There is no God

[Kristina_P]

AnAtheist:

Do we? If you have a god devoid of any attributes, like the Deists’ one or to a certain degree the Buddhist and Taoist world view, there is nothing to proove, disproove, believe, even talk about.
The usual argument for the existence of a god is to construct some reason, why a god must exist. Then in an act of equivocation that god is identified as one’s personal god.

I was not planning on committing this particular fallacy today. The existence of a god or gods does not necessarily predict the existence of my God, but it was the subject of the original post.

AnAtheist:

This is even worse. You take something and call it God. You could as well call it Blazorg. Love is Blazorg. Love exists, ergo Blazorg exists.

“God is love” what does that mean? God is identical to a biochemical/bioelectrical reaction, we call an emotion, in particular “love”? Well, fine, that love exists ergo God exists. Did that love create the universe? No, the universe was in place before any human feeling was around (or any biochemical reaction that is). Does that say anything about an afterlife? No, dead humans don’t have biochemical reactions any longer, thus no feelings, thus no love, thus no God, once we’re dead.

It’s not like I personally came up with this. It’s Biblical. Also I don’t believe that love is exclusively an emotion, and, since I attributed it to God, I obviously don’t believe it’s exclusive to created beings. TySixtus asked for an attribute of my God, and I gave him one. Perhaps I should have removed the poetically meaningful language and said, “My God has the attribute of love.” Would that have helped?

 

[buffalo]

Atheists - if you keep swimming in the ocean it is no wonder why you can’t see what is on land. Open your minds.

 

[AnAtheist]

kev7:

Can you prove that love is only a bioelectrical reaction?

That does not not matter. Even if Love existed somehow outside the human brain, the topmost you can show with that concept is that Love exists somehow metaphysically. To derive a certain god image from that is a perfect non sequitur.

When you reject God mass murder is possible because it is becomes simply something that you can try to get away with. Killing millions of Jewish people is also possible because love is only a bioelectrical reaction.

That’s nonsense. Consider you are right. God is Love. God exists.
Millions of Jews actually were killed, that is fact. That means, if your God exists, then mass murder is possible with a divine Love.

 

[TySixtus]

Kristina P.:

You’re asking me to know the “ways of God” that are unknowable, as He has not revealed them. I trust that He is love and that He has loving reasons for actions that don’t make sense to me. That may be irrational, but it is my prerogative.

If god’s ways are unknowable, how can you claim to know that god is love?

Really, you guys need to read some books on logic, or something. This is absurd. You have a whole religion and a church predicated on telling us what god is, and what we have to do to appease him. He loves us, he hates sin, confession will appease him, he is present in the Eucharist. You consistently tell me all these attributes and things about god.

Then, when I question them, he is unknowable?

Here’s a little proof I wrote up to debunk this nonsense. I posted it here a couple weeks ago, and the thread was huge. Read it if you want to understand my frustration.

A1) To make any concrete claim about a being is to subject it to empirical investigation.

B1) Christians make the concrete claim that god is loving (to pick one attribute among many).

Conlcusion 1: God has attributes that, according to Christians, can be proven to be true.

A2) If you subject one aspect of a being to empirical testing, you must now subject all parts of that being to empirical testing. *

B2) If you have one aspect of a being that has already been proven as empirically true, it is possible to verify other aspects of this being in the same empirical fashion.

Conclusion 2: Once a single characteristic of a being has been defined, it is logical to assume that empirical methods will work in defining the other characteristics of said being.

So we have:

Conclusion 1: God has attributes that, according to Christians, can be proven to be true.

Conclusion 2: Once a single characteristic of a being has been defined, it is logical to assume that empirical methods will work in defining the other characteristics of said being.

Therefore:

Conclusion 3: It is logically impossible for a Christian to claim that God is unknowable. As soon as one concrete statement has been made concerning God’s characteristics, you are subjecting God to further testing in the same realm (empiricism) that you used to make your original “true” claim.

