Why There Most Certainly Is No God

[ughaibu]

If there is any result from believing in god, ie if it makes any difference, in reality, whether or not one believes, the chances of that result being in one's favour are exactly the same as the chances of it being against one.

[arkain101]

If there is any result from believing in god, ie if it makes any difference, in reality, whether or not one believes, the chances of that result being in one's favour are exactly the same as the chances of it being against one.

 

In all logical sense, you make a strong point.

 

What if someone believes. Define what you are believing in. Many that believe in god visualise and consider character of many different things. Many that believe, believe in an ideology to the benifit of what they think is their rights.

 

But, if we ask all various types of believers to explain what it is that they believe in a short description, it is in most cases at least related to scriptures of specific holy books, an all powerful and responsible being of everything that exists, has existed, and will continue to exist. No matter what you consider; a distant world-thats the creator, the life of dinosaurs-that was the creator, a whole other universe-thats the creator.

 

All that was, and all that is, and all that can be, is of and nothing other than the creator.

 

Now this is the answer that at least I am willing to presume is the name of the god in which all believers refer to. They may call it many different names. They may never contemplate its grandness, maybe only the imagery.

 

The point I am trying to make is that, in this sense whether believers are willing to admit it or not, they are all having faith in the same very scarcly and partialy understood and known creator.

 

As for the people who do not believe. If you ask them what they do believe, and I know this from my past understandings, they can only offer up a various number of plates.

The first plate will be very full of things, but when you ask them, where this came from.

Another plate will be layed on the table with a few less things. again we investigate the origin of these goods.

Again.

and again.

Untill we find ourselves to an empty plate of questions and ideas, of which futher yet have no origin.

Then if we investigate how all things related to your awareness and consciousness as a person. Such as color, thought, feelings, and all other related things.

There is two possible explainations. 1) They are fantasy and do not exist. 2)they come from an empty plate.

 

Now when we look at these two options.

 

1)To have faith, and that is, confidence in a creator and your search of understanding it.

 

2)Being content with an empty plate. Where you either do not exist, or you are delusion and product of fundamental nothings.

 

So when we return to the comment of:

 

the chances of that result being in one's favour are exactly the same as the chances of it being against one.

 

And compare the two options, we have a choice to make, and you can not deny this choice. Only excuses to delay your choice.

 

Even proof does not force a faith. So, if one found even more proofs than are already here, it would not change in how they believe. At the end of it all you either have to have faith, or you choose not to have faith.

 

If you choose not to have faith, you choose to say that you are fake, non existent. But, when confronted with a choice to make that concirns ones life. If the person wants to live, they will accept they exist, and, throw away all previous conclusions in order so that they may live.

 

If you choose to have faith, you really do not comprehend what it is that you are having faith in, but this does not prevent you from having experiences that can only relate to it, by comprehending its possibility.

 

When one says, god exists. They do not claim they know who exists, or even what exists. In respect to logic, they say, I have faith in that I exist, and through this I am saying that I have faith in that I am created, and done so by a creator. One does not understand much more than this, at least untill they investigate more that is related to this.

 

When one says god does not exist. In respect to knowledge, they have expressed their faith in this creator, by means of putting effort towards it in order to decieve themselves. If a person says, I am convinced that I do not exist. Their very first word (I) has just represented their truth that they have faith in that they exist, in order to decieve that they do not.

 

This is of course my logical breakdown of this issue, and not a judgment on anyones beliefs or character. If anyone has a view that can break this apart for me, I'd be glad to go over it.

[ughaibu]

1) I dont see how you think that a lack of belief in god implies a lack of belief in one's own existence.

2) If you continue asking those who believe, where things come from, (where does god come from?) they will also come up empty.

[arkain101]

1) I dont see how you think that a lack of belief in god implies a lack of belief in one's own existence.

 

I say this because of the conclusions of various theories and what they imply.

 

I have been unable to see where physics connects to intelligence and life.

 

I have done my research too man. This search has been the only thing I have done for strait years now... I find that all theories are based on.. what?...stuff. Stuff we don't know, stuff we don't understand, stuff that is altogether unrelated to my life.

 

Ughaibu. If you have a strong argument to bring forth, I'd love to hear it because I have shaken every tree and they always come up empty for me. I just can't get a logical answer. I mean, hyperdimensional string like geometry of space and time, sure it might be accurate, but it is by no means the right direction to conclude your origin.

