The Abrahamic God Does Not Exist

In reverse order: Aquinas' "Five Ways" These can essentially be used as a defense for any deistic or (if you prefer) theistic entity. This includes all of the other gods humanity has conjured up.The points do not prove a theistic deity, let alone the Abrahamic one. Let's examine the points anyway: (1) Argument from motion This argument deals with motion. It contends nothing can move without reason and therefore needing a reason to move. This argument combines into the second which is the necessity for a first mover.This argument begs the question, I'm afraid. The logic is faulty. One could ask what motivated this deity to make the first move? With the benefit of modern physics we can get rid of this argument for good. Newton's First Law states that a particle would tend to stay at rest or move in a constant velocity if no external force is applied to it. It is as natural for a body to move as it is for a body to be at rest. A Prime Mover is unnecessary. Aquinas' physics was based on Aristotle's, which states that the natural state of any body is to be at rest. Furthermore, the experiments done by physicists A.A. Michelson and E.W. Morley in 1881 (and in 1887) showed that there was no absolute frame of reference in the universe. Einstein used the conclusion of this experiment as one of his postulates in his Special Theory of Relativity. What this experiment and Einstein's theory shows us is that there is no such thing as absolute motion. All velocities can only be given relative to something else, none of which is an absolute reference. This makes the idea of a Prime Mover nonsense. There is another, more traditional, objection to the first way. The fundamental principle in the argument is that everything which initiates change must have been initiated in some way itself. Therfore, this principle must be applied to the Prime Mover as well. There is no logical reason why we should stop applying the principle at that point. This objection is conclusive. For the argument begins with an observation (that there is motion) and a fundamental principle (that every moving thing is moved by another already moving) which, at least in Thomas' philosophy, seems to be valid. Yet he postulated the existence of The Unmoved Mover, which violates the argument's own fundamental premise. The question of a naturally skeptical child sums up the main problem with the first way: If God created us, who created God? If Con is to say that God "always existed" without a cause, then I can just state that the Universe always existed without a cause. To postulate that God is outside of time (in order to prove that he is eternal) is simply a cop-out and offers no ultimately acceptable explanation. (2) Argument from efficient cause The argument contends that nothing exists prior to itself. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself. It contends if a cause does not exist then the things does not exist. Therefore it is necessary to for a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (I contend the Abrahamic God).Not "everyone" gives it the name "God". Some people give it the name "Brahma". Others "Ra". It is not reasonable to say that everyone gives it the name God. Let's see what David Hume says about this argument: "In such a chain too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes which succeed it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct counties into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts" What Hume is saying is that the observable succession of events require no beginning since we can conceive of it going back to infinity. The entire chain of causes and effects also need no explaining for it is just an act of our minds attempting to structure our experience. Furthermore, Hume argued that even if the argument is valid (that is, that there is a first cause), it would not establish the existence of the Abrahamic God. For one thing, why shouldn't the first cause be the universe itself rather than God? This goes back to the point I made as a refutation for the First Way: If it is argued that the universe also needs to be caused, then the same would be true for God. If one then asserts that God is "uncaused", the same assertion can be made for the universe.The second way is also unconvincing for the following reasons: it assumes that all sequences must be finite, though we do not have any rational reason for believing so; we have no way of determining which cause exactly is the first cause. It commits the logical fallacy of quantifier reversal; and finally the fundamental assumption: that every event must have a cause, is shown to be false by modern physics. The argument from efficient cause (or the First Cause argument) has been shown the direction of the first: both are invalid as proofs of a deity's existence, let alone God's. (3) Argument from necessary being This argument contends that contingent beings come and go in and out of existence. Therefore there could have been a time when nothing existed. Therefore some being exists on its own and brought everything into being. This argument assumes the conclusion in one of it's premises. Again, if we must admit a necessary existent entity, why shouldn't it be the universe itself? (4) Argument from gradations of goodness This argument contends that there are good and bad things, some better or worse than others. Therefore there must be a being which causes there being so much goodness.This is perhaps Aquinas' weakest argument. Although a sense of fairness, decency, and right and wrong is innate in us, most social standards and norms are ultimately subjective. Therefore it is unreasonable to conclude that this argument has any serious gradation. (5) Argument from design. We can observe natural bodies which work for a goal. Natural things lack knowledge. Therefore some intelligence exists by whom all things direct their end; and this being we call God.Natural bodies work for a goal? What is this goal? It is evident that life developed to adapt itself to its surroundings, not the other way around. Therefore, it is impossible to make the assertion that inanimate objects or processes always seems to move towards a "goal".The problem of evil still standsThe existence of evil is contradictory to a god who is supposedly omniscient and omnibenevolent.God created Lucifer, knowing that the angel would rebel against him, thus creating evil, thus making God the ultimate cause of evil, since he created Lucifer. Also, a God who punishes people with an eternity in Hell for failing an unspecified test during the few decades of life is wicked and deserves no respect. God is not "simple" and materialismA being who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, can answer prayers and actually cares about us is anything but simple. He is complex in every sense of the word. If everything that exists is natural (existing in nature), then the concept of "unnatural" (things that are abnormal) is void, since these things are a part of nature as well. Therefore, God does not exist since he is "unnatural". Argument from SuperfluityThis argument was meant to show that God is nothing more than a superfluous man-made construct. We don't need the assumption of God for anything. It's a failed hypothesis. There is no evidence for the supernatural and "God did it" is still a non-answer that stops people from thinking. I can just replace God with "Ra" and it would be exactly the same. I don't have enough characters to post my sources..