• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why God most certainly does not exist

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I do understand your point and agree to a large extent. There are fanatics on both sides of the issue. You do have scientists saying without a doubt that God does not exist.

I think this is a result of mistaken understanding of the context in which scientists say this.

You need to define what "God" is before you say something like that. When scientists declare that God doesn't exist, they are referring specifically to the conception of God as a literal, conscious and self-aware entity who actively manipulates worldly events based on prayer.

It's pretty obvious that this idea is bullshit, but you can make up your own "vague spiritual force" definition of God if you want--you just stretch and pull and poke and refine until all the inconsistencies come out, at which point you're left with something so far removed from the actual popular definitions of God today that, personally, I think it's a stretch to call it "God" at all.

Basically, I just get tired of hearing "spiritual" people respond to criticisms of God with, "OH YEAH WELL IT DOESN'T DISPROVE *MY* GOD!"

Well, if God is your big toe that's fine and good, but your God in that case is not what 99% of people are referring to when they say "God", so really you're just playing semantics.

Scientists don't claim to be able to 100% disprove these arbitrary vague spiritual force ("God is just like, uhh, the whole like, thing of everything in all of us...dude!") theories of God because those are not what the vast majority of believers in God purport to believe in. That's simply not what they're talking about.

The vast majority of religious people today, when they say they believe in God, actually do believe in a conscious and self-aware entity with a moral agenda who actively imposes those arbitrary moral directives on humanity. THAT is what "God" means in a realistic context today.

You have more theologians saying without a doubt that a God does exist. The fact is no one knows. So far with what we have it's an unknowable answer. Science changes everyday. We find out new things all the time, what my teacher was saying was that at some point she thought science and religion would meet somewhere in the puzzle.

The fact is the entire discussion of God is meaningless until you actually decide what "God" means. Your teacher was probably just saying something to appease everybody in your class regardless of position on this sensitive issue.


Many would say the same about religion. Mystery and the unknown has often been considered a very significant and essential part of religious life and thought.

Wow, somebody should tell that to...I don't know, the entire southern half of the United States of America?




You'll also find some who, though they may not claim to know everything, claim that everything that can be known must be knowable in the scientific way. So they do claim something like that the entire knowable puzzle is as they see it at the least.

Well when you get down to the actual definition of knowledge, that's true. Scientists recognize that there is no such thing as absolute truth or fact without some kind of predefined external condition in a closed system.

For instance, it's scientific fact that 2+2=4, but only because we invented that system ourselves and predefined the conditions of what "2" and "+" and "=" and "4" mean. That's all arbitrary predefinition on our part, so we can make definite, 100% objective statements about it since it operates within a closed system of our own design.

Religion, on the other hand, does not operate within a closed system and claims that it can have direct knowledge with objective truth on all kinds of issues that are clearly totally unsolvable.

I'm sorry, but the religion=science parallel is just really poorly conceived and fleshed out even worse.
 

Lux

Kraken down on piracy
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
1,458
simulatedworldI think this is a result of mistaken understanding of the context in which scientists say this.

you can make up your own "vague spiritual force" definition of God if you want--you just stretch and pull and poke and refine until all the inconsistencies come out, at which point you're left with something so far removed from the actual popular definitions of God today that, personally, I think it's a stretch to call it "God" at all.

+1 to you



Basically, I just get tired of hearing "spiritual" people respond to criticisms of God with, "OH YEAH WELL IT DOESN'T DISPROVE *MY* GOD!"

I say let people believe what they want.

The fact is the entire discussion of God is meaningless until you actually decide what "God" means. Your teacher was probably just saying something to appease everybody in your class regardless of position on this sensitive issue.

Most likely she was dancing around a sensitive topic, and I'm sure she's asked that every semester. She's a molecular biologist so people probably want to know. I don't know what kind of 'God' she believes in or what her definition is. I think that with the case of science and theology coming together it's a good blend if you have brilliant minds from both sides of the aisle. To get the best science possible you need different ideas. Different ideas can come from disagreement.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Quite simply, "reality" is the sum of all existents. Nothing can exist outside of reality. To rephrase this, approaching the point from the opposite angle, non-reality does not exist. Reality, as the sum of all existents, encompasses all that exists - it is not suspended within non-reality.