 

2) If you continue asking those who believe, where things come from, (where does god come from?) they will also come up empty.

 

I agree. The answer of where god came from is a question that seems similar.

 

However, I have a method that creaps into an answer.

 

Remove all concepts of macroscopic or human minded interpratation to existence. When we do so, we end up with a sceneario like this. Examining water, that is under water. You mentally take some water, then you interact with some water and you find yourself with a paradox of sorts. That is, you find yourself inside ONE FRAME.

 

In a relativistic sense, imagine a universe with one frame. Let this be light. Quite obviously we find an issue at hand, nothing is there, no logic or even reason. I won't say its impossible, but its impossible to make a compound measurement.

 

So lets take one step further. Note that Special Relativity tells us, all matter and all light, all space and all time, is independent to all frames.

 

This means, that one frame(i) can experience the universe contract while under high velocity , while other frames experience no contraction, except for the contraction of frame (i) in its length.

 

How can the universe allow each observer to contain its own universe?

 

Remember, if we remove all mental interpratation, we end up with hypothetically 1 frame for light, and possibly two frames for matter's observeration capability. Note that only two frames creates uncertainty amongst the pair that forms the unit of matter.

 

So there is alot of mysterious and absolutely strange methods at work here in the underlying basics of this existence.

 

So from here we go back to your statement:

 

2) If you continue asking those who believe, where things come from, (where does god come from?) they will also come up empty.

 

Now we have an answer.

 

In a humans logical sense we need a trinity of absolute realms, or that is 3 catagories of existence to form what we have.

 

1) The light (all infinite)

2) The matter (time and location)

3) Observation perspective

 

(note that time can be considered a word intwined with other words. Such as Action = Time = Mass = Position. All of these are intwined in a way, and require a compound enviroment. That is, at least two frames.)

 

(Note that god is a word for all that is. When one says where did god come from I see it exactly the same as asking where is existence beheld and produced? Do we apply an emotoinal capability to all that is, or do we not.. To do so is god, a creator. To not do so is, content with the word infinite)

 

So now I can finally answer the question where did god come from?

 

 

o)God is and always was and will be, for god is light. (The light (all infinite))

 

ii)God is the first and the last, the beginning and the end for god is material (The matter (time and location))(the beginning and end of time as we know it)

 

<i>)God is the moment, the now. (certainty and perspective)(the spirit or mind)

 

As such as the bible would word this, god is the infinite father, the son (first and las), and the holy spirit (our capability of now)

 

Put the whole mess into one pot and stur it up and you have a reality as we know it. Light and its constant independent speed. Matter - uncertainty, and entanglment of paired units. Mental perspective (whether aware or not) a unit of soul to solidify the system and give it a now moment, a direction, and a relativeness.

 

So we end up at the same question for both science and god in the way I look at it.

 

The choice to make is again:

 

a) are you brave enough to express respect for your life and take the leap of accepting your existence whether temporary, or eternally capable, as being upheld in the power of all that is. You don't have to understand it, you can however learn to acknowledge it.

(I say are you brave enough because it took me alot of time and courage to admit I did not know and did not invent myself, or anything, nor can I, or will I.)

 

b)Or do with the option put before you, do you want to take a different possibility, and never experience that leap in your short time alive?

 

I respect anyones choice in what they do I understand its standard of rediculousness.

 

However in hindsight, I see that once I set out on the deep search for my existence, I would of been deeply lost my entire life if I hadnt done what I though I could never do, put trust outside of my own capability to reason, and acknowledge we are part of something very great. It's the best thing that ever happened to me.

 

Now, does this make me a religious nut? No, I am the same old science hobbiest. Never been to church yet, but this does not mean I will participate in religious theologies. I would rather expand minds as I have learned to expand mine. By this I mean I have gone through various stages of filter changes in my consciousness as you will. Slight little awakenings like that are similar to an analogy of feeling as though you sobered up, a spark of clarity, the more you comprehend all that can be and is, the more something grows inside. The clearer I desire to make my conscience. The better the person I want to be. The more I want to do in this world, and the more good I want to impact.

 

When we get into the religious aspect, such as christianity. Let me share my understandings as of yet.

 

The messages are scrambled in detail yes. But the contexts have remained understandable.

 

Try to learn, truly hear, truly understand, and then believe in what Jesus was telling you and all the world, who spoke what he said god says. As he was of gods spirit.

