Why God most certainly does not exist

[Kangirl]

Is it God's fault Peguy is weaseling out?

 

[stellar renegade]

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.

+1

I totally agree. It's not a matter of knowing in some kind of objective or Cartesian way. It's more like just taking the risk that it's true because from all you've seen and experienced, it appears to be that way and you have enough evidence to act on it and make a leap into the dark based on it.

It's an active faith, and if you turn out to be wrong, at least you were being as honest as you could be and using your brain to its fullest extent to make an educated decision. I think God likes a faith like that. I don't think he wants us to be "sure" because that's arrogant. I think it's much more romantic to believe in spite of not having 100% proof (which is impossible, in regard to anything really) and trust that it's true because you at least have evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's like a perception, not an objective judgment. It's a constant seeing and just "getting" it.

And if we're gonna try to prove/disprove God, let's do the same for reality while we're at it. How do you know that anything really exists?

The real question is, what is existence? I asked that question for awhile until I realized I was just depressed. It's better to just get up and live life instead of constantly asking questions or making abstract assumptions. Of course, that question does allow you to strip away the nonessentials and experience life for what it really is.

And yes, interaction with God is relevant to our lives. Sometimes the unexplainable shows up and topples your life upside-down. So what? Life goes on.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I honestly don't even know how we could quantify that. And how are laws defined? Does "God" override natural law by a display of supernatural power, or does it only appear supernatural and the potential Divine is simply able to make use of laws that human beings are not capable of perceiving and manipulating?

Don't ask me how to even answer that question.

When we say that something happened and claim that there is no explanation for how it happened, we are making an appeal to magic. An appeal to magic is part of the supernatural. Hence, if we say that God creates things the supernatural way, we are endorsing a superstition or belief in magic.

On the other hand, could it be the case that there are laws of nature that we cannot understand? Is there any reason to believe that? Surely there are some difficult problems that we did not yet understand, but how could we know that there are problems that are incapable of understanding. At this point we have not yet established a single example of such a law, hence there is no reason to assert that one exists.

What is a law of nature? A principle that describes the cause of a particular event. For example, items falling due to gravity.

 

[reason]

Mycroft,

While I agree with the thrust of your argument, you err in claiming that when God "creates a universe - or anything for that matter - separate from Himself, he is no longer infinite." The set of even numbers is an infinite set, and yet no odd number is among its members, so something can be infinite without encompassing everything. It just depends on what is meant by "infinite" in the context it is said or written.

But God could not have created the universe (by which I mean all of reality or all that exists). The usual retort is: "so you expect me to believe that everything -- all that exists -- just came from nothing?" The answer, of course, is that the universe neither came from something nor nothing, because "coming from" can only occur if a universe already exists.

The claim, "if the universe didn't come from something, then it came from nothing" is a bit like saying "if an idea is not the colour blue, then it must be some other colour." An idea is, of course, neither blue nor any other colour. The property "is the colour x" does not apply to ideas, and, in a similar way, the property "comes from y" does not apply to the universe.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

This misses the point of what I've been saying so completely that I have to wonder if you're being sincere.

Heh, I'm sincere all right. If I've missed your point then, I sincerely do not know what you're point is. It's your choice if you want to explain yourself clearly.

 

[simulatedworld]

And yes, interaction with God is relevant to our lives. Sometimes the unexplainable shows up and topples your life upside-down. So what? Life goes on.

See I agree with that part; I just don't see any reason to keep up the childish fantasy that "the unknown" is one singular, conscious, and self-aware entity with an arbitrary and parochial moral agenda who watches our lives and keeps a scorecard for the afterlife.

I'm all about exploring and seeking to understand the unknown; I just find the label "God" to be rather limiting (not to mention utterly unnecessary) in that regard.

 

[stellar renegade]

I definitely think that people anthropomorphize God way too much, but I do think that God is a conscious entity. Self-aware I don't know, I don't think any of us are self-aware, that seems impossible. We can only know about ourself through hints, like looking in a mirror. You can see yourself reflected, but who can actually view themselves? At most we're looking at an image of ourselves.

We're all a set of impulses and desires, neurons firing, we're a spectacular phenomenon, not an objective personality just a subjectively defined one. So in a sense you could say God's a phenomenon, but in the sense that we're personalities, he/she/it seems to be one, too.

