Arguments and empirical evidence that no god exists

[Felix]

Scott said: "I think using a means to accomplish an end contradicts the trait of omnipotence."

Scott, are you saying that only a perfect, unchanging, undifferentiated universe (because there must be no inequality in it, everything must be "good") would demonstrate the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent god?

The original thesis is based on the premise that an imperfect entity could comprehend how a perfect entity will behave. This is patently illogical, like saying that an ant would understand Einstein's theory of relativity.

[Whynot]

Scott said: "I think using a means to accomplish an end contradicts the trait of omnipotence."

Scott, are you saying that only a perfect, unchanging, undifferentiated universe (because there must be no inequality in it, everything must be "good") would demonstrate the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent god?

The original thesis is based on the premise that an imperfect entity could comprehend how a perfect entity will behave. This is patently illogical, like saying that an ant would understand Einstein's theory of relativity.


Are you promoting an "incomprehensibility defense" here?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Whynot, thank you for your reply!

Not if it used evolution as its means to accomplish an end.

I think using a means to accomplish an end contradicts the trait of omnipotence.

How so? Isn't omnipotence a means of accomplishing an end? There's also omniscience involved which provides the guidance for omnipotence.

It seems to me that to an omnipotent being there is only ends. It seems to me that that follows from the meaning of the word omnipotent. An omnipotent being just effortlessly and metaphorically snaps his metaphorical fingers and there is dinosaurs and flowers; there is not need to plant seeds as a means to getting his goal. Even if he puts seeds, it must be because he wants seeds not because he wants something that he needs seeds to do.

There was no mention in your proposition of God making people sick.

This allegedly possible being is omnipotent. He is the all-knowing cause of everything.

Being depicted as the first cause of everything is not equivalent to directly making people sick.

It's not just being the first cause, but that he is omnipotent. To me, omnipotence means he is the cause of everything. He isn't just very, very powerful, but all-powerful. Nobody else can have any influence on the production of his will. He is always pulling the trigger, and you can't blame the bullet as directly ripping through heart when the so-called indirect cause of the person pulling the trigger is in full control of everything including the bullet. Even if this omnipotent wasn't the first, if say somehow the otherwise omnipotent being came into existence after the first cause (and although it would mean he is not omnipotent we can say he can't change the past), I would still hold accountable because he can change anything at anytime however he wants.

Ummm...doesn't "sadist" convey a certain moral sentiment?

No, sadism is the deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, second definition). I'm an amoralist so if some other people imply something about morality by the word sometimes; I still don't. Actually, now that I think about more, I can see a very interesting relationship between sadism and belief in god. I despise sadism

You're an amoralist but you despise sadism?

Yes. I despise many things, but I do not believe that any of them are immoral. I also hate the smell of tunafish, but do not think the smell to be immoral.

so it makes sense that I don't believe in god in that way since god would have to be sadist, but perhaps a sadist or at least the kind of person who gleefully supports capital punishment and enjoys stabbing out people's eye's (as revenge perhaps) would be more willing to believe there's god who chooses to have the holocaust happen and chooses for babies to be born with painful terminal illnesses. (Some religions go so far as to claim this sadistic god actually tortures people in an afterlife, throwing them into some hell for eternity).

Sorry Scott, but I don't see any connection between omni-benevolence and sadism. Moral assignments like this leave you open to theistic demands to provide a moral foundational basis, sans god, before they will accept your usage of such terms. Claiming amoralism would invoke a contradiction.

What term did I use that would require a moral foundational basis? I'm an amoralist. You're not suggesting that as an amoralist I mustn't have any tastes at all, that I can't like peanut butter and jelly and hate the taste of tunafish for instance?

Ok, so your proof that God doesn't exist is based on your value judgement about greatness[...] How did you arrive at the metaprinciple of greatness to establish this judgement? Because there appears to be evidence that God didn't create by divine fiat is hardly a justification to declare non-existence

Firstly, I admit it is not proof, only evidence.

