Why I do not believe in God

[Eric B]

(Like Christians say God made himself)

All Christians do not say that. Uninformed ones might. I have heard Muslims say that as well, but they were a sect, so I'm not even sure if orthodox Muslims would say that as well.
Most christians would just say that God is the "I AM": not "created"; but just "IS". So He would not be under the law that nothing can come from nothing, because for one thing, that law would be apart of the natural order created along with everything else. So overall, nothing ever did come from nothing, but God is the only one who did not "come" from anything, but always was. Again, what you're attributing to the "universe" (that which always was, from which everything else came), is the definition of God. The universe is just something He created, and because it's created; He can exist separately from it.

 

[Nocapszy]

Axiom 1:Nothing comes from nothing.
Axiom 2: We know that the universe exists.

Wow... I didn't think I'd have to spell it out...

Axiom 3: If God, instead of the universe, always existed, he could create the universe, robbing it of infinity property.

We'd be like a subset of him. Suppose God is infinite (or omnipresent/powerful/etc.)

Suppose God created the universe in analogue to the way the universe created planets. The universe is bound up as a subset of God, like the planets are bound up by their own gravity, as subsets of the universe.

He didn't come from nothing, he always existed, just like you say the universe did, and doesn't violate either of these two axioms.


Also, if the universe is truly infinite, then axioms don't exist -- rules don't exist.
Boundless is as boundless has to be.

I am interested in your ideas and therefore ask that you present them one piece at a time and make a conscious effort to structure what you present as rigorously as possible.

And I'm asking you to, in response to your own interest, make as rigorous an attempt as possible to look for the connective tissues that tie together my 'unstructured' ideas.

 

[Venom]

Wow... I didn't think I'd have to spell it out...

Axiom 3: If God, instead of the universe, always existed, he could create the universe, robbing it of infinity property.

...ya but theres no reason to multiply this entity beyond necessity (beyond axiom two)...

we have enough evidence for a functioning universe as it is. Seriously, what do people expect? that theres some force made of Goditrons that the universe cant function without?

there is a difference between claiming:
a) God CANNOT EXIST (an impossible to prove statement) and

b) "theres no reason to invoke a 'one separate being God hypothesis', "hindu hypothesis", or any other hypothesis that makes unsupportable claims...not because they cant exist, but because there is no point in arguing any of them over each other. especially considering that the current universe doesn't need any of them to explain the real world. It doesnt mean i am not missing the possible truth. But what honestly rational human decides to make a larger leap in faith than he has to, that doesnt rest on deluding himself?

We have our thoughts. I think, therefore I am. Beyond our thoughts being real, its difficult to really build truth on anything. Our 5 senses are about the shortest jump possible from "I think, there I am" to some view of reality. The 5 senses give us a foundation, in that much of observation about the physicalities of the world are more closely tied to the truth in our thoughts being real than many other attempts at truth. A jump that requires a belief in supernatural, would in many ways not totally exclude but at least add conflict to the short leap that "the 5 senses argument" allows us to make. Why add complexity where it is not needed to explain the causes? naturalism may not be the truth. I am not arguing that it is the 100% truth. All I am asking is, why would I choose any other jump that is larger than the one from "thoughts to senses"? Its simply the shortest jump I can think of. Its not to say that I am not rejecting a possible truth, in the infinite possibilities, that I am glossing over with a jump from thoughts to 5 senses. But what other, shorter jump, is there? Yes, i have not proven God doesnt exist, but how can I honestly in descent rationality pick to make a longer initial jump from, "I think, therefore I am"? Its the best decision that I can make given the actual evidence we have.

I am NOT making a stand of 100% arrogant atheism. I am however, saying that I am 95% sure that the worlds religions are besides the point and so I engage in de facto atheism.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Axiom 3: If God, instead of the universe, always existed, he could create the universe, robbing it of infinity property..

So basically, God is another name for the universe itself. I do not understand how he could rob it of its infinity quality. Everything that is derives from this first infinite (that has always existed) quality. Thus, whatever exists is necessarily part of that infinite entity.

