There is no God

[Alois]

More accurately, I recognize that God exists because of existence itself (since it is not a matter of faith, or of believing - though certainly, one can decide to “believe” in place of not recognizing).

Now, my recognition of God is based on existence itself, my own continued existence, and the existence of my ability to recognize existence.

This is just you saying “I assert” in place of “I believe”. Sorry, but that’s all it is. I could just as easily say that I recognize the existence of unicorns because of existence itself. It’s no different. They’re both baseless assertions used to distance oneself from chalking it up to faith and belief alone. In order to assert something, you need logical proof for it. Where is your proof that existence needs to be supported by a god? Where is your proof that such a god indeed exists?

Any child may know what I am talking about. In fact, it was as a child that I first recognized it.

A child will assert that there is a monster under his/her bed when there clearly isn’t.

 

[RobNY]

Alois:

Ridiculous. If you don’t accept Christ, your God sends you to hell. This is no different than someone putting a gun to your head and telling you to do something. It’s not free will at all, it’s brutal coercin. That doesn’t sound like a loving God to me.

Having consequences for your actions is not the equivalent of ‘having a gun to your head.’ If I’m standing on the edge of a cliff and walk foward, I will plummet to my death. If I walk back, then I won’t plummet to my death. No one would characterize this situation as “brutal coercion,” and no more is the situation of God and hell.
AnAthiest:

We are here. That’s why we care, even without “meaning”.

Why does being ‘here’ entail caring?

 

[Mijoy2]

AnAtheist:

We are here. That’s why we care, even without “meaning”.

This is an opinion AnAtheist. Your term “we” does not apply. I respect it but don’t subscribe to it. If I could somehow be assured that this life was all there is, it renders it without meaning. Once rendered without meaning, I’d prefer no life at all. My opinion.

 

[Alois]

Having consequences for your actions is not the equivalent of ‘having a gun to your head.’ If I’m standing on the edge of a cliff and walk foward, I will plummet to my death. If I walk back, then I won’t plummet to my death. No one would characterize this situation as “brutal coercion,” and no more is the situation of God and hell.

Going to hell isn’t a direct consequence of refusing to accept Christ. If there is no God, refusing to accept the teachings of Christ won’t damn me to hell. If there is a God, refusing to accept the teachings of Christ will damn me to hell. The consequence of my action isn’t offered by the action itself, but by another being. It is coercion.

The definition of coercion is using force or the threat of it to cause something.

 

[Alois]

Why does being ‘here’ entail caring?

Why shouldn’t it? What is your definition of “caring”?

 

[kev7]

Alois:

This is a false analogy. We know that other numbers besides 1 exist. We know 2 exists, we merely can’t “see” it in the situation you provide.

With existence, we only know that it exists. We know of no other form of existence that we can’t see, and under your definition, we could never see this “other” form of existence.

Please read the quote that my response was attached to.

That post was trying to suggest that a number system is the same as existance.

You can perform logic on a number system because it is defined. You can’t perform logic on existance because it is not defined.

Just because we don’t know about other forms of existance doesn’t mean that they do not exist What if “Everything” consists of things outside space and time? How are we going to measure them? Such is the case with black holes actually.

 

[estesbob]

AnAtheist:

As for the Christian God: He is logically impossible. If you argue, he is beyond logic, then he may be possible, but still way too improbable to consider belief or even worship.

.

Well our very existence is logically impossible… In your atheism you accept through blind faith two illogical (dare I say impossible) propositions.-. That all matter sprung out of nothing and that life spontaneoulsy evolved from non-life. Can you prove to me either of these propositions…

 

[kev7]

EnterTheBowser:

There might indeed be infinite “forms of existence” which we cannot in any way have any contact with; which cannot affect our universe at all. But, as I previously argued, for all intents and purposes, such things do not exist. Moreover, it is actually meaningless to talk about these things - they are not well-defined.

I don’t understand how you can say that there might be infinite forms of existance and then say that we should ignore that possibility just so you can make an assertion.

Do you see what you are doing? You are ignoring your own logic just to make an assertion. That isn’t logical.

For the intents and purpose of wanting etneral life suchs things shouldn’t be ignored.

It is very important to declare that which is undefined. Why can’t you accept that man doesn’t know everything?

I’m sorry but it just isn’t logical to declare something false that is actually undefined.

Here is another example.

If you lived in a part of the world where the only fruit that you had knowledge of was an apple. Why would you declare that it is the only fruit in existance? In other words, why you would say that the only form of existance is your own when it is the only form of existance that you know about.

I mean if you are talking about fruits then you are talking about a universal set. Everything in it doesn’t have to be known but you still have to define the charactistics of a fruit inorder for you to know that an apple is a fruit.

In otherwords, when it could be possible that there are other forms of existance you can’t conclude that your existance is the only one.