Secondly, by greatness I was referring to the quality of the food prepared by the chef which I mean as an analogy of the intelligence of the would-be designs of a would-be creator. That food was prepared by a microwave and thus poorly is evidence to me that it was not made by a great chef, and that life on Earth is the result of evolution by natural selection is evidence that it was not created by the snap of some omnipotent, omniscient being's fingers.

None of which responds to my criticism that allowing ID opens the door to argue that evolution is an ongoing process and any assesments of intelligence at this time is likely to be premature. And, the rebuttal that evolution, itself, is an extremely intelligent means of doing business versus...? Can you posit some other, more intelligent, means of creation?

It seems to me that by the very meaning of the terms there is no means of creation for an omnipotent being. There is no means since he just has to metaphorically snap his metaphorical fingers to make anything happen. If X is a means to Y, he does not do X to get Y because he can get Y by doing nothing. If he happens to want X he can do X too or he can do X and not Y. He can create a dinosaurs, then kill them not by an asteroid by by effortleslly 'snapping' them out of existence.

Back to the issue of evidence vs. proof, I don't have much evidence against a person's belief that there is a sadistic god who wants reasonable people to not believe he exists. That's why my evidence isn't quite proof, because that are exceptions.

But your initial definition of this god conveys nothing that would allow us to draw any conclusions whatsoever about what it wants reasonable people to believe, one way or the other. As it is, we could conclude that said entity could care less.

I think I have provided arguments that disprove or at least provide very strong evidence that there does not exist a omnipotent being that doesn't want reasonable people to believe he exists. If he exists, he has chosen to make it so a reasonable person looking at the evidence would not believe in him, and being omnipotent means that's what he wants because if he exists he is the all-knowing, all-powerful cause of everything who needn't use means but can snap things in and out of existence as he sees fit.

In comparison, we cannot prove that O.J. Simpson is guilty, because there are reasonably possible extenuating circumstances that would explain away the evidence that he is guilty while still providing for his innocence. There are also unreasonable doubts--like maybe O.J. and his victims are all actors and we are unknowingly on the Truman Show. I cannot prove that any possible god does not exist beyond a reasonable doubt let alone beyond an unreasonable doubt.

Methinks you have stuffed a red herring with straw and fitted it with panteloons to make it appear, for all the world, like a strawman.

A strawman? How so? Was the O.J. example not a good demonstratation of the differences between and meanings of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, strong evidence but not proof, and proof beyond even an unreasonable doubt? Or are you suggesting that my explination of the differences between and meanings of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, strong evidence but not proof, and proof beyond even an unreasonable doubt is irrelevent and thus the beginnings of a strawman? Is a strawman for me to explain how I realize I have not provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt let alone proof beyond an unreasonable doubt but merely a lot of evidence to warrant something as probably true? Or was that on point but my example of the O.J. Simpson trial as a tool in explaining the difference between evidence that makes something seem probable but still not proven, proof beyond a reasonable doubt and proof beyond an unreasonable doubt the strawman red herring?

would you find that very convincing were you a theist?

Insofar as a person is convinced by my arguments, then they would no longer be a theist, so the question is an unanswerable contradiction is it not?

Then you have such a person you can present before us to testify of their deconversion based on your arguments to substantiate this claim of a contradiction? The point being, you must needs tighten up this argumentation. The deeper we climb into your justifications the more difficult it becomes for us to follow your arguments exclusively to your desired conclusions.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but you seem to me to be making an argumentum ad populum. What is my possible inability if I tried to provide a person who converted from theism to atheism after reading my arguments in this topic supposed to prove and how is it relevant?

I think my arguments are actually fairly understandable and visibly logical, and my premises and explanations and justifications are fairly agreeable to reasonable people. If you or anyone thinks otherwise, I invite you to continue to ask questions about what I have written and point out specifically the alleged flaws in my arguments or writings and I will continue to explain and correct and simplify them or if with your help find them in error abandon them. But I won't accept the lack or presence of a known covert from my writing to be taken as evidence for or against its validity, rationality, understandability or followability.