This is not creation. This is basically the same thing as the emanation theory I have presented earlier. In that case, the infinite universe is all that there is, but the finite world that we see is the way we interpret the infinite with our apparatus of perception.

This claim changes nothing, it only assigns the name God to what we call the universe. This notion of God is incompatible with what God is regarded as in the Old Testament.



He didn't come from nothing, he always existed, just like you say the universe did, and doesn't violate either of these two axioms.

Also, if the universe is truly infinite, then axioms don't exist -- rules don't exist.
Boundless is as boundless has to be...

The world that we know of is finite, however the substratum underlying it is infinite.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

All Christians do not say that. Uninformed ones might. I have heard Muslims say that as well, but they were a sect, so I'm not even sure if orthodox Muslims would say that as well.
Most christians would just say that God is the "I AM": not "created"; but just "IS". So He would not be under the law that nothing can come from nothing, because for one thing, that law would be apart of the natural order created along with everything else. So overall, nothing ever did come from nothing, but God is the only one who did not "come" from anything, but always was. Again, what you're attributing to the "universe" (that which always was, from which everything else came), is the definition of God. The universe is just something He created, and because it's created; He can exist separately from it.

How was it created? All things that exist necessarily inhere within God, since he is the foundation of all things. To create something, or to cause for an entity to exist independently of its antecedents is impossible under these conditions.

In other words, all that has life, has its roots in God and is inextricably part of God, therefore cannot be created or come afresh independently of God. In conclusion, we have adduced that it is not possible for God to exist separately from the world. This was the thesis of Spinoza's metaphysics and theology in Ethics.

Amazon.com: Ethics (Penguin Classics): Benedict de Spinoza, Benedictus de Spinoza, Stuart Hampshire, Edwin Curley: Books


Spinoza's Modal Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Owl]

How was it created? All things that exist necessarily inhere within God, since he is the foundation of all things. To create something, or to cause for an entity to exist independently of its antecedents is impossible under these conditions.

In other words, all that has life, has its roots in God and is inextricably part of God, therefore cannot be created or come afresh independently of God. In conclusion, we have adduced that it is not possible for God to exist separately from the world. This was the thesis of Spinoza's metaphysics and theology in Ethics.

Amazon.com: Ethics (Penguin Classics): Benedict de Spinoza, Benedictus de Spinoza, Stuart Hampshire, Edwin Curley: Books


Spinoza's Modal Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Q: How was it created?

A: By the power of God.

I agree with almost everything in your post above. But I think you go too far when you say: "In other words, all that has life, has its roots in God and is inextricably part of God..." Theism asserts that the infinite power of God can bring into being things that are not part of God's eternal substance. Granted, there is an empirical gap concerning how this is so, but an empirical gap is not a logical gap.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Q: How was it created?

A: By the power of God..

What is the power of God.

Theism asserts that the infinite power of God can bring into being things that are not part of God's eternal substance. Granted, there is an empirical gap concerning how this is so, but an empirical gap is not a logical gap.

It needs to be explained how this is possible.

 

[DLGenesis]

We make god.. and so god makes us.. funny eh?
Humans believe themselves too easily without knowing beforehand what makes them human in the firstplace.
People forget their places merely becus they do not understand them.

To know god is to be god.
To create god is to destroy god
To live life is to forget it and live on what really matters in rememberance of what once was..
<-------- The I.


GOD is the archetypal Axiom
Nothing is an Axiom

 

[Venom]

i think atheism has merit from many different starting points (im referring to the abrahamic idea of God and all of the metaphysical baggage that goes with that world view). If we start at the biggest picture imaginable (outside of time, viewing what simply "is"), at the smaller picture (our own tiny perception of everything through our own consciousness), or in the middle (how we got here), it all leads to a naturalistic conclusion.


