brought about accidentally. However this isn’t really true, and seems similar to like an appeal to intuition in them saying god has to exist because there is no evidence against the world not being an accident. But this is only judged by their own intuition, and any smart person will know our intuition is subject to many biases that are accounted for when coming to conclusions based on independent verifiable evidence. It is certainly plausible that it could have been accidental, especially given the time frame that evolution occurred on and the development of the universe as a whole. If we are talking about the Big Bang however things become a little more obscure, and it is certainly arrogant for someone to claim that this couldn’t have been accidental when we have no idea if that’s truly the case or not. Natural mechanistic forces are not dictated by any sort of agency like humans are dictated by agency, this means that it is possible (maybe not plausible though) that it could have been accidental.
Problem of evil
This is the most intuitively plausible argument against gods existence in general, and also in my own personal estimation, the main likelihood that god doesn’t exist. Certainly most religious people have doubts with this but usually tend to gloss over it, that is the religious mindset.
The general consensus in philosophy (as of right now) is that it is not logically impossible for god to exist given evil, but evidentially implausible that he would exist given the amount of evil we see in the world (according to atheist philosophers at least). Obviously it still plausible god would have reasons to allow evil to occur, such as overcoming the pain and being a better person on the other side or affecting someone else in that same manner. However it seems intuitively implausible that certain evils god would allow if he is all good as defined. This is where there is inherently more room for intuition, as evil is more of an intuitive understanding of a state of mental or physical being according to someone’s own perception than just an independent reviewed study (which we don’t really have much of anyway for this problem).
I won’t be tackling this problem from a scholarly perspective as it’s mostly just brain rot. The way I like to tackle this problem is sampling different case studies of evil across human history and assigning them a factor out of 10 based on their intuitive responses they trigger in humans. This is because there isn’t really any other good way of tackling this problem besides intuitive philosophical thinking. Obviously if you wanted to conclude whether god does exist for sure, you would have to sample case studies of every single human in history and also rank each of their individual experiences of evil out of a factor of 10. You would also have to have every single human ever complete this task, as to limit individual biases. A confidence test or an average of these would probably give you a likely estimate of whether god exists or not. Obviously this is impossible so we can try this on a much less scale. For example:
Not getting the cake you wanted for your birthday is intuitively evil, but on an extremely minimal scale of perhaps a 0.13/10. Obviously this is autistic as fuck and no one thinks like this but we are trying to logically deduce whether god exists so we have to think like this. Lmao imagine if god exists and he’s autistic, ultimate JFL
However impaling someone and then raping their dead body would have a much higher scale of around an 8.7/10 (intuitively). This would be different based on everyone’s different level of intuition but somewhere around there. This is why this experiment is SO SO hard. We have no way of knowing as humans who’s intuition is more plausible based on perceptions of evil. Certainly, a three year old child may think that the example I gave has an intuitive level of evil of about a 10, whereas Ramirez may think it is about a -1 (JFL RR). This is why I believe it is impossible for us to know for certainty why evil exists and what constitutes as evil based on mere perception, but we can always make a logical inference and be correct (hopefully). JFL just imagine In reality if evil was actually good and we were just progressing backwards morally instead of forward. This is definitely not impossible but highly implausible.
Now for most people, a 10 would probably be along the lines of the greatest evils of all time, say unit 731, holocaust, torture of Junko Furuta. These seem intuitively impossible to most humans as to be anything lower than a 10 on the scale, but let’s say a 9.5 just to be generous to the more desensitised scums on this forum JFL. It does seem intuitively impossible for an all loving god to allow something like torture of Junko Furuta to happen (btw if you’re gonna look this up be warned it’ll probably ruin your day), especially when it resulted in her death and there was no benefit to gain from it for her (or anyone for that matter). Most people who come across this would logically conclude that god is a scum who allowed an innocent girl to get brutally tortured for something like his own sadistic pleasure, which makes no sense. Another thing is this would also affect someone who is looking for answers to this problem. Imagine if they came across this story and got traumatised and then subsequently lost their faith in god. Seems like a pretty stupid and useless thing for god to do to allow that to happen. Obviously as time progresses and more evil occurs, this gives us a greater intuitive inference to make about whether god does exist or not, and for me it seems more implausible than plausible that he does exist based on this problem, albeit not impossible.
