Why There Most Certainly Is No God

[arkain101]

Life is a story my friend. Our consciousness forms our universe in the way it is seen.

Come to live, and at some point you will surely die. That time may be changed by the choices you make, with the opportunities put before you. However, on that day, when the bell sounds, in the last hour, you will be reminded, that in those moments you may take nothing with you except that which you have gathered and can hold in your own heart. And if you do not live to fill your heart with the very few things that it needs to hold, you may find there is nothing to take with you as you find yourself on your way down that very last road.

- ArKain101

 

In the moments where you see your end, often times it shatters the view of when you have no end in sight.

[Heresiarch]

Chen, you cannot come to the conclusion that no God exists. You repeatedly refer to God as "he", when it's never referred to as a person, so it may not be a person, you say:

 

Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be.

 

This thread could be seriously streamlined if everyone would read Charles Hartshorne's amazing book, "The Divine Relativity." He effectively debunks the standard misconceptions about God. For example, the idea that, as is quoted above, "If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else." Why accept this definition of perfection? If an entity is complete, it possesses perfect knowledge of all that occurs. But some events have yet to occur, so they cannot be known yet. By definition, only things that are knowABLE can be known. Therefore, God depends on us to cause events to occur, and thereby expand the range of what is knowable. God's knowledge grows with each passing moment, because new events occur. Implicit in this critique is a rejection of the idea that God has perfect knowledge of the future. In that case, the universe would be a perfect determinism, a position that is inherently indefensible.

 

Seriously, read Whitehead and Hartshorne before announcing God's nonexistence.

 

OK, one more point. Here's the quickest proof of God's existence--a simple application of modal logic: A noncontingent possibility must by definition exist. God is a noncontingent possibility, therefore God exists. For a fuller explication of that mental exercise, consult Hartshorne's "The Logic of Perfection".

[catholiboy]

While I was obviously rather inclined to rubbish all this for no apparent reason (as we religious believers embrarssingly do sometimes) a rather pressing issue caught my eye: that of the perfect God bringing us suffering in the form of hell.

This is a rather pressing issue, and if anybody wants to start a new thread and/or mention it here, please do.

 

To clarify: I do not believe in Hell. It probably serves a purpose as the ultimate political weapon in a theocracy, which is why it was so ingrained in devoutly Catholic countries (and remains so to this day...)

 

Sometimes logic has to triumph over scriptures.

[Southtown]

Here's an old post of mine (dis)regarding hell.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/8068-who-lucifer-who-devil-who-satan-3.html?highlight=death+hell#post133904

[BibleBeliever]

I haven't read all of this statement, so let me pick out a point or two to let you know that there are real answers to your questions, though I may not convince you of their validity. If there is just one major point that we could discuss that would be helpful.

 

Nevertheless here goes

Perfection Begets Imperfection

 

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

God is a bit bigger than you think, He did make us perfect and he gave us free will. now free will is no use if there is nothing to disagree on so He gave us one commandment, just one, leave that tree alone, all the others, fine, that one keep off.

 

Is that not alowed can God not make the universe how He wants to and put in it the laws He chooses?

 

Well we (Adam) chose to disobey Him and step out from under God's will into our own self will 'I want to do it my way'

 

God, knowing what would happen then has to pronounce the consequense of man's decision and the whole of creation starts to suffer.

 

I've only skimmed the surface on this I know but it can go deeper if you want.

 

next...

 

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible

 

Very dificult to reply to this, it's like when your child wants to do something (like carry a large bag of shopping) and you know he can't do it but you let him try. God wants us to have the opportunity to live forever with Him but the only way He can do that is to give us the choice to reject or accept Him, sadly most reject Him and bring upon themselves the suffering that He doesn't want for them. Again not a good explanation.

 

Please remember God doesn't want robots so He has to give us the freedom to choose him. If He doesn't alow us to be born then we have no choice.

 

I will move on...

 

Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

 

Ah, here you assume that we are being punished for our wrongs, but Jesus paid for all our sins, God Himself took the punishment for our rebellious nature (that's true humility) and offers us the hand of salvation. It is those that reject what He has done for us that will suffer eternally. You reject the humility, mercy and grace that He offers you and that is not a finite sin.