I don't believe God has an arbitrary or parochial moral agenda, either. I don't think that God has any self-interest. I don't even think that God's looking for our worship, necessarily. I do think he wants our affection and for us to at least enjoy living and becoming what we were intended to be if nothing else.

 

[simulatedworld]

How can he be a conscious entity that is not self-aware?

If he has consciousness, how does he use it?

It's not the idea of there being great unknown forces out there that bothers me, just that people feel the need to pretend they all add up to a dude in the clouds with a white beard. You can explore the unknown without the nonsense about prayer and the afterlife and faith in arbitrary rituals.

By the way, if you don't think God has any particular moral agenda (which I would certainly agree with), you've already separated your fundamental beliefs from those of 90% of religious people in the world.

Congrats.

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft,

While I agree with the thrust of your argument, you err in claiming that when God "creates a universe - or anything for that matter - separate from Himself, he is no longer infinite." The set of even numbers is an infinite set, and yet no odd number is among its members, so something can be infinite without encompassing everything. It just depends on what is meant by "infinite" in the context it is said or written.

Numbers are a method we have created to categorize existents. They have no existence in and of themselves. Further, as SW pointed out, even if we granted numbers some nature of "existence", they would be infinite only unilaterally; like our hypothetical line mentioned in posts elsewhere.

I agree that the term "infinite", being one of the highest level concepts available to human thinking, has a variety of definitions. I've strived to make it very clear what definition of the term I must employ for the purposes of this discussion. At this point, I'm at a loss as to how I could make my use of the term any clearer.

But God could not have created the universe (by which I mean all of reality or all that exists). The usual retort is: "so you expect me to believe that everything -- all that exists -- just came from nothing?" The answer, of course, is that the universe neither came from something nor nothing, because "coming from" can only occur if a universe already exists.

The claim, "if the universe didn't come from something, then it came from nothing" is a bit like saying "if an idea is not the colour blue, then it must be some other colour." An idea is, of course, neither blue nor any other colour. The property "is the colour x" does not apply to ideas, and, in a similar way, the property "comes from y" does not apply to the universe.

Given as I have consistently maintained that reality must be infinite in all respects, I don't see how this is relevant. This merely addresses Liquid Laser's miscategorization of my presentation of the concept under discussion.

 

[Mycroft]

Heh, I'm sincere all right. If I've missed your point then, I sincerely do not know what you're point is. It's your choice if you want to explain yourself clearly.

At this point I could only restate. If you are genuinely interested in coming to terms with the concept I attempt to present, read over my posts again and contemplate.

I believe that I present my ideas in a manner that is remarkably clear given the subject matter. With high level concepts, there must be a meeting in between.

 

[stellar renegade]

How can he be a conscious entity that is not self-aware?

If he has consciousness, how does he use it?

By ...using it? By doing things and interacting with people? I don't know. I couldn't exactly say I'm self-aware. Maybe it's just my temperament, but I find it hard to self-reflect at all.

It's not the idea of there being great unknown forces out there that bothers me, just that people feel the need to pretend they all add up to a dude in the clouds with a white beard. You can explore the unknown without the nonsense about prayer and the afterlife and faith in arbitrary rituals.

There's a great deal of nonsense out there. I really just believe God adds up to love. Anything arbitrary is just a temporary method of communication and interaction between God and humanity that can be thrown away once it's served its purpose.

By the way, if you don't think God has any particular moral agenda (which I would certainly agree with), you've already separated your fundamental beliefs from those of 90% of religious people in the world.

Congrats.

Well, I guess it depends on the interpretation. I think God has the desire for everyone and everything to accomplish its individual intended purpose, whatever that may be. It's different for every living creature and object, but the love that equally moves all things has the same exact source.

 

[simulatedworld]

By ...using it? By doing things and interacting with people? I don't know. I couldn't exactly say I'm self-aware. Maybe it's just my temperament, but I find it hard to self-reflect at all.

Um, no. If you're aware that you exist as an entity with your thoughts and actions under your control, you're self-aware. That's what that means.

If God isn't self-aware then he is not one separate or specific consciousness, and if you go that route you've already eliminated over 90% of religious people's beliefs.

There's a great deal of nonsense out there. I really just believe God adds up to love. Anything arbitrary is just a temporary method of communication and interaction between God and humanity that can be thrown away once it's served its purpose.

Well, that's fine. But why do you need to call it God? Why not just...love? Why can't love just be a good concept on its own without supernatural validation?

If God is neither conscious, self-aware, nor an independent decision-making entity, why even call it God?