• If this is not universally true, please point out one instance where this is not the case. In other words, please give an example where parts of a truth can be proven empirically, while parts may not; but the proposition is still regarded as true.

Ty

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

That does not not matter. Even if Love existed somehow outside the human brain, the topmost you can show with that concept is that Love exists somehow metaphysically. To derive a certain god image from that is a perfect non sequitur.

That’s nonsense. Consider you are right. God is Love. God exists.
Millions of Jews actually were killed, that is fact. That means, if your God exists, then mass murder is possible with a divine Love.

You guys are driving me nuts with the killing therfore God can’t be theory. This is so basic. God permits evil in order to show His perfect love of man. If man did not have free will then God’s love would not be perfect. Man would be a robot without free will. He therefore would be a puppet. This is not true love.

 

[AnAtheist]

Kristina P.:

TySixtus asked for an attribute of my God, and I gave him one. Perhaps I should have removed the poetically meaningful language and said, “My God has the attribute of love.” Would that have helped?

Are you sure, that has the same meaning as “God is love”?

 

[kev7]

AnAtheist:

That depends on what you mean by “the truth”. Like everything Jesus said is true? Or everything the Bible or the Church states is true?

If that would be so obvious, then why is there a profession called Apologetics?

there is a section called apologetics because we accept that man is limited in his capacity to understand the truth of christ.

It isn’t easy to drop all your doubts (human nature) and follow Christ. That is why this forum exists.

Christ is Truth.

 

[AnAtheist]

buffalo:

You guys are driving me nuts with the killing therfore God can’t be theory.

I haven’t said that. I just pointed out, that the statement “mass murder is possible because love is not divine (= only a biochemical reaction)” is logically wrong to prove why love must be divine or more than a chemical reaction. The exact opposite conclusion is the case, if the proposition was true.

 

[Mijoy2]

AnAtheist:

No, dead humans don’t have biochemical reactions any longer, thus no feelings, thus no love, thus no God, once we’re dead.

I’m sure the atheist will see this as silly babbling but it has meaning to me. These unanswerable questions lend proof to the existance of God.

If a dead person no longer exists; did he ever exist? If a person who walked this earth, never had a picture taken of them, no person who ever knew them is stilll alive and all records where destroyed, did that person ever exist?

If the answer is yes, then it begs more questions.

Such as:

1. Then musn’t there be some conscienceness (spiritual) that is aware of it. If not, then just what is existance?
2. How can it be proven? Atheists often ask Theists to prove God exists. Can one prove a dead person existed without any pictures, documents or eye witnesses. If the Atheist alone were the only person to know this person every existed, how could he convincingly make others believe?
3. Why did they exist if there is no longer any indication of thier existence at all? Didn’t evolution and or chance have a reason? If not and we are nothing more then some weird chance creatures, why should I live by any morals at all? Of what purpose would it serve?

If the answer is no it also begs more questions, most primarily; Do we exist?

Once I realized there are unanswerable (within the scope of our power) questions, I realized I had no authority to use my very own flawed logic to state “God does not exist”. At best, I could only state, “maybe God does not exist”. Once over this hurdle it became easier and easier to witness my very own inablility to understand everything. Then God began to make more and more sense. At the very least, (sort of a twist on Pascal’s wager) what does one have to lose to entertain the idea?

 

[buffalo]

TySixtus:

If god’s ways are unknowable, how can you claim to know that god is love?

Really, you guys need to read some books on logic, or something. This is absurd. You have a whole religion and a church predicated on telling us what god is, and what we have to do to appease him. He loves us, he hates sin, confession will appease him, he is present in the Eucharist. You consistently tell me all these attributes and things about god.

Then, when I question them, he is unknowable?

Here’s a little proof I wrote up to debunk this nonsense. I posted it here a couple weeks ago, and the thread was huge. Read it if you want to understand my frustration.

A1) To make any concrete claim about a being is to subject it to empirical investigation.

B1) Christians make the concrete claim that god is loving (to pick one attribute among many).