The common apologetic response to this argument is that god does allow it happen, because of human free will etc etc. let’s just assume that free will does exist for the sake of the argument (obviously not something we can ever know but still). The main thing for me is that this doesn’t take away from the intrinsic suffering of said person who is still experiencing the state of evil, just because someone else’s free will allows them to act on that decision. Suffering is still a mental state at the end of the day, and just because someone has free will this doesn’t really prove anything to do with the argument.
Argument from eternal consciousness
This is the argument from eternal consciousness against gods existence. This isn’t a scholarly work it’s just an argument that I made up myself JFL, but it does have a high intrinsic plausibility factor, according to me at least.
Argument is basically:
P1: Gods existence is either mechanically determined, or consciously determined
P2: if gods existence is mechanically determined, then god can’t exist (as defined)
P3: gods existence is mechanically determined
Conc: therefore god can’t exist
It’s important to note that this argument makes the case of gods existence being impossible due to a logical contradiction with his attributes, not an argument of simply trying to deduce whether god does exist or not based on understanding of reality (take fine tuning as an example), but that the concept of god itself is fundamentally impossible, be it deistic or theistic.
The argument is basically stemming from the contingency argument, which is usually the most plausible argument for gods existence according to majority of philosophers. If you want to research this before hand that would probably be a good idea. It comes to the conclusion that god must exist because there has to be a necessary foundation to reality, an eternal agent which has always existed and brought about the universe. Obviously there’s a lot more to it but it’s mostly brain rot. My personal opinion however is that it’s quite likely that this argument is true, at least a factor of 8 (which is very high).
The main thing I’m trying to tackle here is the nature of this necessary existence, because the contingency argument doesn’t tackle that. This is more of an argument for deism but who cares it still counts as god (not in the traditional sense but just in general) it can still be used for the theistic god as well, but I would use different arguments to disprove that. The main point is that this entities existence would only be governed by mechanism or by agency. My argument is that it cannot be governed by agency.
Obviously it’s crazy to think about how something has always existed and how that’s even possible, because it breaks our intuition, so this might be hard but bear with me: for something to be eternal, that must mean that it’s existence is governed by it’s own intrinsic nature, and nothing external to it. Now I don’t think that it’s possible for a conscious being to exist necessarily, as mechanism seems fundamental. For something to have existed eternally and be conscious seems like a major contradiction. Consciousness entails agency, basically meaning that the being in question is alive and able to make decisions. But how can this be the case with an eternal existence. Agency requires the precondition of a decision to necessitate its existence, but since this being has always existed, how is it possible for it to make the decision for itself to exist, as the choice for it to exist must be preceded by a decision to result in that choice and then subsequently it’s existence.
But if it’s eternal, it cannot make the decision to exist since it has always existed. This plausibly leads to the conclusion that it’s existence must be mechanical, as mechanism would entail it’s eternal state of existence, being governed by some mechanism which in and of itself means that this being has existed forever. Another thing is that if this being is conscious, it must have the ability to decide to cease existing, otherwise it’s not conscious or an agent. But obviously this is a contradiction if it’s eternal, it must have a mechanism which stops it from existing as it has to exist by necessity (it’s non existence is impossible in every possible state of affairs).
People may argue that gods existence is dictated mechanically, but it still has the conscious ability to do things. This seems more like special pleading though. If I just have given an argument as to why it can’t be conscious, then that means it’s not conscious JFL. And then ultimately the discussion becomes pointless because it’s impossible to know the true nature of this entity. This is an example of how our intuition can be broken with thought experiments like these, which is why a belief in god should never be rational in my opinion (at least for high iq thinkers I’m not talking about the average person here). People need god and will always need god, but we’re interested in whether this so called being actually exists in reality.
But my argument would be that this facilitates a lack of belief in a god, due to these reasons. But I’m interested to hear peoples opinions on this argument because I’ve never seen this discussed online before, so let me know your thoughts (from both sides). I’m open to anyone trying to disprove what I’ve said (obviously given good reason) as I’m intellectually honest and open to worldview changes.