Bolded is redundant.

Simple refutation: If God exists, he is part of reality. That, in essence, refutes the entire argument.

Now, this infinite God, in the tradition of most monotheistic religions, one day sets himself to creating a universe. Here is where the problem arises - the moment He creates a universe - or anything for that matter - separate from Himself, he is no longer infinite. To put this in simpler terms, suddenly we have two entities: God and His universe. They must be suspended in something -<--------> as non-reality does not exist,<-------> these two entities could not, together, make up all of reality, suspended in non-reality. Whatever it is that they existed within, together, would be reality. Here the problem of infinite regress arises: who or what created the reality that God and His fresh new universe are presently existing within?

Riddled with metaphysical assumptions/fallacies. In order:-

Assuming time exists outside the Universe.
Assuming something "exists" outside the Universe and assuming what "exists" outside the Universe depends on the Universe. (One cannot observe outside the Universe)
Redundant.
The two above.
Simple answer: God. Another one: There is no "reality" they are existing within.

One of the basic ideas of "God", is that it ends infinite regresses. As shown in the simplest cosmological argument. Not that it is actually necessary to end metaphysical regresses.

- The universe is everything.
- God existed before the universe.

That's overly simplified. The flaw in that should be obvious though.

Basically:

P1: Nothing exists outside the universe.
P2: To exist, God has to be outside the universe.
C: Therefore god/anything outside the Universe does not exist.

The first premise is begging the question, if the conclusion is taken into account (Some people use "Universe" and "All of reality" interchangeably, the conclusion shows that does not apply here. If it did, the fallacy would simply be absurdity, a statement with no reasoning behind it).
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
Anyone who says that is inherently not in the field of science.

P.S.,

No, you will not find any scientists who claim to have 100% absolute knowledge of the workings of the universe.

You'll find some who are rather impatient with explaining why literal/dogmatic interpretations of religion are clearly absurd, but that's about it.
I think Richard Dawkins fairly clearly insists that reality is blue.
 

r.a

meat popsicle
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
496
MBTI Type
STFU
I do understand your point and agree to a large extent. There are fanatics on both sides of the issue. You do have scientists saying without a doubt that God does not exist. You have more theologians saying without a doubt that a God does exist. The fact is no one knows. So far with what we have it's an unknowable answer. Science changes everyday. We find out new things all the time, what my teacher was saying was that at some point she thought science and religion would meet somewhere in the puzzle.

its called quantum physics :)
 

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Now, this infinite God, in the tradition of most monotheistic religions, one day sets himself to creating a universe. Here is where the problem arises - the moment He creates a universe - or anything for that matter - separate from Himself, he is no longer infinite. To put this in simpler terms, suddenly we have two entities: God and His universe. They must be suspended in something - as non-reality does not exist, these two entities could not, together, make up all of reality, suspended in non-reality. Whatever it is that they existed within, together, would be reality. Here the problem of infinite regress arises: who or what created the reality that God and His fresh new universe are presently existing within?
Jennifer said:
Mycroft, how do you think concepts like pantheism and panentheism fit into the philosophical framework here?

Could you please define these terms for me Jen? :)

Mycroft said:
Now, this infinite God, in the tradition of most monotheistic religions, one day sets himself to creating a universe. Here is where the problem arises - the moment He creates a universe - or anything for that matter - separate from Himself, he is no longer infinite. To put this in simpler terms, suddenly we have two entities: God and His universe. They must be suspended in something - as non-reality does not exist, these two entities could not, together, make up all of reality, suspended in non-reality. Whatever it is that they existed within, together, would be reality. Here the problem of infinite regress arises: who or what created the reality that God and His fresh new universe are presently existing within?


Speaking from Christianity's standpoint, God is:

  • Eternal, Immortal, Invisible, Unique (1 Timothy 1:17)
  • Omnipotent [All Powerful] (Matthew 19:26, Luke 1:37)
  • Omniscient [All Knowing] (1 John 3:20, Hebrews 4:13, Colossians 2:3, Matthew 10:30)
  • Omnipresent (this is hinted at, though there is no one verse that says it plainly in black and white...I believe Ephesians 4:6 comes closest, of those I've found so far).
I point you to the first bullet's verse. God has always existed, thus making the "who created existence question" moot. There was no start point, nor will there be an end point. As he says in Exodus 3:14, He Is. He Is everything. All creation is a part of Him. Though he does not control all of creation all of the time, despite having the capability to do so. As such, we, individually sentient humans have been given the ability to do things apart from His will (though, I do not believe that to be advisable). It would seem that the angels also have that ability. There's also non sentient matter like rocks, planets, stars, galaxies, etc, etc; no ability there, but they are just as much a piece of God. Everything we can see in the Universe. All came from God and is a part of God, but is not necessarily a part of God's individual consciousness.