Well, I guess it depends on the interpretation. I think God has the desire for everyone and everything to accomplish its individual intended purpose, whatever that may be. It's different for every living creature and object, but the love that equally moves all things has the same exact source.

That's cool, and I would say that your interpretation here is far more reasonable than most...unfortunately it blatantly contradicts what most religious people are talking about when they refer to "God", so when you refer to it that way without clarifying, it's pretty misleading.

 

[stellar renegade]

Um, no. If you're aware that you exist as an entity with your thoughts and actions under your control, you're self-aware. That's what that means.

If God isn't self-aware then he is not one separate or specific consciousness, and if you go that route you've already eliminated over 90% of religious people's beliefs.

Oh, I see. Well I'm not eliminating that then. Yes, I think that God is both conscious and self-aware and I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think he has any particular form, though, because he's a spirit. However, I think the self-awareness comes through reflection from someone else.

Well, that's fine. But why do you need to call it God? Why not just...love? Why can't love just be a good concept on its own without supernatural validation?

Even if love weren't a person, I still think it'd have supernatural validation.

That's cool, and I would say that your interpretation here is far more reasonable than most...unfortunately it blatantly contradicts what most religious people are talking about when they refer to "God", so when you refer to it that way without clarifying, it's pretty misleading.

Really? I don't think I'm that far off. I'm sorry if I misled you to think I meant God isn't a real person of some kind (though probably far different than we are, maybe more expansive). I did say he had a consciousness, though.

I just don't think that God has any arbitrary distinctive characteristics. Nothing beyond being a being of love and the source of all existence. Yes, I do think God thinks about us and therefore to that extent has an distinctive identity, as whatever you experience becomes a part of you. But no, God doesn't have any attribute that would cause him to be predisposed toward one person more than another.

I also believe in the trinity because it makes sense of alot of things. For instance, how God could be both outside of time and within it, and the question of interdependence vs. self-existence.

As for the worship paradigm, I do think it's important to worship God in whatever various ways we're predisposed to do that (and also on a community level) but I stand by my thought that God doesn't go around looking for it. In fact, I think it more than likely pleasantly surprises him when it occurs because I think the truest God would be the most humble being in all of existence.

 

[simulatedworld]

Oh, I see. Well I'm not eliminating that then. Yes, I think that God is both conscious and self-aware and I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think he has any particular form, though, because he's a spirit. However, I think the self-awareness comes through reflection from someone else.

What basis do you have for the claim that God is a conscious entity?

Even if love weren't a person, I still think it'd have supernatural validation.

Why?

Really? I don't think I'm that far off. I'm sorry if I misled you to think I meant God isn't a real person of some kind (though probably far different than we are, maybe more expansive). I did say he had a consciousness, though.

Yes but you also said he wasn't self-aware, which is impossible unless you think that God is simply the collective conscience of everyone/everything in the universe (which would prevent him from being an independent entity!)

I just don't think that God has any arbitrary distinctive characteristics. Nothing beyond being a being of love and the source of all existence. Yes, I do think God thinks about us and therefore to that extent has a distinctive identity, as whatever you experience becomes a part of you. But no, God doesn't have any attribute that would cause him to be predisposed toward one person more than another.

"Conscious", "self-aware", and "supernaturally validated" are all distinctive characteristics.

What exactly is it that God thinks about when he thinks of us? Does he ever intervene in worldly affairs based on requests from followers? Is there an afterlife/does God judge who gets into it based on an arbitrary moral agenda?

I also believe in the trinity because it makes sense of alot of things. For instance, how God could be both outside of time and within it, and the question of interdependence vs. self-existence.

Good question--how can God be both outside of time and within it?

Simply stating these words doesn't make the idea any less ridiculous. That's like saying, "Yeah dude, I didn't really get God until I read this book that told me he simultaneously exists and doesn't exist! Now I get it!"

Unfortunately this doesn't really do much to distract from the fact that existing and not existing simultaneously is impossible. How does this kind of self-validation help anything?

As for the worship paradigm, I do think it's important to worship God in whatever various ways we're predisposed to do that (and also on a community level) but I stand by my thought that God doesn't go around looking for it. In fact, I think it more than likely pleasantly surprises him when it occurs because I think the truest God would be the most humble being in all of existence.

So God is actually there as a private conscious entity, but he doesn't ever interfere with the world or make moral judgments upon anybody? How does the afterlife work (if at all)?