 

To be over simplistic God says 'I've opened the gate of heaven for you do you want to come in?' and we say 'No thanks, I'll take my chances elsewhere'.

 

Perfection's Imperfect Revelation Link

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.

 

No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

 

first off why is He responsible for us going to Hell? it's not there for us, we choose it by rejecting Him.

 

How can He stop the suffering? we have chosen it, we produce most of it and we prevent others escaping from the natural problems (which again were a symptom of our initial selfish desires). To do so would remove free will.

 

this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible

interesting, you see Isaiah and (quoted by) Jesus says that the bible was written this way so you wouldn't be able to understand it without His help. You see the bible is no use to you if you can't accept that we need God's help to live this life, it is a sticking point, all I can say is that those people who really want God, for the right reasons, will find Him, but He does hide Himself so you can't find Him without looking in humility. And I do believe He has kept it through the years in the form of the KJV, NASB and I'm sorry I am unfamilier with the versions that are not in English. Some have been corrupted but that doesn't mean that the true one is no longer there.

 

I'm sorry I won't continue, I may next week. Just a quick refutation, the supposed inconsistencies and contradictions are- I believe- not due to clerical errors, I think God can look after His word better than that, but they can be understood by careful litteral reading of the text, for example Jesus had 2 parents; Joseph, his adoptive father (legally so he was his heir) who comes down through Solomon, and Mary (biological mother) who comes down through Nathan, both sons of David so whichever way you look at Jesus, He IS the son of David, legally and biologically, and His biological father was the Holy Spirit.

 

Just to reaffirm, there are plausable answers to your difficult questions, and if you are willing to search them out then you may be in a position where you are willing to look at what Jesus actually meant when He said what He said.

 

Pride stops us from getting the answers, God doesn't mind questions, He just wants us to actually look for the answers not just expect them on a plate.

 

I hope I havent offended anyone here and I have tried to answer the questions without preaching.

 

If you think I have chickened out on the hard ones, then like I said at the beginning, you (anyone) pick one and we'll discuss it.

[InfiniteNow]

Whose God are you describing, BB? I would suggest that, while the above holds true for you, it loses all inkings of validity the moment you try to apply outside of yourself.

 

:shrug:

[wine]

Take into consideration that God is not a human-like deity, but rather, the explaination for love, gravity, and oneness throughout the universe.

God is a frame of mind, a sophomoric answer.

 

A relic, incomplete.

A childish glimpse.

[BibleBeliever]

Whose God are you describing, BB? I would suggest that, while the above holds true for you, it loses all inkings of validity the moment you try to apply outside of yourself.

 

:)

 

 

This is not a god of my own making this is what is revealed in the bible, if there is a point I made that you disagree with then please spell it out, If I am alowed to I can quote scripture to back up what I have put.

 

And please no general 'it's all rubbish', find a specific error and we'll review it, if it's all error then let's start at the first point and I will be ready to receive correction.

[Freddy]

This is not a god of my own making this is what is revealed in the bible, if there is a point I made that you disagree with then please spell it out, If I am alowed to I can quote scripture to back up what I have put.

 

And please no general 'it's all rubbish', find a specific error and we'll review it, if it's all error then let's start at the first point and I will be ready to receive correction.

You make the point all by yourself by pointing to and saying you will quote the Bible as if it is evidence. It is not evidence. It is a story.

[Southtown]

I think he's merely trying to explain it, not prove it.

[Boerseun]

Or how about this one?: since there is an infinite number of possible things that 'could' exists no matter how wierd or illogical, there is also an infinite number of 'anti'-things and when all the imaginary 'things' and anti-things are added up, the sum total of all these things and anti-things add up to zero and we rid ourselves of this rediculous curse of having to play the game of 'we must assume everything that has no evidence of any existence to be existing until we prove its non-existence (which may impossible).

 

So now we are back to square one, and this time without the burden of religion, lets find out the REAL TRUTH PLEASE.

You can say of Chen what you want, but this above quote is actually quite brilliant, and should logically discount the whole structure of belief. But then again, our mere existence is also a logical proof that the "things" and "anti-things" can exist simultaneously, probably seperated, otherwise we should not exist, either. Which leaves a gap in this specific approach a mile wide.

