Why There Most Certainly Is No God

[arkain101]

Right, I definetly see your point. I long had a similar kind of perspective.

 

However, when I sought deep, and I mean deep, I found some kind of experience or state of mind if you will, that helped me find how, where, why a creator is possible.. (i havent really thought out how to explain that yet,)

 

For example:

 

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.

 

The weather. Yes it is an event. A big event on earth. It is a thing. I can point at the sky and say oh no, look it is going to rain. Darn the "WEATHER" is not going to be good tonight.

 

Now, to elaborate on that deep thing. You have to step back, not only from the weather, but from yourself observing the weather. You have to step back to your existence, and the universes existence all together. You have to attempt to step back untill BAM you feel confused how it is you are even HERE in that very moment you feel that bam of a sort of detatchment.

 

It is here in this logic or the lack of thought itself, where one see's that magic of some kind of MORE... some kind of creator causing this all to happen.

 

 

I think I see what you mean.

 

For example, some people ask "where did god come from?" or, "who made god then?"

 

The question is false. By this I mean, the question can not be asked. The answer to the question however, is, that if you accept that there is nothing larger, more fundamental, older, longer lasting, etc....than an unfathamable devine being.. this being that nothing made god because when you accept the statement, all is of god, and nothing can be that is not of or in if your prefer god.

 

Like I said, the name is not what is important.

 

As one opens their mind and day dreams off into the mysterious wild blue yander, trying to contemplate something so large, so big, so vast, so incredible, so powerful, so encompaossing.... Just doing this with your mind is uplifting, and also fits into the catagory of 'worshiping' existence, and that of which is responsible for it.

 

I like to just open my mind and try to contemplate such vast and glorious things. In doing so it seriousl evolves parts of your mind and heart.. it lets something in you to seek that which you can not see, that which you do not know, but look for it anyway and find out tastes of it...

[ughaibu]

Okay, thanks for explaining.

[palmtreepathos]

My stand is that I don't believe in people....

 

That doesn't mean there aren't any :doh:

[Edella]

My stand is that I don't believe in people....

 

That doesn't mean there aren't any :doh:

I don't understand palmtreepathos. I don't think anyone has said that a lack of belief in something is proof of its non-existence. Have I missed your point?

[Boerseun]

My stand is that I don't believe in people....

 

That doesn't mean there aren't any :)

That is just plain silly, and doesn't apply to this particular discussion.

 

"Not believing" in people means that you don't trust them to do what they say they would, or something similar. "Not believing" in people doesn't imply you don't believe in their existence, 'cause, after all, you just have to stick your head out the window to prove their existence. Or simply reply to this thread and ask yourself who keeps on replying to your replies. Yep. Other people. "Not believing" in people is at best a figure of speech.

 

"Not believing" in God in the atheistic sense, simply gives no creedence to God's existence or non-existence. The "God"-concept is just not factored into an atheist's life.

 

...and that's about it, I guess.

[palmtreepathos]

I was was being both serious and facetious. Here's why.. Many of the comments that I read state as reason for disbelief that God doesn't do "this or that" or that he has "this or that evil reason" for his requirements so thence I don't (want to )believe. That seems to fit in with the comment ....

"Not believing" in people means that you don't trust them to do what they say they would, or something similar.

By this definition most of the folks in church are not really believers...:doh:

Most go to church and yet knowingly practice what the God being preached condemns as life risking behaviour. So they really don't believe he is GOD, One who has the "right to require" nor that he will actually do what he says in the Bible. Now that is a waste of time and makes them an atheist of sorts.

 

I understand that other "atheists" are uninspired to read the Bible because they bear a grudge against those who have made them feel unworthy or were cruel in spite of churchiness. None of that is taught in the Bible. It stands by itself as a effective manual on human and spiritual affairs. It's author has the best intentions toward mankind. While correct adherance is not forced on anyone by the author of the book, He must be frequently ashamed of those who claim to represent him.

[ughaibu]

disbelief

 

I don't (want to )believe

 

"atheists" are uninspired to read the Bible because they bear a grudge against those who have made them feel unworthy or were cruel in spite of churchiness. None of that is taught in the Bible

 

Utter rubbish. Support or retract these contentions.

[Jester]

Ive only read half of this thread. I cant read anymore. I just need to say that this question has obviously been important to humanity its entire existence. sorry if anyone else has already said anything along thesse lines, i just dont have the tiem to read all of these posts.

 

You clicked on this thread with some preconception of the topic. you've obviously thought about it before. Some of you have "proven" logically there is no god. some of you have proof of god's existence in the form of scriptures.

 

Some of you say the question is irrelevant. Like i said, its been around just abuot as long as we have, so i have to disagree with this.