What exactly is it that he does then? Just observe? Are you moving into deism now?

 

[stellar renegade]

What basis do you have for the claim that God is a conscious entity?

I'm not really interested in a basis for it, I was just stating personal beliefs. I guess I could try to provide some logical argument explaining how it doesn't make sense that all this could exist with such consistency without some common source from which it all originates.

Why?

Because of its transcendent force.

Yes but you also said he wasn't self-aware, which is impossible unless you think that God is simply the collective conscience of everyone/everything in the universe (which would prevent him from being an independent entity!)

I didn't know what you meant by "self-aware". My apologies.

"Conscious", "self-aware", and "supernaturally validated" are all distinctive characteristics.

Yes, I know.

What exactly is it that God thinks about when he thinks of us? Does he ever intervene in worldly affairs based on requests from followers? Is there an afterlife/does God judge who gets into it based on an arbitrary moral agenda?

Thinks about us in terms of our purpose, I guess, which is to love and be loved and be creative forces in the universe.

I look at it this way. He wants to make the world a better place, but can't do so as long as we don't give him permission. He's given us the power to make this world what we want it to be, after all.

And no, I think our experience of any afterlife is based on our internal state of being/whatever repressed subconscious states we have. There may be an element of discipline to it, too, but only to bring that person to whatever potential they have, and only after an official agreed upon judgment to let the person know. I imagine there's also some torture induced by corrupt supernatural entities as well. It's really too varied of a subject to put a definitive statement on. I'm sure there are all kinds of afterlife scenarios that might occur.

Although I think our ultimate destiny is here on earth.

Good question--how can God be both outside of time and within it?

Like I said, by means of the trinity. The Father would be outside of time, the Son within it.

Simply stating these words doesn't make the idea any less ridiculous. That's like saying, "Yeah dude, I didn't really get God until I read this book that told me he simultaneously exists and doesn't exist! Now I get it!"

Unfortunately this doesn't really do much to distract from the fact that existing and not existing simultaneously is impossible. How does this kind of self-validation help anything?

You don't really think I'm that dumb, do you? :1377:

So God is actually there as a private conscious entity, but he doesn't ever interfere with the world or make moral judgments upon anybody? How does the afterlife work (if at all)?

What exactly is it that he does then? Just observe? Are you moving into deism now?

I never said he doesn't interfere with the world. No, I'm not a deist. You'd probably call me a christian although I've deviated from many of the norms of a christian.

Moral judgments are basically based on a scale, I think. I think God's far more concerned with how we treat each other than whether two mutually consenting adults have sex outside of marriage, for instance. Yeah even little stuff matters but it's not like there's some objective standard judging every offense the same way. I take it to be much more interactive and based on individual situations than that. Situational morality, some might call it.

I've told you about my thoughts on the afterlife. I think that God is a person who needs just as much interaction as we do, and that's my main concern in regards to faith. My biggest problem is that nobody seems to care about that. They just want to quibble over ideas and meaningless doctrines and traditions that don't really matter in the long-run.

I don't know if you have kids but if you did, wouldn't you want to interact with them too? I'd be pretty frustrated if they just started arguing about what they thought I was like instead of just connecting with me instead.

 

[simulatedworld]

I'm not really interested in a basis for it, I was just stating personal beliefs. I guess I could try to provide some logical argument explaining how it doesn't make sense that all this could exist with such consistency without some common source from which it all originates.

You could, but that argument has been shot down enough times by enough people that it probably wouldn't be very productive.

Because of its transcendent force.

I have a dragon in my garage that's too heavy for God to lift. It's because of its transcendent force. Do you believe me?

I didn't know what you meant by "self-aware". My apologies.

Ok you don't bite. You're either the best-mannered ESTP I've ever encountered or your profile tells lies about your type.

My guess would be the latter.

Thinks about us in terms of our purpose, I guess, which is to love and be loved and be creative forces in the universe.

I look at it this way. He wants to make the world a better place, but can't do so as long as we don't give him permission. He's given us the power to make this world what we want it to be, after all.

So if turned out you were wrong and there's nothing there, how exactly would you know it? God can make the world a better place but only if humans actually do it themselves? Isn't it more likely that the humans are just doing it on their own and that pretending some supernatural force is helping just creates a placebo effect of sorts? What you're describing sounds an awful lot like...you know, just real life.