Don’t try to back out of saying that other forms of existance are not possible. You already did say that there might be an infinite number of existances.

Why you would then close your eyes to something that is a possibilty just so you can make an assertion is beyond me.

 

[Alois]

Please read the quote that my response was attached to.

That post was trying to suggest that a number system is the same as existance.

He was using logical devices, not a number system.

You can perform logic on a number system because it is defined. You can’t perform logic on existance because it is not defined.

Clarify please. What is your definition of “defined”? How is existence “undefined”? How would you, then, not be able to perform logic on an “undefined” system?

Just because we don’t know about other forms of existance doesn’t mean that they do not exist. What if “Everything” consists of things outside space and time? How are we going to measure them?

We have reason to believe that they don’t exist though. As I’ve said before; anything can happen, but logically we assume it won’t. If we have good evidence for it happening, then we can logically assume it will. (or might, or could rarely occur, ect.)

Do you assume that you’ll melt when you walk outside? Hopefully not, because there is no reasonable proof that you will. In fact, believing in a God is even more irrational than believing that you will melt if you step outside. We know of situations in which you might melt when you walk outside; however we know of no situation in the natural world that could allow for the existence of something supernatural. When you talk of beings outside the natural realm you’re speaking of things we could never know.

Here’s a quick question. If your God exists in the supernatural realm, why is it that he has traits from our natural realm? How can you claim to know these traits?

Such is the case with black holes actually.

Most theorists believe that black holes “end” in a point of singularity. The guess that they rip space-time is just that, a guess. Most evidence we have now suggests a singular point, not a “rift” in space-time.

 

[Alois]

That all matter sprung out of nothing.

All atheists believe matter sprang out of nothing? That’s news to me. Even if we do assume that as truth, I think you should look into quantum mechanics a little and tell me the answer to that question.

life spontaneoulsy evolved from non-life.

Read up.

 

[Alois]

Because “here” is temporal. If without meaning…who cares?

You assume that we need meaning to care. We don’t.

 

[kev7]

EnterTheBowser:

I guess your argument here is:
1- We need to know if it is possible for the proposition “God exists” to be false in order to assert that it is false
2- We don’t know if it is possible for God not to exist
3- Therefore we can’t assert that God does not exist

Of course, 2 is an entirely unsupported premise. And frankly, if it is not possible for God to not exist, then God is somehow logically necessary. But the various ontological proofs of God are bunk, and there is no reason to suppose that it is impossible for God not to exist. So the argument fails.

Every time you try to define my argument you twist it a bit so that you can reject it.

This is my argument.

Does God exist ?

Lets do this with a venn diagram

Circle A = God
Cirlce B = Man
Rectangle C around A and B = The universe of all possible forms of existance that are lineir and non-lineir.

Rectangle C must contain everything we know about existance and everything we don’t know about existance. Rectangle C can also be infinite in size.

For the question of man we only need to understand that one form of existance exists (our own).

For the question of God we can’t show proof that he exists until we know about other forms of existance.

For the question of eternal life. We can only have hope that other forms of existance exist.

We can’t exclude other forms of existance because we don’t know everyting about existance.

The problem with your arguments is that you reduce C to only contain only that which man and can and currently does understand. This to me doesn’t make any sense.

Mans logic is of course bunk because it only understands existance with in B. Furthermore, his undersanding is transient. if other non-linier forms of existance exists then his linier mesurments and arguments are useless.

 

[kev7]

Alois:

He was using logical devices, not a number system.

Clarify please. What is your definition of “defined”? How is existence “undefined”? How would you, then, not be able to perform logic on an “undefined” system?

A boolean variable is either true, false or undefined. When a variable is undefined it can’t be used to solve any logical statement until its value is set to either true or false.

For example. One man says" God exists the other says he does not exists.

A = exists = true
B = does not exists = true

lets perform a logical AND operation on these.

A AND B = true

ok well that doesn’t make any sense.

So we have to AND the varaible that contains proof.

A AND B AND C(proof) = undefined.

this operation can’t be peformed.

C isn’t defined. until it is set to false or true we can’t solve the question.

We have reason to believe that they don’t exist though. As I’ve said before; anything can happen, but logically we assume it won’t.

Why do you assume that it won’t? How can you draw any conclusion for something that man only understands from his own perspective.

Do you assume that you’ll melt when you walk outside? Hopefully not, because there is no reasonable proof that you will. In fact, believing in a God is even more irrational than believing that you will melt if you step outside.

These are questions that are contained within the frame work of mans existance. We can draw conclusions because our existance is linier in nature and we have enough ability to understand a bit of our own universe in a transient way.

Therefore, it is possible to draw logical conclusions on things we know and understand.

But, we don’t understand existance except from our own limited perspective of existance.