 

we, who spend our time arguing with people we dont know over the internet, obviously have some kind of intellect operating, seeking, reaching out, either out of curiousity ir in order to prove itself. This question presents itself to us, plagues us-we use our intellect to pick it apart. it makes us tear our hair out until we decide god exists or doesnt, or we dont know, or that the question is irrelevant.

 

I argue that this question is of fundamental philosophical, scientific, evolutionary importance. if it were trivial it would have been answered by now, or people would stop asking. it wouldnt exist anymore. The question has arisen in you. You decided to take a stance, even if you dismiss the question.

 

I say that the question is one of the most important parts of being human. Using the gift of understanding to inquire about things unknown, possibly unknowable-this is true intelligence.

 

If you believe in god, you have stopped searching. You have stopped asking the question. Someone has given you a model for god and for the life he wants you to live. You have your answer. There is no reason to keep asking. you will never experience god.

 

If you deny the existence of god, you have stopped searching, asking. You have your proof as to "why there most certainly is no god". You have conquered and solved one of the biggest puzzles ever-congratualtions...you have an ego. In fact, denial has become the lord of you. you will certainly never know if god exists.

 

if you dismiss the question, you have stopped asking, obviously-to you there is no question. you have a good chance, since you are not going either way, of maybe someday stumbling upon something that might give the question freshness and relevance. theres also a good chance you wont.

 

Take the stance of "enlightened ignorance". There may be a god. There may not be. I dont know, thats why i keep asking.

 

If there is a god, and a way to experience whatever the word "god" means, there is no way to then communicate that experience in words. There is no way to prove it or show it. No one can tell us the answer. If we keep this in mind, and never stop asking the question, then all we have to do is keep searching. Search a little. you'll begin to realize that because you are human and the curiosity is part of you, that you are moving towards something.

 

I like to just open my mind and try to contemplate such vast and glorious things. In doing so it seriousl evolves parts of your mind and heart.. it lets something in you to seek that which you can not see, that which you do not know, but look for it anyway and find out tastes of it...

 

Submit to your humanity completely and you may find something comparable to the idea of god not in logic, not in scripture, rather, within yourself. Whatever it is you find is so much more valuable than an answer or some kind of proof. Its the search that is exhilarating and gratifying-because no answer exists...or does it?

[charles brough]

Jester above has developed a good summation of the philosophical/emotional issure in the God question. I just want to add that instead of seeking "purpose", the awsome, the important, etc. in something whose existence cannot be scientifically demonstrated, I believe we should seek those things where they then in reality exist.

 

Also, people make such an issue of "god" when isn't the real question whether or not any type of god OR GODS exist and whether angels, demons, devils, or even souls and spirits exist? Possibly what is going on is that some people who believe in a personal god are failing do realize that others believe only in an abstract diety which could be considered merely the force of nature or a first cause. The two views are worlds apart because one is consistant with science whereas the other is not. Yet they are treated as one by mistake.

[palmtreepathos]

Utter rubbish. Support or retract these contentions..

 

I was not speaking to all atheists only those who are claiming that they are as a "knee jerk" reaction to those who have wronged them emotionally... I see that some are simply not inclined to believe, that may be you. I am not speaking for you. but the obviously disturbed people who reason on and on may need to hear it.

 

Also those who argue against points of religious thoughts that are based on delusions that have nothing to do with the Bible are willing to talk rubbish ad nauseum, I feel entitled to ad my 2 cents.

[ughaibu]

I was not speaking to all atheists only those who are claiming that they are as a "knee jerk" reaction to those who have wronged them emotionally... I see that some are simply not inclined to believe, that may be you. I am not speaking for you. but the obviously disturbed people who reason on and on may need to hear it.

 

Also those who argue against points of religious thoughts that are based on delusions that have nothing to do with the Bible are willing to talk rubbish ad nauseum, I feel entitled to ad my 2 cents.

 

For the nonce, I'll take that as a retraction.

[CraigD]

I understand that other "atheists" are uninspired to read the Bible because they bear a grudge against those who have made them feel unworthy or were cruel in spite of churchiness.

While I think I understand what palmtreepathos is saying, it poorly matches my experience, both as an atheist and as someone who knows a lot of atheists well enough to know their acquaintance with various scripture. My informal, anecdotal survey of theists (nearly all protestant Christians) and atheists suggests that present-day atheists usually have read and comprehended more of the Bible than present-day theists, with the exception of seminary-educated clergy and other theists with high-quality formal religious educations.

 

Although I’m unacquainted with any surveys gauging the Bible literacy of atheists, surveys consisting mostly of people self-identifying as theists indicate that Bible literacy among theists is very low. Reference to such surveys are made in Bill McKibben’s “The Christian Paradox”, (8/2005 Harpers magazine). For example, according to one survey, 75% of Americans surveyed believe the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” appears in the Bible, when, in fact, it does not, but appears instead in the 1736 edition of Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanack”, and is considered by many Bible scholars to almost completely contradict the overall message of the Bible. (sources Re: "God helps those who help themselves."; God helps those who help themselves How can I know for sure that God is real?)