And no, I think our experience of any afterlife is based on our internal state of being/whatever repressed subconscious states we have. There may be an element of discipline to it, too, but only to bring that person to whatever potential they have, and only after an official agreed upon judgment to let the person know. I imagine there's also some torture induced by corrupt supernatural entities as well. It's really too varied of a subject to put a definitive statement on. I'm sure there are all kinds of afterlife scenarios that might occur.

Okay, fair enough. That does grossly contradict what just about every religion is referring to when they say "God" though. Not being judged for the afterlife pretty much negates the entire basis of monotheism...not that that's a bad thing, just that you're going to create an awful lot of confusion if you continue running around calling this belief system of yours "God."

I never said he doesn't interfere with the world. No, I'm not a deist. You'd probably call me a christian although I've deviated from many of the norms of a christian.

If you don't believe in an afterlife you're not really a Christian by any modern definition. You could make an argument for calling yourself a Christian just because you follow Christ's life philosophy, but that'd be kind of a stretch given the obvious connotations of the word "Christian" in Western culture today.

I'm not saying anyone has a trademark on the words God or Christian, just that if your beliefs differ so radically from mainstream beliefs in these areas it hardly makes sense to call them that in the first place.

That's kind of like me running around telling everyone I'm a Nazi and then getting upset when they get the wrong idea--no no no, you see, MY brand of Nazism involves racial equality and love for all!

Really? Then why call it Nazism?

Moral judgments are basically based on a scale, I think. I think God's far more concerned with how we treat each other than whether two mutually consenting adults have sex outside of marriage, for instance. Yeah even little stuff matters but it's not like there's some objective standard judging every offense the same way. I take it to be much more interactive and based on individual situations than that. Situational morality, some might call it.

I agree with that, but monotheism doesn't. It doesn't sound like you're really that Christian at all, in fact...if you deny the existence of any absolute morality, how can you believe in a monotheistic God? I don't understand this inconsistency at all.

I've told you about my thoughts on the afterlife. I think that God is a person who needs just as much interaction as we do, and that's my main concern in regards to faith. My biggest problem is that nobody seems to care about that. They just want to quibble over ideas and meaningless doctrines and traditions that don't really matter in the long-run.

Except for the part about God being a person, I'm totally with you there. Unfortunately monotheistic Western religion doesn't agree with us.

I don't know if you have kids but if you did, wouldn't you want to interact with them too? I'd be pretty frustrated if they just started arguing about what they thought I was like instead of just connecting with me instead.

Sure, but my kids, if I had any, would actually have tangible evidence that I exist...that's the difference.

 

[Spamtar]

In the bible it says "...there is no God"

 

[matmos]

In the bible it says "...there is no God"

Hey spamtar. Y'know your handle spelled backwards is ratmaps?

 

[reason]

Given as I have consistently maintained that reality must be infinite in all respects, I don't see how this is relevant. This merely addresses Liquid Laser's miscategorization of my presentation of the concept under discussion.

Given that God may be identified with all that exists, my point is that asking "what created God?" may be like asking "how tall is the number 4?" There is no infinite regress, because the question, when asked of God is just nonsensical. In other words, the law of causality doesn't apply, because while God may be a thing, He is not an effect, and so He does not require a cause (or a creator).

But, in any case, is reality infinitely orange? Is it infinitely true and infinitely false? Is it infinitely finite? Surely you don't actually mean "in all respects," because many aspects are mutually incoherent. A universe can be no more infinite in all respects than a God.

 

[Spamtar]

A trilogy in six parts

Hey spamtar. Y'know your handle spelled backwards is ratmaps?

how very ingenious, so it does.

Shhh don't tell Also God spelled backwards is dog. Coincidence?

Lets play letterman with your name too by shifting the letters around. A Nonabsorbent Ma, A Baboons Remnant, A Nabobs Ornament, Bananas Robot Men, Manana Boobs Rent, and A Man Nbobs a Tenor…music to the ears the list goes on…

This reminds me 09/09/09 is cuming up.

999; some say it is the devils number. Or Lucifer’s number.

I however have seen enough heavy metal album covers (which as we know are the uncontroverted authority in all matters occult, esp. dark occult) to know that when you turn something upside down or inverse it, it means the opposite.

Therefore if God does exist a priori the Devil exists and if the Devils son, the Beast's, number is 666 does 999 mean the opposite and therefore a day of good luck/positive revelations?

Also some say Gods number is 333 or 3 (the holy trinity) therefore since 3 x 333 equals 999...