[arkain101]

There is so many definitions of god. So many explainations.

 

It really makes one wonder, how could anyone be right when everyone has so many version?

 

It makes one ask, could it be possible for us to even attempt to describe anything even close? Considering our comparisons, it is like an ant trying to tell others what we are. (they might say "those are moving mountains and so tall we can not see the top of them" hypothetically).

 

 

My point is, I just don't think we can do it even if the option was there for us to try.

 

There is one thing we can do though.

 

If can stop all other thoughts and focus purely and only on the presence of your own being, which is to think "I am", and let that reflect back and forth, being your only thought, and you are to do this for about 5mins, that may be the best description you can create for yourself of what god is if there was a way to understand it.

 

And if you try this practice, it can be very effective if you look into your own eyes in a mirror with dim lighting. Enough to see yourself clearly.. like a candle light.

 

If you can wrap your thoughts around the singular thought of your own self.. the concept... I.......AM.....

and let that be all you accept and know for the time you are doing this, you may and should experience something like none other.

 

You may notice your face morphing into all kinds of strange things.. some say this is you subconcious mind leaking into your conscious..

 

The point is, you may happen to experience something unlike ever before.

[CerebralEcstasy]

While I'm an exceptionally fast reader, this 'post' aka short novella requires a bit of reading, as well as research in order to adequately answer all of the statements put forth.

 

Also, I'm uncertain what your reason is for using multitudes of colour in your postings.

 

Other than perhaps trying to use psychological methods of getting us to actually remember some of that rather lengthy post. In case you're unfamiliar with what I'm speaking of, here's a little light reading for you.

 

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~pmerikle/papers/Smilek.PsychSci.2002.pdf

[Heresiarch]

Clown: I think you answered your own question in your original post. If you define God as omniscient and omnipotent, then you're right, that entity most certainly does not exist.

 

If God were omnipotent and, presumably disliked evil, then God would destroy Satan and the source of evil would be gone.

 

If God were omniscient, then God would know what each of us will do before we do it, which necessarily destroys free will, which leads to endless absurdity (e.g., how can we keep people in prison when they had no choice but to commit their crimes? It's immoral to pusish someone for an act that they did not freely choose to commit).

 

I don't, however, conclude from this that there is no God, but only that your definition of God is the wrong one.

[Lancaster]

I think you paint with too broad of a brush Prolu2007. I am not a believer and have no desire to "prove wrong" any believer or religious doctrine.

 

I do possess that desire. I share one quality with religious people. Evangelization. Not bringing others to my faith, but eliminating the faith of others. I have headed a non-religious movement at my High School, and although it is very underground, it is gaining headway.

 

Actually, I share another quality. Many religious people seem to know that there is a god. I feel the same way about my atheism. It is as clear to me as the monitor in front of me and the keys at my fingertips. The feeling is incredible, to know that the earth is beautiful in it's own right, not because it was created by a wrathful yet forgiving super being. I won't get into the argument because it seems so trivial to me, and I'm not a good enough writer to convey the emotion associated with the topic.

[Southtown]

What is emotion?

[IDMclean]

Clown: I think you answered your own question in your original post. If you define God as omniscient and omnipotent, then you're right, that entity most certainly does not exist.

 

Am I to assume this is directed at me? I would think so, as I am the only clown I know of around here.

 

In which case, I will point out within the scope of this thread, I have said that the question is flawed. Not "that entity most certainly does not exist."

 

As I have said with my first post here, to answer the question would doom me to the wiles and laws of the question. However, if you are referring to another post outside of this thread, then yes I have presented on a case by case basis a responce to this question in the affirmative (positive or negative, depending on case).

 

Also I will point out that:

I don't, however, conclude from this that there is no God, but only that your definition of God is the wrong one.

 

Could be construde as strawman, which I doubt is your intent. That definition of god (immanent, trancendant, anthropomorphic) is not my definition of god. I do however utilize it in such conversations to underline points regarding self-defeating (NULL) definitions.

 

Cotton candy for thought :hihi: