Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Demonstration of why god doesn't exist. » Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.

Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.
Science vs God.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 143

Posted 01/08/08 - 12:56 PM:	#21
JGMU wrote: Something that's physical is something that will exist regardless to human beliefs. god can only exist while people belief it, so it's not real in any meaning of the word. What if the idea of god had never created, would god exist, of course not. Other animals, for example Dolphins know that water exists the same way we do, but to them god doesn't exist, Why? And because I can tell by an evaluation of your flow of logic that you are going to argue my "Loch Ness monster" theory on the basis of semantics, let me spell it out for you very carefully. I don't want you to go trying to dodge the bullet by trying to redefine 'real' or redefine 'belief' or something silly like that. Here are the possibilities: Keep in mind that the Loch Ness Monster is either real or not real. There is no third option here. So there are only these two scenarios. Scenario A: The Loch Ness Monster is "Real" Point 1: My belief in the Loch Ness Monster will not change the fact that it is real. Point 2: I do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Point 3: The Loch Ness Monster is still real. Point 4: My friend believes in the Loch Ness Monster. Point 5: The Loch Ness Monster is still real. CONCLUSION: The Loch Ness Monster exists regardless of whether or not people believe in it. Scenario B The Loch Ness Monster is "Not Real" Point 1: My belief in the Loch Ness Monster does not change that it is not real. Point 2: I do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Point 3: The Loch Ness Monster is still not real. Point 4: My friend believes in the Loch Ness Monster. Point 5: It could theoretically be argued that the Loch Ness Monster is real within the confines of my friend's imagination. Point 6: The Loch Ness Monster is still not real to me. CONCLUSION: Personal belief in the existence or non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster as a factor in whether or not it exists, is a debatable topic. SUMMARY: Point 1: If I make the claim that the Loch Ness Monster exists only if people believe in it, I have clearly based my claim on Scenario B. Point 2: This claim is therefore based on the assumption that the Loch Ness Monster was never real in the first place. Point 3: If I then use that claim in any way to prove that the Loch Ness Monster is not real, I have effectively used the assumption that it did not exist to prove that it did not exist. Point 4: You cannot use the logical conclusion of Scenario B to disprove Scenario A. The logical conclusion of Scenario B is pertinent to Scenario B only. Example: I cannot prove that my foot possesses the ability to travel through time by assuming that my foot has the ability to travel through time and then basing my whole argument on that assumption. Yes, based on your general lack of respect and childish attitude I have probably spent way more time debating your little theories than you actually deserved. However I wanted to give you as little wiggle room as possible for when you chime in again and try to dance around the issue, redefine words or say "no, that's not what I really meant. What I meant was {fill in the blank}." Because inevitably you will try to do this. Or you will make some other assumption about the nature of God (like the assumption that he does not exist) and then you will assume that your assumption is a fact, and then you will use your fact to create some other fallacy. Edited by gesler0811 on 01/08/08 - 01:05 PM

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 757

Posted 01/08/08 - 02:18 PM:	#22
gesler0811 wrote: This is something that I especially have been pondering over the last couple of weeks. The fact that there exists such harmony in all things suggests a divine scheme has been carried out. If life (and even non-life) just sort of happened, and all these different organisms evolved independently from each other in different places on the earth, I think nature would be a lot more erratic and random than we realize. The harmony that seems to bind all of nature to me is indicative of God's presence and involvement. A fine work of art does not just occur randomly when paint spills on a canvas, it occurs when a skilled painter weaves the paint together with skillful strokes. For emphasis, I now gladly quote Romans 1:18-20 for further elaboration: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Interesting analogy, though aesthetically I wouldn't be that happy with God's use of empty space in his designs. Nice to know that belief in God is an aesthetic judgement. Take a piece of paper. At first glance it is blank, but a closer look shows some bits of dust and dirt on it. Taking out a magnifying glass, you see there are clearly bumps and swirls on the paper, and some smudges and marks. With a high-powered microscope you start at the top left corner and scan across the paper. After half an hour, you come across some patterns in the marks that look like a profile of your Aunt Enid. Clearly the work of a great artist.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7929