***

I think using a means to accomplish an end contradicts the trait of omnipotence.

Scott, are you saying that only a perfect, unchanging, undifferentiated universe (because there must be no inequality in it, everything must be "good") would demonstrate the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent god?

I don't think I'm saying what you wrote in the quote above when I rebut the claim that evolution may be an omnipotent being's means to an end because, I claim, by the meaning of the terms an omnipotent being doesn't use means. If X begets Y in a godless universe, a non-omnipotent being who although not all-powerful is powerful enough to cause X but not powerful enough to cause Y directly (or for some other reason would prefer to avoid the cost of going the direct route) can then cause X to get to Y if he wants Y. An omnipotent being can have X now and still stop Y from occurring in the future, can have Y effortlessly without X or can have both or neither. To say he can do so with the snap of his fingers even is to imply more effort and conditions than the word omnipotent means. I believe this requires no premise of comprehensibility about the behavior of an possible god because it is simply the meaning of the term means and the term omnipotence as I understand them.

The original thesis is based on the premise that an imperfect entity could comprehend how a perfect entity will behave. This is patently illogical, like saying that an ant would understand Einstein's theory of relativity.

Who's original thesis and what is the thesis? I never made that as one of my premises as far as I recall.

I'm also not quick to believe that the Einstein to an ant analogy would be apt, depending on what is being claimed and in what argument by whom this alleged premise exists. The average human probably can't understand Einstein's theory of relatively for one thing, and to rely on logic to tell us what creatures can and cannot understand Einstein seems suspect to me and to what scale this reflects the relationship between a human and any possible omnipotent being. If a human retard comes up with a rebuttal for Einstein's theory, for instance, I don't think it would make sense to brush him off as patently illogical for allegedly assuming as a premise that he can understand Einstein because (A) I don't see how we can assume that is a premise in his rebuttal and (B) if his rebuttal is invalid we can rebut his rebuttal in its own right because his rebuttal is wrong. To brush him off seems circular. I have trouble connecting this to what we are talking about though since I am not sure who's argument and which argument of that person you are claiming has said premise and to what degree and in what ways that argument might imply some comprehension of the expected behavior of a god.

[Typist]

For god to exist, then in addition to possessing the qualities in the definition in the OP, the god logically must also not have any of the qualities mentioned in the premises of my arguments.

Apologies, but I must cast my vote with Alun.

All such analysis (not just yours) rests upon an unproven faith based assumption that human reason is relevant to all of reality.

To examine this foundation, we might first ask, what is "all of reality?" Is it one universe? 256 trillion universes? We quickly discover that we have not the slightest idea.

Imagine that I am offering various premises about the nature of a gongobongo. You ask me, "What is a gongobongo?" I reply, "I have no idea." Don't all my premises pretty much go out the window at that point?

If we wish to continue we might ask, what are the chances that the reasoning ability of a single species on one tiny planet in one of billions of galaxies is relevant to questions the scale of God? If we are to remain loyal to logic, we will probably conclude the chances are not that great.

However, just as we can use reason to undermine any possible answer, we can also use reason to celebrate the question. Reason is what we have, it's fun to use it, and as the conversation leader you have done a good job of leading us in to enjoyment of it's use.

We are like children who have become quite adept at building play houses out of toy blocks. The houses we build are meaningless, but the act of creating is not.

I don't know if this post meets your guidelines, and am agreeable to whatever you may decide in that regard.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Indeed my arguments would be meaningless to anyone who is openly illogical or unreasonable. Personally, I however believe in the rules of logic as a priori and thus in universal and not dependent on the actual scale of the subjects, predicates, etc. that the variable in the logical structure happen to refer in the a posteriori sense. For instance, I believe I know a priori that a modus tollens is completely valid regardless of whether the P or Q happen in an a posterior sense refer to seemingly tiny, simple things like snails or plumbing or to alleged. In other words, to me, illogicality suggest a special a priori impossibility that is independent of anything that happens to be the case or not be case about or within reality in any sense of the word.