 

He said, god is now speaking through a man, he used to teach through vision and scripture, about what will come, and what to do to help guide the big picture in the right direction to save all that have lived and return them to life, for we are of dead in gods eyes, it just takes us what we think awhile for it to happen. But, now he speaks directly in the flesh, and works through the flesh, he says hear me, understand me. I do this to return you to life. Trust in these words, assist me in this mission. The mission will be done and the finish will take place when the spirit of this man jesus has put all obstacles beneath his foot on earth, even death. Take heed these words, that when the kingdom of heaven has grown acceptably in size on earth and peace has reigned, then in all fairness will some be brought to life, and others be left in death.

 

What is hell? it is patience in death for this time to come, for those who are waiting for another chance. A long period of waiting, weaping, frustration.

 

The only burning I find is the expression to say, this world will be consumed in truth and discarded.

 

These are my understandings and not neccessaraly what I believe in whole detail. It is just that poor understanding creates conflict. However when you keep things in context.. it doesnt sound all that unreasonable.

 

It doesnt mean you gotta go to church. It doesnt mean you gotta be a perfect person. It tells us repeatively, no actions or deeds will change things. You are in the penalty of death. The only way out is to as said, "trust in what I am saying to the world."

[ughaibu]

Sorry, I dont understand what you mean, could you give the points in a few sentences please.

At the moment I dont see why you would think that belief in god has any connection with belief in existence. Stubbing one's toe hurts the atheist as much as it does the theist, this kind of interaction with external reality has to be dealt with if one wants to survive, and those things with which one interacts and oneself, can be defined as existing by their involvement in these real interactions.

You seem to be redefining god as various basic properties used by physicists, by doing so you are no longer talking about god and by talking about the physical world you appear to be equivocating on "believe".

The contention, of Pascal's wager, to which I responded, presupposes that belief has the power to change reality, ie those who believe will go to heaven when they die, those who dont believe will not. There is no reason to imagine that this is a sensible contention, generally belief does not change reality.

[arkain101]

Sorry, I dont understand what you mean, could you give the points in a few sentences please.

At the moment I dont see why you would think that belief in god has any connection with belief in existence.

 

Reality is blank and unreasonable.(light)

Reality is invisible, but measureable and uncertain. (matter)

Reality is a mental design only existent to life (power of being)

 

Reality is of these and all these.

 

I stated existence IS. You either say its something of which you can attatch yourself to emotionally in a personal way (god), or you don't (atheism)

 

Some say NO to god, but what does atheism say yes to? This is in the most basic of things?

[ughaibu]

Your correspondences to features of reality strike me as arbitrary, how are they any more significant than correspondences in the Kabbala, Blavatsky, tantric yoga, etc? And what is the point of them, what use are they?

Atheism is not a position concerned with whether or not one attaches oneself, emotionally and personally, to one's existence, atheism is just a position that doesn't include god, the nature of one's attachment to existence is independent of one's position regarding concepts of god.

It seems to me that you are expressing a manifestation of your appeal to a concept of god that helps you with some form of existential confusion, this is personal stuff and has nothing to do with god as a real entity. You seem to be redefining god for reasons that only have relevance for you. It is quite possible to resolve any existential confusion without appealing to concepts of god, the vast number of functional atheists demonstrates this.

[Alias]

Atheism is a belief in one's self rather than an external presence.

God is REAL. The fact that he cannot be scientifically, logically, mathematically or physically proven is the only irrevelant thing when it comes to God. That is part of what makes him real, we believe. We believe in the impossible and we live life free. You only look for the logic and it likes being trapped inside a tiny metal box.

To end, I would like to reiterate upon that fact that just because we cannot see it or think it out in our heads does not mean it doesn't exist.

[Boerseun]

Atheism is a belief in one's self rather than an external presence.

Atheism is not a belief system at all. Atheism doesn't include or even imply a belief in yourself, or anything else, for that matter. Atheism is simply the non-existence of belief, as the name indicates. A-Theism.

God is REAL.

Believing stuff doesn't make it so. And the massive repetition of a fallacy might make the fallacy gain some creedence in the public mind, but the Truth, unfortunately, ain't no democracy. The Truth is a nasty, cold-hearted slimy evil creature that hides in closests at night, frightening little children. And sometimes it frightens adults, too. But it's still the Truth, so the best thing to do in order to be honest with ourselves, is to girdle our loins, brace ourselves, and face the Truth head-on. Doing anything else will be a lie.