Meaning, I am not God, as we typically think of Him in existential terms, though I am a part of Him, as is all existence. Probably. It's my best guess.

And that's really all there is to it.
*Irish Accent* OOOOOH REAAALY Mike? May I call you Mike? Or is it Michelle? I've read the book too.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Could you please define these terms for me Jen? :)

Loosely:

Pantheism = Nature/Universe is God (no more, no less)
Panentheism = God is Nature/Universe but transcends it timelessly as well
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
God does exist. God has a very real tangible impact on all of our lives, including yours, whether or not you choose to admit it. God exists in our collective psyche. Many people are guided by their belief and many of those beliefs have a common foundation. Whether you are an atheist or agnostic like me, you can choose to completely ignore the issue and question and still be influenced by believers close to and around you. You might say your life is guided by god if you avoid sending your kids to a religious school. I went to a Catholic primary school and even went to Sunday school. I have an Irish aunt. Having been indoctrinated with god from that early an age must have had some influence on my life.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
God does exist. God has a very real tangible impact on all of our lives, including yours, whether or not you choose to admit it. God exists in our collective psyche. Many people are guided by their belief and many of those beliefs have a common foundation. Whether you are an atheist or agnostic like me, you can choose to completely ignore the issue and question and still be influenced by believers close to and around you. You might say your life is guided by god if you avoid sending your kids to a religious school. I went to a Catholic primary school and even went to Sunday school. I have an Irish aunt. Having been indoctrinated with god from that early an age must have has some influence on my life.

Flying spaghetti monster must exist. Everyone has been influenced by pasta somehow.
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
Just in case you didn't "get it", I said God exists in our minds. We make god real.

EDIT: I did not read your response correctly. You didn't "get it". Nobody is influenced by flying spaghetti monsters.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
Oh yeah? Have you seen Ghost in the Shell?

...yeah, I didn't think so.

Yeah, many years ago. At the time I was expecting something less philosophical and a lot more action-oriented (I had heard it was good, but didn't get any further details). I don't remember much about it, except that I found it to be boring and vaguely offensive on the philosophical level. I've always intended to watch it again, to see what my opinion of it would be now.
 

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
When scientists declare that God doesn't exist, they are referring specifically to the conception of God as a literal, conscious and self-aware entity who actively manipulates worldly events based on prayer.

It's pretty obvious that this idea is bullshit...

Oh really? Why? Why do you think so?

Basically, I just get tired of hearing "spiritual" people respond to criticisms of God with, "OH YEAH WELL IT DOESN'T DISPROVE *MY* GOD!"
Hey, why don't you come and argue with a Christian your own size then?

Why don't you stop using your conversations with ignorant and uneducated Christians as a basis to dismiss the entire group, and their faith as bullshit?

The vast majority of religious people today, when they say they believe in God, actually do believe in a conscious and self-aware entity with a moral agenda who actively imposes those arbitrary moral directives on humanity. THAT is what "God" means in a realistic context today.

The fact is the entire discussion of God is meaningless until you actually decide what "God" means. Your teacher was probably just saying something to appease everybody in your class regardless of position on this sensitive issue.
To say that Christians "know", is incorrect. It's a bad word choice. To say that Christians "have faith", is much more correct. God doesn't expect us to "know" 100% that He's out there when we haven't seen him for 2000 years. It's probably also more appropriate to say, we seek to have such faith, that in our actions, we will proceed as if we "know". The apostles "knew". They saw Christ and everything that went with Him. I have faith based on their testimony.

I can also take that a step further and say that I look at life differently as a result--I can "see" how God works in it because the faith that I hold allows me to look at life much differently then the agnostic or the atheist.