With that said, I don't believe my syllogism prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no gods exist, let alone prove beyond an unreasonable doubt that no gods exist. I believe my syllogisms are clearly logically valid and thus the existence of god(s) has only proven to the extent the premises of which for all my syllogisms I explicitly stated are believed. I believe those premises--many of which are about small, factually-debatable human things like whether or not Hitler's administration murdered millions of people-- are each and all at the least fairly agreeable to be probably true.

[Typist]

Indeed my arguments would be meaningless to anyone who is openly illogical or unreasonable.

I'm arguing that it's those who make the assumption that human reason is applicable to all of reality that are being illogical.

First, the assumption is usually unexamined. Often the proponent takes the universal relevance of reason as a given, as if it's an obvious fact that's already been proven. Imho, this can be a very useful experience, as it helps those who don't believe in God to understand those who do, by observing the process of faith at work within their own world view.

Second, once the assumption is examined, it's rarely subjected to the same evidence tests that we quite reasonably apply to holy books. This lack of intellectual honesty may reveal that the proponent is not actually interested in a search for truth via reason, but in selling a conclusion they have come to via faith, which is usually called religion, or perhaps dogmatism. In such cases, the proponent is using the method they are arguing against, which makes for an entertaining and educational experience for those proponents with a sense of humor. It can be painful for others.

Third, if the proponent does realize there is no credible authority, that they can't rely on either reason or faith for a reliable answer, and thus are experiencing a state of profound ignorance, what do they do with that information?

If they don't take the only asset they do have, ignorance, and look for ways to use it to continue the inquiry, then it is demonstrated that they weren't actually really interested in the subject of religion in the first place, which is at it's heart about our relationship with the unknown.

Thousands of years of failure to resolve this question by either reason or religion, in every culture of the world, suggest there is something fundamentally flawed about how we approach this question.

The foundation of both religion and reason, in regards to this particular question, is the assumption that the process should involve turning the unknown in to the known. Could this be the fundamental flaw?

Is it possible that ignorance, the very thing that we stubbornly reject, is the gift that Nature or God [choose your preferred paradigm] is trying to give us?

As example, if we were to accept the reality of our ignorance, there'd be little to argue about, and centuries of bloody conflict amongst believers, and between believers and non-believers, might have been avoided.

It sure would ruin religion threads on forums though, wouldn't it? Dang, there's always a catch!!

[Cherrypi]

Premise 1: If there was an omnipotent creator god, we would be very intelligent designed.
Premise 2: We are not very intelligently designed.
(Examples of premise 2 include the way women give birth that would work well if we were 4-legged non-erect creatures, tonsils, tailbone, appendix, wisdom teeth, erector Pili, male nipples, and the way the older emotional part of our brain has more physical ability in terms of brain mechanics to control the newer deep thinking, frontal lobe.)
Conclusion: There is not an omnipotent creator god.

Premise 2 is incorrect. If we were not intelligently designed, how is it that we are so successful as a species and babies are successfully born, appendixes rarely cause trouble, male nipples are pleasurable, wisdom teeth sometimes welcome. All these examples you give of appendixes etc are mere limitations of the physical nature or ingredients the creator has to work with, and as such only hiccups in the generally seamless experience we call life. Also, all life shows some form of intelligence and our human brain shows a sophistication computer scientists can only drool at. This logically suggests any designer must have a vastly superior intelligence.

If we ring a door bell and nobody answers, we can take that as evidence that nobody is home. (Note the difference between proof and mere evidence.) Similarly, scientific studies of the effectiveness of prayer can help us figure out whether or not a god exists (premise 1). Scientific studies have repeatedly found that prayer is utterly ineffective regardless of who prays, of which god they pray to and of what they pray about (premise 2). For example, The Boston Globe reports in the article A Prayer for Health by Alice Dembner (2005): "One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments." [...] "A review of 17 past studies of 'distant healing,' published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods." In another example, the Associated Press reported in their article, Power of prayer flunks an unusual test, "In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications." Here are a couple other articles from the Baltimore Sun reporting essentially the same type of findings: Prayer's effect on health called nil by Duke study and Distant prayer doesn't help heal. Metaphorically speaking, we're ringing the door bell, carefully waiting for someone to answer and nobody is. Non-metaphorically speaking, (conclusion) this is evidence god does not exist.