When you talk of beings outside the natural realm you’re speaking of things we could never know.

Exactly, and that is why you can’t draw a conclusion or an assertion. That is why you are wrong to say that “God does not exists”

Here’s a quick question. If your God exists in the supernatural realm, why is it that he has traits from our natural realm? How can you claim to know these traits?

How do you know that these traits are only part of mans realm. How do you know that love, faith, and hope are not also part of other forms of existance. How do you know that our realm of existance doesn’t overlap other realms of existance?

The fact is you don’t and that is why you can’t assume the assertion of False for the question of Gods existance.

That is why you can only have faith in God or Faith in Man.

Most theorists believe that black holes “end” in a point of singularity. The guess that they rip space-time is just that, a guess. Most evidence we have now suggests a singular point, not a “rift” in space-time.

Again… why put faith in the transient understanding of man?

 

[Alois]

If you lived in a part of the world where the only fruit that you had knowledge of was an apple. Why would you declare that it is the only fruit in existance? In other words, why you would say that the only form of existance is your own when it is the only form of existance that you know about.

This analogy still fails, because you know there are other parts of the world. I do get what you’re suggesting though.

Until we have proof of these other forms of existence, we’ll assume they aren’t there. Contrary to what you say, atheists do look into other forms of existence. Instead of using blind faith, however, we use science. We’ll continue to search, but won’t just declare that we know the truth until we actually find it, and have proof for it. For all you or I know, we may never find it.

 

[Magicsilence]

Alois:

This analogy still fails, because you know there are other parts of the world. I do get what you’re suggesting though.

Until we have proof of these other forms of existence, we’ll assume they aren’t there. Contrary to what you say, atheists do look into other forms of existence. Instead of using blind faith, however, we use science. We’ll continue to search, but won’t just declare that we know the truth until we actually find it, and have proof for it. For all you or I know, we may never find it.

Which is more illogical.

Man deciding against all of history that there is no God based on human results. (And thus, at one point, one of the believers in God must have taken his own evidence against that of Gods to the world)

Or us continuing the faith that has been passed down for thousands of years. (Thus, accepting the information God has given us).

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Mijoy2]

Alois:

You assume that we need meaning to care. We don’t.

Doesn’t this equate to; we care about the meaningless?

This opens up some dreadfull doors. Such as relativism. Which is in fact the absence of objective truth. Otherwise stated the absence of God.

Tell me, just what do you “care” about? And how do you define it? And by what means does it make sense? Without God these answers are unanswerable (by any objective sense). They become your answers and your answers alone. Again we are back to meaninglessness. For any relative opinion is meaningless…such as mine.

Without God we are nowhere. The Atheist does not agree with this. To the Atheist without God we are at the whim of the athiest intellect and logic. Again, I’d rather not have existed then be at the whim of some atheist logic. Said with the utmost respect and conviction.

 

[Alois]

A boolean variable is either true, false or undefined. When a variable is undefined it can’t be used to solve any logical statement until its value is set to either true or false.

For example. One man says" God exists the other says he does not exists.

A = exists = true
B = does not exists = true

lets perform a logical AND operation on these.

A AND B = true

ok well that doesn’t make any sense.

So we have to AND the varaible that contains proof.

A AND B AND C(proof) = undefined.

Thanks for clarifying this.

The problem is, lack of existence is “proof” of non-existence. Not conclusive proof, of course, but proof to allow us to logically assume (once again, not say) that there is no God. If we see no evidence of something we will, by our nature, assume it’s not there because the lack of evidence takes precedent over the posibility that there is evidence.

For instance: when a man is put on trial in court, and no evidence is provided for his guilt or for his innocence, the man is set free. (or would be set free, such a case would never make it to trial) The lack of positive evidence takes precedent logically over the possibility of positive evidence. The court reaches the conclusion that there is no reason to find the man guilty, and he is set free.

A ‘weak’ atheist has done this. We acknowledge that there might be the possibility of a “God”, but after looking at both sides, the lack of evidence over rides the chance for evidence. If such evidence does show up, then we will believe it. We don’t say that it’s false, we rationally assume it is until there is evidence to the positive. Any logical being does this everyday.

–

Still, even if this vague, almost meaningless God exists, what does the Bible, Jesus, and anything Christians say have to do with it? You openly admit that such a being couldn’t be detected by man, then say that you could know all of its details. Explain.

Why do you assume that it won’t? How can you draw any conclusion for something that man only understands from his own perspective.

This is nonsense. Do you assume something that you can’t detect will decapitate you when you walk outside? If not, why would you assume that a God that you can’t detect exists with no proof of it? You’re talking illogically.

These are questions that are contained within the frame work of mans existance. We can draw conclusions because our existance is linier in nature and we have enough ability to understand a bit of our own universe in a transient way.