I'm sorry, but the religion=science parallel is just really poorly conceived and fleshed out even worse.
I sort of agree with you; if science is the logical study of everything, then the concept of God fits into that study. Religion is not meant to be a competitor with science. Christians believe that God is part of everything, that he is real, and that, with an accepted prespective, we are able to study Him. I'd say the biggest argument for God is creation around you; though you believe it happened randomly and I believe it happened divinely, can you or I prove it either way?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
God does exist. God has a very real tangible impact on all of our lives, including yours, whether or not you choose to admit it.

This is a useless assertion. My saying "God does not exist. God does not have a very real tangible impact on all of our lives, including yours, whether or not you choose to admit it" has as much internal validity as your statement. It's a useless comment in a rational argument.

I find it more productive, when talking about unverifiable beliefs, to use "I" in the comments and not "you."
 

paintmuffin

New member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
159
MBTI Type
eNTP
I have a biology teacher that is amazing, she's brilliant and someone posed the question to her yesterday about God. I really liked her answer. She is a Sunday school teacher and has no qualms telling people about her faith in God. She explained her science/faith theory like this:

Picture a huge zillion piece puzzle of the Earth.

You have the scientists who have put together the top right hand corner of the sky and they shout, "Reality is blue!"

You have the theologians putting together the bottom right hand corner of the grass and they shout, "Reality is green!"

Her point was that they are both putting together the same puzzle, but neither of them can see that.

I really liked her answer :)

The point of science is to put together the entire puzzle. As soon as they get a piece with a bit of cloud they will shout, "We changed our minds! Reality is white and blue!"

Religion has not picked up a new piece of the puzzle in a long, long time. And they've shown no attempts to do so either.

Kudos to the original post!
 

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Religion has not picked up a new piece of the puzzle in a long, long time. And they've shown no attempts to do so either.

Have you ever been to a Christian university's theology department, my Squarely Nodparent? Our understanding of the source material, and our ability to understand cultural context have sharpened consideribly over the past two hundred years--meaning we have many more pieces and know much better where they go. Opinions have changed, refined and improved. Christian theology has evolved; both toward deeper consensus and deeper conflict among among some of the greatest minds of our Faith. Go ahead, I challenge you, find a Professor of Theology that is worth his salt and he'll tell you just how many pieces we have collected over the last two millenia.
 

avolkiteshvara

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
893
MBTI Type
YaYa
Part of the problem is that everyone has their own definition of God.

Some people think it is a blue eye brown hair deity. Others think it is the plants and trees. Some just think they are god.

I had a good friend that once thought he was Jesus. I think he was having a psychotic episode though.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think Richard Dawkins fairly clearly insists that reality is blue.

I think you haven't actually read Richard Dawkins's book.

In the very first chapter he makes it clear that he's referring only to God as a literal, conscious and self-aware entity with a moral agenda who actively manipulates worldly events based on prayer.

He makes the same argument I do here, by saying: "You can find God anywhere if you look hard enough--but for the purposes of this book I am discussing popular monotheistic concepts of God as practiced by mainstream Western religion."

Dawkins gets a lot shit for stuff that he never really said, just because he's so forceful. Suffice it to say, he never makes any commentary on any "vague spiritual force" theories of God, but seeks only to deconstruct the clear absurdity that is literal fundamentalist interpretation.
 

Charmed Justice

Nickle Iron Silicone
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,805
MBTI Type
INFJ
I have a biology teacher that is amazing, she's brilliant and someone posed the question to her yesterday about God. I really liked her answer. She is a Sunday school teacher and has no qualms telling people about her faith in God. She explained her science/faith theory like this:

Picture a huge zillion piece puzzle of the Earth.

You have the scientists who have put together the top right hand corner of the sky and they shout, "Reality is blue!"

You have the theologians putting together the bottom right hand corner of the grass and they shout, "Reality is green!"

Her point was that they are both putting together the same puzzle, but neither of them can see that.

I really liked her answer :)

But don't most religions claim to have already solved the puzzle? Religions claim to offer infallible answers to all of the world's most complicated questions with the most simplistic of conclusions. All of this with no proof.