This is logically flawed right the way through. If I am at home and the doorbell rings, I can think of at least a hundred reasons why I may choose not to answer and thus give the impression that no one was available to take your call. For any number of reasons unknown to the person ringing the doorbell, I may choose not to respond. As to the scientific studies, they merely prove that prayer does not produce changes in this world. God does not interfere in politics, the outcome of football games, medical procedures etc.

Premise 1: If there was an omnipotent or otherwise supernaturally powerful god, he would not cause or let utterly, unproductively awful things such as the holocaust which entailed the mass-murder of children to occur.
(Elaboration on premise 1: An omnipotent god causes and has determined everything and is thus ultimately responsible for everything. An other supernaturally powerful god would still, even if not directly involved, would be at fault for not interfering--which he can since he is so powerful to be supernatural.)
Premise 2: Utterly, unproductively awful things like the holocaust have happened.
Conclusion: Neither an omnipotent nor otherwise supernaturally powerful god exists.

Premise 1 is wrong. You can't say he would not allow these things to happen just because he is capable of preventing them. You are practically capable of preventing at least one child in ethiopia from starving to death, yet you do nothing. Does this mean you do not exist or are not a compassionate person? And for the record, god was not responsible for the holocaust, human beings were. That comment could technically be classed as defamation of god?

Premise 1: If there is a god meeting one of the definitions from the OP, he has the power to stop or at least extremely reduce the amount of unproductive suffering* caused to humans.
Premise 2: Lots of unproductive suffering occurs.
(Elaboration of premise 2: Consider all of the murders, all of the rapes, all of the starvation, all of the torture, all of the miscarriages and stillbirths, all of the most awful spontaneous birth defects, all of the young children who slowly, painfully die with great suffering of natural causes thanks in part to a lack of supernatural intervention.)
Premise 3: If a being has the capability to stop unproductive suffering, and doesn't, that god is a sadist.
(Elaboration of premise 3: Even if the god didn't want all happy humans, the god could at least have interfered enough to stop many of natures mistakes from occurring even if that meant a sort of supernatural euthanasia. For instance, consider a birth defect that causes a baby to necessarily die before its first birthday after great, great suffering; the god could have stopped this baby from being conceived in the first place. But instead the god's supernatural powers cause us to be here but, at least for many of us, under great pointless suffering.)
Premise 4: If there is a god, he is not a sadist.
Conclusion: There are no gods.

Logically flawed because you cannot judge whether the suffering is unproductive, or for a greater good. A surgeon may cut someone open and cause them suffering to cure a disease. Unless you are omniscient, all knowing, you cannot make the judgement as to whether the suffering is for the "greater good".

As for the rapes, starvation, torture etc - these are all caused by humans. Should the existence of atrocities prove the non-existence of humane beings?

Premise 1: If there are any supernaturally powerful gods influencing and determining material events, then all of these events would have evidence of purpose and intentional, supernaturally intelligent design.
Premise 2: Many things do not have any purpose.
(Elaboration of premise 2: Science shows us dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago; what was their purpose? What was the purpose of the 65 million years and all its various moot details between the extinction of the dinosaur and the start of the human species? What is the purpose of Pluto? What is the purpose of stars billions of light years away? What is the purpose of planets that can only be seen with a telescope? What is the purpose of an insect terd made millions of years ago that has long since been destroyed and gone? Consider all the billions of species who have gone extinct on Earth throughout its entire history. The fact that 99.9% of species that ever existed on Earth have gone extinct [source] is evidence that there is no purposeful design.)
Conclusion: There are no supernatural intelligences influencing and determining material events.