The fact that he cannot be scientifically, logically, mathematically or physically proven is the only irrevelant thing when it comes to God.

Unfortunately, the fact that you believe that particular line, is irrelevant as far as the Truth is concerned. Science, Logic and Maths are the evil henchmen of Truth, and they have the nasty habit of sniffing out bull. They've already killed off the tooth fairy and the easter bunny. They're a murderous mob, and they're on the hunt again...

That is part of what makes him real, we believe. We believe in the impossible and we live life free.

I cannot agree with you that denying the results of scientific inquiry makes you or anybody else, free. Science presents us with many things, good as well as bad, useful as well as useless. Knowing that there's a black hole in the center of the Milky Way won't make your computer run faster or your car consume less fuel. But we cannot cherry-pick the results offered to us by science. We can't say "cool, we'll accept the results of this scientific probing, but we'll ignore the negative results from the angel-test". The only thing we can do is to try and come up with experiments to prove/disprove hypotheses and theories.

You only look for the logic and it likes being trapped inside a tiny metal box.

Heck, nobody said it was gonna be fun. Sorry. Like I said, the henchmen are evil...

To end, I would like to reiterate upon that fact that just because we cannot see it or think it out in our heads does not mean it doesn't exist.

I wouldn't exactly call that line a fact...

 

Then again, in an infinite universe, we should find pink feathered flying toasters with ribbons and a bow playing "The Star Spangled Banner" in reverse whilst flying at 99% the speed of light through a green kitchen. So, the mere fact that we haven't seen it yet, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It would seem the only indication for or against the possible existence of God would be the nature of the boundaries of the Universe, not whether or not you get a warm and fuzzy feeling for believing it. There's a vast difference there.

[Zythryn]

To end, I would like to reiterate upon that fact that just because we cannot see it or think it out in our heads does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

Nor does it mean that it does exist. If the fact that we can't see something means that it does exist, then the invisible flying spaghetti monster must also exist for the same reason.

[New-ideas]

I've always had one base theory on why God cannot exist, you could probably view it as a question as well.

If God exists outside our universe, beyond space and time that is, a transdimensional being beyond all contempaltion and understanding, then how is in any way possible for us to know or even comprehend Gods existance? My point being, that if a God did exist, we wouldnt know anyway!

[charles brough]

Chen, I agree there isn't such a thing. But I am surprised you have gathered up so much material just to "prove" something does not exist!

 

I know that in Asia, a lot of people believe in "ghosts." So, why do you focus only on "gods"? I suggest you state your position as: "I have no reason to believe in ANY "spirits" of any kind"? That would include "gods" as well. In fact, it would also include Santa Claus and unicorns, the tooth fairy and munchkins! After all, you really don't believe in them either, do you?

 

May I suggest you keep coming back to the posts but put in only a few smaller points in your own way and that express your view all concentrated into a single paragraph or two. No one will read much of such an unending post.

 

I say there are no "spirits" for another reason I feel confident you did not make. It is that the whole history of religions has been fewer and fewer gods. It makes sense that this is a trend resulting from and in exact proportion to what we learn of natural cause and effect. Logically, therfore, as the trend continues, we will not need ANY diety to explain ANYTHING. Then, we will all no longer believe in them.

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[phoenixbyrd]

The whole problem with magical invisible god's is that, if you accept one, then you must accept all. There's no valid reason to accept the christian god over Odin or Zeus or even the flying spaghetti monster. The only reason the christian god is more popular over the other's is through christian tactics of destroying these other religions through war, that's it. Open any history book.

 

The reason I know there is no god(s) is through history. In the beginning, there was no monotheistic religion. Todays christian invisible naked man is an historically recent invisible naked man. If anyone is so willing to believe in a 1500 year old deity then they may as well be practicing scientologist's as far as I'm concerned.

[arkain101]

A belief is a belief.

 

Anyhow. Much beleif in god is nothing absolute or certain.

 

As far as it goes for me is accepting our humanity and/or civilization as one very important aspect in this universe/reality.

 

Also, to marvel at all that is both in the observation context, and in the solo experience of myself, my consciousness, and taking in the contemplation that it may have been created by something far more brilliant than I can fathom or attempt to explain.

 

By chance or by creation...

 

Either-or leaves me in awe... and I like to argue both sides equally and openly without attatching a belief and making the mistake of treating it like some kind of knowing.

[ughaibu]

Arkain101: Okay, but how do you deal with the infinite regress of increasingly brilliant creators?