 

It’s worth noting that the very idea of piety positively correlated with reading scripture is a relatively recent one. As recently as the mid 1500s, devout theists fervently prosecuted, jailed, and even executed other fervently devout theists (eg: William Tyndale, executed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1536) who committed the heresy of translating and compiling Bibles for lay readers. (One of many good overviews of this history is the wikipedia article “Bible translations”) Of the Abrahamic religions, only Islam has for its entire history considered the reading of scripture to not be a crime.

It's [the Bible’s] author has the best intentions toward mankind. While correct adherance is not forced on anyone by the author of the book, He must be frequently ashamed of those who claim to represent him.

Although the claim that God is the literal author of the Bible is a common one, it is not to the best of my knowledge supported by scripture, evidence, or sound reason. An author is one who actually inscribes, or at least directly dictates, a book. With a few Old Testament, exceptions (ie: Exodus 24:12

And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

), the books of the Bible are clearly attributed to human speakers and writers.

 

Some theists believe that the human writers of various scriptures, some of which were compiled in to various Bibles, and the editors and translators that compiled and translated the various Bibles, were occasionally or constantly Divinely inspired. Some believe that the four Gospels accurately record the exact words of Jesus Christ, either as handed down orally over several generations, or directly written by someone who personally heard Jesus’s words (possibly Matthew). Some of those believe that Jesus literally was (or is) God, making at least some parts of some of the Gospels the literal dictation of God. Other theists and atheists believe these writings are the purely the products of their human authors.

 

Unless one ascribes to the ascriptural and pantheistic belief that some or all human being are literally God, the claim that the author of the Bible is God is not, IMHO, supported.

[NLN]

Here are several excellent articles regarding atheism:

 

Why there almost certainly is no god

 

Is there an artificial god?

 

The case against religion

 

There is no god (and you know it)

 

Science must destroy religion

 

Choosing the god we want

 

Questions posed by the new atheists

[budhabee]

My goodness....19 pages. That is a lot of information. Now then....after all of that I am thinking that this is not the place to embark on any visionary discussions. If people are having them are they posting them. Where? In a hallucination thread somewhere? I am looking for people who are having visions. Maybe I better make a new thread for this.

[charles brough]

It is unfortunate that Chen has taken the trouble to include a 10,000 world post that is all based upon a false premise! He included this premise:

 

" We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom."

 

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the zero he postulates ever existed. If it did, he would have a basis for claiming "Intelligent Design" but we have no reason to believe there was ever a time when the universe did not exist. In fact, since times is change, there could be no such thing as time without there also being the universe. Also, nothing has ever been created or arisen from nothing, so the very existence of the universe makes it obvious that it has always existed. There never was a "First Cause."

 

I did not read any further down Chen's post because of this error. There is no getting around the need for us all to confine the size of our posts instead of each person getting up on a soap box and giving us tedius lectures.

[Alumno deVerum]

This is a post on why the existence of any 'God' (from here on out the official definition of 'God' in this post will stand for any and all omnipotent omniscience spiritual entity who takes on various forms of human personification and intervenes in the daily life's of homo sapiens, etc) is a logical, mathematical, physical, metaphysical, and spiritual (which is actually simply qualia, & epiphenomenon) contradiction and utter impossibility.

 

If your definition is correct your right. If it's wrong then the question is still open. How do you know your definition is correct? How did you arrive at it?

[charles brough]

This is a post on why the existence of any 'God' (from here on out the official definition of 'God' in this post will stand for any and all omnipotent omniscience spiritual entity who takes on various forms of human personification and intervenes in the daily life's of homo sapiens, etc) is a logical, mathematical, physical, metaphysical, and spiritual (which is actually simply qualia, & epiphenomenon) contradiction and utter impossibility.

 

If your definition is correct your right. If it's wrong then the question is still open. How do you know your definition is correct? How did you arrive at it?

 

"God" is defined in dictionaries as a TYPE of superbeing, not the name of a specific one. Thus, there is "deism" for an abstract god and "theism" for a personal god that answers prayer. The Christian god is supposedly the tribal war god of the Jews (Old Testament). They call Him "yahweh." Nevertheless, the public calls him "God" and thus all the confusion.

 

I am a total atheist and don't believe in the existence of spirits of any sort or kind even though it is impossible to prove he does NOT exist. Lacking any evidence at all that he DOES exist, I do not believe in Him any more than in Santa Claus. With the 100,000 year human decline in the number of gods/spirits worshiped and the growth of human understanding, (the latter causing the former), I do have evidence that the trend will continue and eliminate Him also.

 

HOME PAGE