Premise 2 is wrong. No purpose you can perceive. Understandable since you are dealing with supernatural entities. Can your dog understand why you do the things you do or is its capacity for awareness and understanding of your motivation limited? Supernatural beings would also have the capacity to make their interferences indistinguishable from chance, so from your limited perspective it would be impossible to detect them if they wished to be undetectable. Now tell me, what is the purpose of your life?

[Mont]

Hi Scott,

If you want to stay within the premise of your God definition, then God cannot possibly exist, because the premise itself is self contradictory. An "entity" that is omniscient and omnipotent cannot possibly be a "being" It cannot be named anything, such as "God." Once a name is given, a set of attributes of existence would be associated with it, attributes that are related to the name's denotations and connotations. To avoid such misunderstanding, Lao Zi in 600 BC wrote a book of philosophy called "Dao De Ching," in which he sets the ground rules upfront by saying that the subject matter he is about to discuss cannot be properly named.

Therefore, if we stay within the premise you have set forth, God or any gods can only exist in our illusions.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Thank you for your time and thoughtful responses, Cherrypi!

If we were not intelligently designed, how is it that we are so successful as a species and babies are successfully born, appendixes rarely cause trouble, male nipples are pleasurable, wisdom teeth sometimes welcome. All these examples you give of appendixes etc are mere limitations of the physical nature or ingredients the creator has to work with, and as such only hiccups in the generally seamless experience we call life. Also, all life shows some form of intelligence and our human brain shows a sophistication computer scientists can only drool at. This logically suggests any designer must have a vastly superior intelligence.

So successful as a species? Our species almost went extinct (source), and all the many other species in the subtribe Hominina and thus also the genus Homo all went extinct. It seems we are about as successful in that department as the average person is successful at winning the lottery. The seeming quasi-successfulness and environmental fitness of the tiny remaining faction is of course attributed to natural selection and evolution. I don't think we can brush off the glaring unintelligent aspects of our design as metaphorical hiccups because I think it is self-evident an omnipotent, omniscient being does not encounter such hiccups. Besides, the unintelligence of humans having a childbirth system clearly 'designed' by evolution for our quadrupedal ancestors is more than a mere hiccup: killing more than 1 in 100 women during birth historically (source) and leading to a historical infant mortality rate of roughly 30% (source. I also believe in my short lifetime I will see AI surpass human 'intelligence' in the few ways it hasn't already, but I disagree that that point otherwise logically suggest a designer; evolution and natural selection lead to the creation of many things humans cannot recreate including entire galaxies as well as dinosaurs.

Similarly, scientific studies of the effectiveness of prayer can help us figure out whether or not a god exists (premise 1). Scientific studies have repeatedly found that prayer is utterly ineffective regardless of who prays, of which god they pray to and of what they pray about (premise 2) [...] (conclusion) this is evidence god does not exist.

This is logically flawed right the way through.

Does the fallacy have a name? What is logically invalid about it? That syllogism seems structurally valid to me.

If I am at home and the doorbell rings, I can think of at least a hundred reasons why I may choose not to answer and thus give the impression that no one was available to take your call. For any number of reasons unknown to the person ringing the doorbell, I may choose not to respond.

Of course your failure to answer the ringing doorbell isn't proof you are not home. Do you deny that it is evidence that you are not home? If you started with no significant evidence one way or the other regarding if someone was home at my house, and you come to the door of my home and ring my bell and nobody answers, would your estimation of the likelihood I am home be affected or not?

Premise 1: If there was an omnipotent or otherwise supernaturally powerful god, he would not cause or let utterly, unproductively awful things such as the holocaust which entailed the mass-murder of children to occur.
(Elaboration on premise 1: An omnipotent god causes and has determined everything and is thus ultimately responsible for everything. An other supernaturally powerful god would still, even if not directly involved, would be at fault for not interfering--which he can since he is so powerful to be supernatural.)

Premise 1 is wrong. You can't say he would not allow these things to happen just because he is capable of preventing them.

I can't say 100%, no, because there could be an unexpectedly sadistic omnipotent being who would do such things. In that sense, the syllogism does not prove god does not exist but only provides evidence to the degree I can say greater than 50% and less than 100% that such a being would not have caused and/or allowed the holocaust to happen.