[arkain101]

following the definition of "regress"...........

 

go back to a statistical means

revert: go back to a previous state; "We reverted to the old rules"

get worse or fall back to a previous condition

the reasoning involved when you assume the conclusion is true and reason backward to the evidence

relapse: go back to bad behavior; "Those who recidivate are often minor criminals"

regression: returning to a former state

 

........I assume you are asking me how do I deal with the ever changing, evolving, view of creators...??

 

I will try answer this in a few ways because I did not fully understand your question.

 

I deal with the concept of diety as best as logical reality will allow me to do so in a reasonable / factual way.

 

My assumptoin of the various names and versions of gods is in direct corrilation with the state of knowledge we have about our enviroment and such. Thus we can only elaborate / advance / explain / exceed to the extent that our awareness and knowledge about our enviroment allows us to.

 

You can only be or do as much as you contain for knowledge at the time being.

 

Be it so that a god is infinite, this would mean that we have eternity to learn ways in which to explain and understand a single holy infinite god.

 

The name or title is of no importance for a diety in my view. I say this because not everyone can speak, not everyone can talk the same, and all names have changed throughout time through translation, accent, and the like.

 

So the name is only a word that acts as a title to sum up ideals, and details of a person, place, or thing so to speak.

 

It is not hard for us to come up with the concept of a being that is above all that is. It is like we know about the value 'infinity' in mathamatical or scientific terms, yet we can not mentally concieve it at its fullest form. It is as if to imagine absolutely nothing, forever, and forever, nothing. Or it is to consider everything one thing, forever, and ever, which is in a sense nothing. The lack of value.

 

The answer seems more clear depending on the relative perspective one chooses to have at the time of the contemplation.

 

If one chooses to consider all that they see around them as objects that work like a very large machine to create the universe we have, then it is easier to lean towards the anti-god or creator view, simply because focus is on what is out there.

 

In contrast to this, there is the view of putting your focus on yourself, existing now, and try to get your mind wrapped around the NOW moment that keeps flowing out, or through you, however you want to arrange that illustration. In this form of focus, seeing the miracle in yourself of existing it is easier to see the room for the factor of a devine quality.

 

Devine quality is like, The invisible thoughts, the invisible witness/observer/experience, contained inside a human body, and encompassing nearly the entire human body. An awareness.

 

However, it is very important to note that these two things are intertwined.

 

There must be the material stuff, for the mysterious quality of awareness and thoughts. Just as there must be the mysterious quality in order to bring alive the material stuff, and create the mental construct of what exactly material stuff is. It is an enigma of sorts. You can't appear to have these two things seperate and concieve a logical existence. It reminds me of the behavior and logic of the quantum perspective of things. This is, the dual nature of matter and energy of which have the particle and wave like behaviors. It seems there can be either, neither, or both. Just as reality itself seems to be either spiritual, or material, or both, or neither.

 

The relative perspective avenue you choose to take influences the answer of which you find logical and plausible.

 

It comes down to the very basic choice, a statement Einstein is recorded as making; "You have two choices to make in life about life. Either nothing is a miracle, or, everything is a miracle".

 

Its this choice that sums up my thoughts here.

 

 

I can find respect for my life, because I can not create my life. It is in the hands of that which I do not understand, not in the hands of my wish, will, or skill.

 

We will find confusion and/or frustration when we attempt to take on a different philisophical view of our reality because of that which we discover about its unique parts. The fundamental thing is living, loving, and raising a happy healthy family, community, town, city, country, world. And if we find out something strange about the function of the things in this world and attempt you foundate (make foundation) on this emperical evidence we abandon the central theme, we follow the avenue of discovery and knowledge, but not WISDOM. We can lose the stratigic part of knowlegde, for the more technical part. I mention this because when you use these things to philisophically argue against a god, I personally find it is in vain, because it has already abandoned the central theme in the first place.

ie; Do we eat "atoms" or is it that we eat "potatoes".

 

I will stop here before this post becomes too full of variety.

[ughaibu]

Infinite regress refers to the situation of claiming that A is explained by A'. This still leaves A' unexplained, so it requires A'', which requires A''', ad infinitum. In short, a creator doesn't explain anything so there's no justification for conjecturing one.

A human being is a complex thing, but so is the weather. Pyrotex tells me that it can be proven that the weather can not be predicted, yet despite the complexity of the weather nobody (these days) suggests that the weather needs a creator.