Conlcusion 1: God has attributes that, according to Christians, can be proven to be true.

A2) If you subject one aspect of a being to empirical testing, you must now subject all parts of that being to empirical testing. *

B2) If you have one aspect of a being that has already been proven as empirically true, it is possible to verify other aspects of this being in the same empirical fashion.

Conclusion 2: Once a single characteristic of a being has been defined, it is logical to assume that empirical methods will work in defining the other characteristics of said being.

So we have:

Conclusion 1: God has attributes that, according to Christians, can be proven to be true.

Conclusion 2: Once a single characteristic of a being has been defined, it is logical to assume that empirical methods will work in defining the other characteristics of said being.

Therefore:

Conclusion 3: It is logically impossible for a Christian to claim that God is unknowable. As soon as one concrete statement has been made concerning God’s characteristics, you are subjecting God to further testing in the same realm (empiricism) that you used to make your original “true” claim.

• If this is not universally true, please point out one instance where this is not the case. In other words, please give an example where parts of a truth can be proven empirically, while parts may not; but the proposition is still regarded as true.

Ty

Ty,

You keep enclosing yourself in a box. Empirical evidence is what you are seeking. Empirical proofs are by definition science. They limit themselves to your 5 senses, time and the 3 dimensional world around you.

Science by definition is a limited look at the universe.

 

[TySixtus]

buffalo:

Ty,

You keep enclosing yourself in a box. Empirical evidence is what you are seeking. Empirical proofs are by definition science. They limit themselves to your 5 senses, time and the 3 dimensional world around you.

Science by definition is a limited look at the universe.

Buffalo, when you are sick, do you take medicine?

Furthermore, you guys enclose yourselves in the same box when make a claim that “god is love”. You’re providing attributes. You’re using empiricism, whether you admit to it or not. I’m simply taking you to task for it.

If you want to use empiricism on your god, fine. But you have to use it all the way through. You can’t stop when it makes you uncomfortable, which what you Catholics do. This is intellectually dishonest.

Ty

Ty

 

[buffalo]

TySixtus:

Buffalo, when you are sick, do you take medicine?

Ty

Yes!

 

[AnAtheist]

kev7:

there is a section called apologetics because we accept that man is limited in his capacity to understand the truth of christ.

It isn’t easy to drop all your doubts (human nature) and follow Christ. That is why this forum exists.

Christ is Truth.

We face the same problem here as with Love. You say Love exists apart from human beings, I say it doesn’t. (Well, in fact, I won’t limit the feeling of love to humans only, I assume dogs love their welps too.)
The same applies to Truth. Truth as an entity does not exist. The very term truth makes only sense when applied to a statement. When we say, “this is the truth”, that actually means “this statement is true”.

 

[TySixtus]

buffalo:

Yes!

So why do you gladly use science, empiricism and logic in one arena of your life, but throw it out as “unreliable” in another arena?

Ty

 

[kev7]

AnAtheist:

That does not not matter. Even if Love existed somehow outside the human brain, the topmost you can show with that concept is that Love exists somehow metaphysically. To derive a certain god image from that is a perfect non sequitur.

We do not derive anything. We simply have faith.

That’s nonsense. Consider you are right. God is Love. God exists.
Millions of Jews actually were killed, that is fact. That means, if your God exists, then mass murder is possible with a divine Love.

God loved us so much that he gave us a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil. He did not want to force his love on us.

We made the choice to have that knowledge.

As a result we are now in a world where we are forced to make a choice.

We can reject God (reject love) or we can accept God and have eternal life.

So yes, it is from our choice alone that mass murder is possible. Regardless, even if the human race was killed off the fact that mass murder is wrong would remain.

The good news is that christ sets us free and his victory over this evil is absolute.

We however still have a choice and a chance to accept his love. When he returns evil will be defeated for ever.

Divine love will be known by all that have shown faith in Christ. Evil won’t exist.