1. Philosophy/Physics: the idea of everything needing a cause relies on the fact that our brains our constructing a view of causation from WITHIN time. In reality, time is a 4th dimension and is only different from the others in that it is symmetry breaking. We perceive cause and effect because our brains can only make sense of a symmetry breaking dimension via "simple --> complex", "components-->more complex" sort of way. Outside of time, the time-space continuum just "sits there", and has no cause or beginning, because causation is a temporal idea.


2. science in the form of neuroscience/AI:
-human consciousness can in theory be accounted for without a "soul". Consciousness is basically the sensation of perceiving yourself to be thinking. The reason computers cant replicate ourselves is because computers are basically turing machines (010101010) and animal brains are anolog, parallel processing, neural net computer. If we could design a machine/software that could...
a. be dynamic rather than static (be able to change the very way its even written)
b. accumulate knowledge about itself (by remembering its responses and responses of others)
c. built in desires or simulated interests (things that the machine would want to ask about)
d. rules for spontaneity and randomness (so that it could comply with "do something new")
e. a mechanism for changing 'b', 'c' and 'd' in response to what 'b' collects.
f. capable of learning new skills and writing new software for itself (ie: learn how to speak a new langauge)
g. the ability to build virtual models, run models, and then adjust its skills, methods and conclusions accordingly.

the fact that such a machine is currently sci-fi is not important. whats important is that the machine we just described would for all intensive purposes be a person: it would have desires, memories, interests, creativity, and the ability to reason, learn, develope and evolve in response to its environment.

consciousness as such could then be, in theory, the result of an analog, parallel processing, neural net computer. Without spiritualism, the idea of god again becomes doubtful.

3. science in the form of biology:
evolution is practically a fact, theistic abiogenesis followed by natural evolution doesnt make any sense. (it would mean that god had to intervene with what was otherwise a universe made NOT for life...) secondly, evolution doesnt really work for the idea of souls...

4. science in the form of physics/math:
-intelligence can arise from non intelligence through randomness in up to 500 bit leaps. even creationist william dembski admits this with extensive math.
-order can arise from non-order via natural process: the planets arrange themselves due to gravity, which is a fundamental property of mass bending space-time (ie its the result of mindless geometry of space-time)

 

[Kalach]

God is an Fe construct.

 

[AOA]

Why I DO believe in God.

Because He's toooooooooooo wonderful.

Excellent!

... some things in life, nobody can fathom or understand.

 

[EcK]

Why I DO believe in God.

Because He's toooooooooooo wonderful.

it's a joke.
I think it's a joke.
I mean I really hope it's a joke.

Must be.
right?

Excellent!

... some things in life, nobody can fathom or understand.

Like stupidity you mean ?

 

[Virtual ghost]

it's a joke.
I think it's a joke.
I mean I really hope it's a joke.

When it comes to Bella I would not be suprised if this is the truth.
As far as I know she is religious.

 

[EcK]

When it comes to Bella I would not be suprised if this is the truth.
As far as I know she is religious.

fuck..
that's just so wrong.

Fanatism, clinginess to shitty relationships, believing in irrational values while not living by them, religions, the whole 'follow the heeerrd' thing, soccer (yes, soccer too : P )

And they wonder why I consider most people as little more than cattle.

 

[AOA]

Like stupidity you mean ?

Yeah, I guess.

Faith in the supernatural doesn't always nessitate the belief in religion, but faith is a personal matter.

 

[Didums]

What use is faith in the supernatural if you are not rewarded by a God or Gods of a religion?

 

[AOA]

What use is faith in the supernatural if you are not rewarded by a God or Gods of a religion?

Shhh. That's a personal matter.

 

[EcK]

What use is faith in the supernatural if you are not rewarded by a God or Gods of a religion?

It helps cowards to cope with their insignificance.

 

[EcK]

but faith is a personal matter.

It's like flue, ur own business until u start sneezing on people.

 

[AOA]

It's like flue, ur own business until u start sneezing on people.

That's called deceit.

... some people are actually sincere with their faith.

Come on, Eck.