Therefore, it is possible to draw logical conclusions on things we know and understand.

But, we don’t understand existance except from our own limited perspective of existance.

So you admit that you could never prove a God, even one so vague as you describe, logically? If so, this debate is over. We’ve pushed you back from a full-fledged Christian God, to something that has no meaning to existence as we know it. Essentially, something that doesn’t exist to us. If it doesn’t exist to us, then, as humans, we can’t say it exists. We can never know it, therefore, you can’t know of it.

Exactly, and that is why you can’t draw a conclusion or an assertion. That is why you are wrong to say that “God does not exists”

Only strong atheists claim that God doesn’t exist. (and they can be right in a certain way) I’m claiming that logically we have no reason to assume it exists, and much more reason to assume that it doesn’t. Much like you wouldn’t expect some unknown thing to tear your arms off right this second, you shouldn’t expect someone unknown being labeled God to be judging you this very second and “guiding” you through life.

How do you know that these traits are only part of mans realm. How do you know that love, faith, and hope are not also part of other forms of existance. How do you know that our realm of existance doesn’t overlap other realms of existance?

The fact is you don’t and that is why you can’t assume the assertion of False for the question of Gods existance.

That is why you can’t only have faith in God or Faith in Man.

You didn’t answer my second question: how can you assume to know these traits? I’ve explained why I (and any rational, logical being) assumes that something doesn’t exist until we get evidence to the contrary. Are you willing to admit that you duck when you walk outside to avoid the invisible bar that exists out of our realm but still manages to impact us in our realm? Or are you willing to admit that it is illogical to assume that bar is there, and to assume the existence of a God with the same properties?

–

Here’s another question for you. Under your definition of a “God”, they could be anything. Thus you admit that you have to believe in the every god ever thought up if you believe in your own. Do you?

 

[Alois]

Magicsilence:

Which is more illogical.

Man deciding against all of history that there is no God based on human results. (And thus, at one point, one of the believers in God must have taken his own evidence against that of Gods to the world)

Or us continuing the faith that has been passed down for thousands of years. (Thus, accepting the information God has given us).

In Christ.

Andre.

You’re making the assumption that:

a.) that God himself exists
b.) that Christianity is the One True religon
c.) the Bible is the word of God
d.) and that all of the events in the Bible actually transpired

You’ll have to found them before your argument is valid.

I will say this though. Science and proof by far over ride what those of that past believed. Would you like us to sink back into the stagnant cesspool that was the Middle Ages? Are you against progress?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Alois:

You’re making the assumption that:

a.) that God himself exists
b.) that Christianity is the One True religon
c.) the Bible is the word of God
d.) and that all of the events in the Bible actually transpired

You’ll have to found them before your argument is valid.

I will say this though. Science and proof by far over ride what those of that past believed. Would you like us to sink back into the stagnant cesspool that was the Middle Ages? Are you against progress?

You are making the assumption that the middle ages were a stagnant cesspool. When we consider the atrocities of Stalin, Hitler and Mao, I don’t think it is the slam-dunk you think it is. Science may have advanced our knowledge of the natural world, but it most decidely not made any moral advancement. At best it seems about the same. One could conceivably conclude that we occupy a fallen world. I wonder where I’ve heard that before?

 

[Alois]

Doesn’t this equate to; we care about the meaningless?

This opens up some dreadfull doors. Such as relativism. Which is in fact the absence of objective truth. Otherwise stated the absence of God.

Not in the slightest. I’m actually confused as to how you reached that conclusion. I don’t care about a meaning. I don’t care about meaningless. And either way, meaninglessness doesn’t lead to relativism in any way, shape, or form.

Tell me, just what do you “care” about? And how do you define it? And by what means does it make sense? Without God these answers are unanswerable (by any objective sense). They become your answers and your answers alone. Again we are back to meaninglessness. For any relative opinion is meaningless…such as mine.

Want me to be blunt? Reproducing. Essentially, that’s all you care about too. That’s what instinct tells us to care about. There are a slew of other things that you could say you care about, but in the end it all leads to one thing. Reproducing. You may find this depressing, but reality is that way sometimes. There’s nothing relative about it.

Without God we are nowhere. The Atheist does not agree with this. To the Atheist without God we are at the whim of the athiest intellect and logic. Again, I’d rather not have existed then be at the whim of some atheist logic. Said with the utmost respect and conviction.

With God we are nowhere. This is one of the most nonsensical things I’ve read in awhile, with all due respect. Why do you need a “place”? What is this “place”? Why do you feel the need for some God to justify your existence by providing this “place”? You are what you are, and you can either take it for what it is with the evidence provided, or blind yourself in the search of something better. Do you need something better than you to acknowledge you existence for meaning? Are you that condescending to yourself?

I’d suggest reading Life of Wonder, one of my favorite essays on this topic.