When questions of doubt arise within a religion, it is seen more or less as a test of said person's faith in the religion, and an investigation of the religion's legitimacy or very foundation is discouraged. This is very much unlike science. When doubts arise within the scientific community concerning a previous conclusion, the conclusions are put to the test and modified according to the new knowledge that has been obtained.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I've never understood when people make arguments of this sort. It always seems to me like conflating 'infinite' with 'all-encompassing' or something of the sort. In the same way that the set of all positive numbers is infinite yet not identical to the set of all reals, I see no reason why God can't remain infinite yet not all that is.


Dammit Scott I wanted to post this first! :D (Well you're whole post is very well written, so I guess it's better that you did.) Yeah the OP confuses the ideas of "infinite" and "all-encompassing". The initial premise is flawed, so the whole argument is pointless.

I find it so ironic when an atheist gives some poor argument, and then insists that this must be the way a reasonable person thinks. :rolleye:
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Oh really? Why? Why do you think so?

Surprisingly, I actually don't even feel like explaining this one. There are lots of university level intro to philosophy courses and wikipedia summaries to explain this one to you, and if you can't piece it together then I have no interest in trying.

But I will say that I think faith is a good thing for a lot of people, and that in the context of a religious life if doesn't really matter whether or not God literally exists. Conducting your life as if he does will yield the same result either way, and it brings people comfort, happiness and a sense of community, so in that way I'm all for it.

I think religious people have every right to believe and practice the way they want to--but when you try to bring something like faith into any logical discussion, you've already lost.


Why don't you stop using your conversations with ignorant and uneducated Christians as a basis to dismiss the entire group, and their faith as bullshit?

Because Mycroft started the thread in a purely logic context, so I was deconstructing the common logical issues with God.

I never said there aren't other reasons to believe in God--it seems to work really well for some people and I know that internal logical consistency is not really an important value to them, so that's fine. I wouldn't take faith away from these people because I think it does more good than harm in their lives.



To say that Christians "know", is incorrect. It's a bad word choice. To say that Christians "have faith", is much more correct. God doesn't expect us to "know" 100% that He's out there when we haven't seen him for 2000 years. It's probably also more appropriate to say, we seek to have such faith, that in our actions, we will proceed as if we "know". The apostles "knew". They saw Christ and everything that went with Him. I have faith based on their testimony.

Well, that's your interpretation. Unfortunately there are 954653 other interpretations from people who claim just as surely that they are "THE REAL CHRISTIANS!" and now, oops, nobody has any real idea what Jesus actually meant. There's problem #1.

Oh by the way, my friend Jimmy and eleven of his friends told me they saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that they've all been touched by his noodly appendage. I have since converted to the faith.

Srsly though their story was really passionate and elaborate! They didn't really have any evidence or any particular reason I should believe them beyond hearsay, but that's where my faith comes in--I don't need any reason to believe; accepting something on faith is accepting that it can't be taken on its own merits.


I can also take that a step further and say that I look at life differently as a result--I can "see" how God works in it because the faith that I hold allows me to look at life much differently then the agnostic or the atheist.

sigh. Ok man, go to wikipedia and type in "Russell's Teapot" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Invisible Pink Unicorn" or a host of other basic thought exercises that discredit the idea of arbitrary faith.

Listen, like I said, I'm not morally against faith--I do believe that it's a good thing for many and that in those people's lives, the literal existence/non-existence of God is a non-issue...they're getting what they need out of it and that's good.

Unfortunately that doesn't make faith any less inherently illogical.


I sort of agree with you; if science is the logical study of everything, then the concept of God fits into that study. Religion is not meant to be a competitor with science. Christians believe that God is part of everything, that he is real, and that, with an accepted prespective, we are able to study Him. I'd say the biggest argument for God is creation around you; though you believe it happened randomly and I believe it happened divinely, can you or I prove it either way?

No, but if you had the background in science+a little intuition it'd be pretty obvious why that argument is terrible.

I remember when Chris Hitchens (admittedly a drunken asshole, but a smart one) went on Sean Hannity's show to discuss God, and Hannity rattled off that "OMG TEH WORLD IS TOO COMPLEX TO BE NOT DESIGNED LOL", which reduces essentially to, "Biology is real hard and I don't get it...DOGMATIC EXPLANATION GO!"

Hitchens's response, which I will use here now: "You sound as if you've never read any of the arguments against your position."
 
Top