I myself am an atheist but as a result of my agnosticism. I can't consider God's existence as true when I know that humans will never discover if it's true or not.
What kind of knowledge do believers have? (if the do)
I wouldn't exactly say I am deeply religious, but I do believe in what we tend to refer to, for lack of a better term, as "God". However, I will attempt to disprove the three arguments you've mentioned here. It's a challenge, and we all should challenge what we believe to be true.
1. The Ontological Argument
Rather than being an argument based upon what is observed about the only reality we know for sure to exist, the Ontological Argument makes the mistake, in my view, of defining God into existence. "That which nothing greater can be conceived" (Anselm) is a VERY weak position to promote, if only because it is so hopelessly subjective.
2. The (Kalam?) Cosmological Argument
The KCA is often applied to the universe as a whole (ex. by W. L. Craig), but causality is something that applies within the universe only. Did the universe have a "cause" in the conventional sense of that term? Almost certainly not. It had a "beginning", but only in the sense that there was a time prior to which it did not exist. The truth of the matter is that we simply do not know how, or why, there is something rather than nothing. Saying that "God did it" isn't an answer (God of the Gaps Argument).
3. The Moral Argument
What determines whether something is right or wrong is the impact that choice, that decision, has upon the well-being of another sentient entity. It really is that simple. God is not required. Ex. it is "bad" to lie and cheat under most circumstances, because in doing so you are effectively violating the rights of others, by providing them with information they cannot utilise, because it is false.
"Athiests never attempt to disprove these proofs" those proofs have all been disproven before so please stop lying.
Ontological argument isn't evidence or logic it is assumption. You assume such a being can exist, then from there you assume it has to exist, which is ridiculous.
If you think that is evidence for God then this is evidence for the lost island:
The Lost Island is that island than which no greater can be conceived.
It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
If the Lost Island does not exist, one cannot conceive of an even greater island, that is one that does exist.
Therefore, the Lost Island exists in reality.
Cosmological argument assumes just as much, right away it assumes that everything has a cause, which it later refutes itself by stating that God has no cause. Then it assumes the universe began to exist. Therefore it assumes the universe has a cause... but then it also assumes God has no cause because otherwise you would need a God greater than God to create God and it would be an infinite loop of needing a greater God. Therefore the argument refutes itself, because if it's possible for something to not have a cauas then you can't assume everything has a cause.
The moral argument straight up just assumes "attaining the highest good" (whatever that means) is only possible if God exists. Further the final step of this argument doesn't even prove God it only attempts to prove that we need God to "attain the highest good". Here let me show you why assumptions are bad in an argument like this.
Here is my irrefutable argument for athiesm:
1 All things that exist are meaningless
2 God cannot be meaningless
3 therefore God cannot exist in a meaningless world
4 therefore God cannot exist in our world.
Seriously by the way those arguments have been disproven many times and I can link you to websites that hardcore disprove these arguments, if you want.
@devilman666 "... right away it assumes that everything has a cause..."
No, it makes the assumption that everything that "begins" to exist has a cause. You shouldn't try to attack arguments the theists aren't even making.
@devilman666 If all things that exist are meaningless, then so is your first premise (i. e. that everything that exists is meaningless) and so I can simply ignore your entire argument, because it doesn't even make any sense. A meaningless argument is one I don't have to consider.
It is natural to assume that everything that exists had a beginning. Regardless that seems like nitpicking on your end, in the end the assumption was still made and thus it fails as a logical argument.
Fair enough, but why even take it so far when you know as well as I do that it's not necessarily true that everything is meaningless, that is an assumption I made to help my argument. It's only meaningless if you assume everything is meaningless, otherwise it has a meaning and that meaning is to assume everything is meaningless. Yes, by It's own logic it is meaningless but you would have to accept the arguments logic to come to that conclusion.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!
AI Bot Choice
Superb Opinion