 

[kev7]

AnAtheist:

We face the same problem here as with Love. You say Love exists apart from human beings, I say it doesn’t. (Well, in fact, I won’t limit the feeling of love to humans only, I assume dogs love their welps too.)
The same applies to Truth. Truth as an entity does not exist. The very term truth makes only sense when applied to a statement. When we say, “this is the truth”, that actually means “this statement is true”.

I totally agree with you.

But I’m saying that it is faith that leads you to your conclusion and faith leads me to belive in God.

You have faith that truth does not exist ouside of our perception.

I have faith in the truth of God.

 

[buffalo]

TySixtus:

So why do you gladly use science, empiricism and logic in one arena of your life, but throw it out as “unreliable” in another arena?

Ty

Because there are places of intersection. Science can help me many ways, including reason to come to know God.

Science by its own definition (not mine) admits to its limitations. Within those limitations and proper understanding it is useful.

 

[kev7]

TySixtus:

So why do you gladly use science, empiricism and logic in one arena of your life, but throw it out as “unreliable” in another arena?

Ty

God gave us a limited understanding of the universe. There is nothing to say that God does not want us to explore his creation.

It is not a contradiction to believe in God and make use of science.

Science is not a religion. It is just a tool invented by man.

 

[Kristina_P]

TySixtus:

If god’s ways are unknowable, how can you claim to know that god is love?

Really, you guys need to read some books on logic, or something. This is absurd. You have a whole religion and a church predicated on telling us what god is, and what we have to do to appease him. He loves us, he hates sin, confession will appease him, he is present in the Eucharist. You consistently tell me all these attributes and things about god.

Then, when I question them, he is unknowable?

I didn’t say that God was unknowable. I said that anything He has not revealed to us about Himself is unknowable. You are assuming the existence of only the physical world, whereas I am assuming the existence of more than the physical world. If there is a god outside the physical world, then I cannot physically observe it. Therefore, if I am to know anything about it, I can know only what that god chooses to reveal about itself. You don’t accept this revelation as truth. Rationally, that’s a valid position.

TySixtus:

Here’s a little proof I wrote up to debunk this nonsense. I posted it here a couple weeks ago, and the thread was huge. Read it if you want to understand my frustration.

A1) To make any concrete claim about a being is to subject it to empirical investigation.

Okay… but attributing something like 'love" to a being is not really a concrete claim, seeing as “love” isn’t concrete. Also, why is the investigation limited to empirical evidence when neither the being nor the attribute in question are physical?

B1) Christians make the concrete claim that god is loving (to pick one attribute among many).

Conlcusion 1: God has attributes that, according to Christians, can be proven to be true.

I never said anything about God’s attributes being provable. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any Christian say that.

TySixtus:

A2) If you subject one aspect of a being to empirical testing, you must now subject all parts of that being to empirical testing. *

I don’t really see how this logically follows. Many objects and beings have both empirically testable aspects and aspects that cannot be empirically tested. For example, a human being has many physical characteristics that can be empirically tested, but also many extra-physical characteristics concerning which an empirical investigation (especially from the outside) would be sketchy at best.

B2) If you have one aspect of a being that has already been proven as empirically true, it is possible to verify other aspects of this being in the same empirical fashion.

Again, I really don’t see why this must be true. And all of this is compounded by the fact that you cannot observe that which is outside time and space. Any empirical investigation would be based solely on what such an outsider chooses to reveal explicitly (which is evidence you reject) and what such an outsider chooses to reveal implicity, if the outsider is God as we think of Him, by the state of the universe (which is incompletely understood and incomplete evidence of a God that is outside the universe).

 

[AnAtheist]

kev7:

But I’m saying that it is faith that leads you to your conclusion and faith leads me to belive in God.

I won’t get into that discussion, so ok.

kev7:

You have faith that truth does not exist ouside of our perception.

No, I have a different definition of truth. Truth is an attribute of a statement, nothing more. Asking where truth is without a statement is like asking what color has philosophy. It makes no sense.

kev7:

Science is not a religion. It is just a tool invented by man.

No argument from me, all true, but I add to that: And so is religion.