You are practically capable of preventing at least one child in ethiopia from starving to death, yet you do nothing. Does this mean you do not exist or are not a compassionate person?

It very well may. On that topic you may be interested in this blog post of mine, Why Do We Behave Like Sociopaths? Of course, neither I nor the average person am omnipotent so that is one way in which the comparison may fail. But actually if a man dies of hydration in desert, you can take that as evidence if not proof that I was not standing next to him with an excess of water kegs.

[...]god was not responsible for[...]

I think it is self-evidence that an omnipotent, omniscient being is responsible for everything. It seems true by definition to me.

Logically flawed because you cannot judge whether the suffering is unproductive, or for a greater good. A surgeon may cut someone open and cause them suffering to cure a disease. Unless you are omniscient, all knowing, you cannot make the judgement as to whether the suffering is for the "greater good".

Yes I can. Maybe not with absolute certainty but with about as much confidence--I estimate--as I can judge that vampires don't actually exist.

The rebuttal that my argument is unsound because I can't judge with certainty my premise to be true because I am not omniscient is an invalid rebuttal considering it could be equally used on any syllogism or argument about anything not just the premise, "Lots of unproductive suffering occurs," and not just in a syllogism that happens to have other elements that happen to be about a god.

Should the existence of atrocities prove the non-existence of humane beings?

No, but it proves that humans are not omnipotent and omniscient creatures void of frustration and weakness.

Premise 2: Many things do not have any purpose.

No purpose you can perceive.

Yes, exactly. I have analyzed these things and found them to be void of purpose. Of course, with me not being an omniscient person, I may not be 100% certain in the strictest sense of anything, but pointing that out as a rebuttal of a premise is an argument for nihilism not an argument against atheism. Though not being 100% certain in the most philosophically absolute of senses, I am about as sure of the truth of that premise as I am that Hartford is the capital city of Connecticut or that sky is blue.

Can your dog understand why you do the things you do or is its capacity for awareness and understanding of your motivation limited? Supernatural beings would also have the capacity to make their interferences indistinguishable from chance, so from your limited perspective it would be impossible to detect them if they wished to be undetectable.

Unlike me, my hypothetical dog doesn't have feelings one way or the other. But if your point is that I--and no human for that matter--am not sure of the truth of my premise--or anything besides perhaps cogito ergo sum--with 100% certainty in the most philosophically absolute sense, then I admit that. But it is no more a rebuttal of my premise or my syllogism than it is for any and all other statements and syllogisms about anything, with perhaps the exception of cogito ergo sum. You seem to me to be making an argument for complete epistemological nihilism, not a mere rebuttal of my single premise.

Now tell me, what is the purpose of your life?

I am not sure of the relevance of this question but I will attempt to answer briefly anyway as I may be wrong. I don't believe life has any inherent meaning, if that is what you are asking. In a non-inherent sense, the creation of my life may have had a subjective purpose based on my parents intention when they conceived and delivered me--perhaps they wanted company or some sort of emotional validation; maybe I was an accident but they felt instinctively responsible to bring me to life? I'm not sure about what their intended purpose was in creating me. If you are asking what subjective meaning is given to the second part of my life by my intentional choice to self-actualize and continue my life (i.e. the purpose of my earlier self to 'create' my future self) as opposed to letting myself die early, I guess it is because I love myself and my family strongly and I love the whole of humanity lightly but broadly and I want me and them to feel joy in the future and I think will most happen by keeping me alive for now; there are scenarios where I would choose to die such as if I could somehow sacrifice my life to save that of my children or wife's in some terrible hypothetical. Of course, any of these various forms of subjective purpose must trace back to the purposeless creation of life since my past self can't give my future self subjective purpose without having existed in a purposeless state first and so on with my parents giving subjective purpose to me in their choice to create me; life itself logically must precede such subjective purpose since the purpose is relative to the intentions of living beings.

***

Mont, I agree that which I have labelled god does not exist and is at most only an illusion. Thanks for your reply!