Posted 01/08/08 - 02:57 PM:	#23
Pill17 wrote: Um... you didn't disprove god. You disproved one definition of him, assuming that your changing physical law theory is accurate (not to say it necessarily isn't) Although I don't think that the argument in the opening post is particularly compelling, all anyone can ever do is "disprove" or argue against on version (definition) of God (at a time, anyway). Part of the problem with dealing with the pesky problem of God is that the bar keeps moving. At one point, God is just "everything", at another point God exists outside of everything, at a third point, God exists in some nebulous symbiotic relatyionship with the natural universe, both a part of it and seperate at the same time. One can either generally address the historical phenomena of God claims and God worship as one sigular kind, with variants (my approach), or one can address every single formulation of God, one by one, and show each to be viable or not for whatever innumerable reasons that one could imagine.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Faith In Reason
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 02, 2006
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 25

Posted 01/08/08 - 04:50 PM:	#24
[quote=gesler0811] the Bible makes it quite clear he is above and beyond any concept of physics or space or time as we could conceive it. [quote=gesler0811] What kind of God is your God? Why do you believe in that God? It sounds from this that Is your God the traditional J-C God and you base your belief on the Bible. [quote=gesler0811] For instance, if you are asleep in your bed and hear the sound of breaking glass in the middle of the night, you might call the police. The cop might get there and have a look around (investigate) and discover a broken window and a baseball lying on the floor. He would then likely conclude that the sound you heard was the window breaking when the ball hit it. All he has done is give you a physical explanation, which in no way insinuates that somebody didn't throw the ball. [quote=gesler0811] I can't see how you can disprove the existence of God anymore than you can disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. It's a matter of considering what constitutes the best explanation (for the origin of the universe, or a broken window). A good place to start would be with an explanation that was disprovable. [quote=gesler0811] In the same way, even if some scientist one day concludes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe did in fact originate with the "Big Bang" all that would really prove is that the ball hit the window. There is still the issue of who threw the ball to contend with. Maybe the Big Bang was just the physical means by which God created the universe. [quote=gesler0811] Then there is still the issue of where did God come from. Scientist don't conclude anything beyond a shadow of a doubt

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 143

Posted 01/08/08 - 07:18 PM:	#25
Faith In Reason wrote: What kind of God is your God? Why do you believe in that God? It sounds from this that Is your God the traditional J-C God and you base your belief on the Bible. I do base my opinions of God on what is presented in the Bible. I have various reasons for doing so. Read my recent posts in the thread about salvation for a detailed explanation. But basically the more I study the Bible, and the more I apply the concepts presented to my life, and the more my faith in God grows, the more I see him at work in my life. God is as much a part of my life as any friend, relative, or neighbor. MY personal experiences mean everything to me, though nobody could ever appreciate them the way I can because they are my personal experiences. Personally, I think everybody owes it to themselves to give God a chance. You need to explore your options. I was a Catholic boy growing up who later became an atheist and then later returned to Christianity, though not Catholicism. So I have experience in both viewpoints, as for several years I was convinced that God did not exist. I would love to post my testimony of how I came back to God, and how he worked in my life,, though this forum does not exactly have a place for such things. The bottom line is I have held both viewpoints. I considered the possibility that there might not be a Gods so strongly at one time that I convinced myself. I wonder how many atheists on this board have actually tried to learn more about God in a non-skeptical way. Faith In Reason wrote: I can't see how you can disprove the existence of God anymore than you can disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. It's a matter of considering what constitutes the best explanation (for the origin of the universe, or a broken window). A good place to start would be with an explanation that was disprovable. I don't think it is possible to conclusively prove one way or the other whether or not God exists. It boils down to your personal beliefs. I adhere to the philosophy that we have all the information we need in order to come to God by faith. God, in my opinion, made sure that if you came to him it was because you have faith in him. Faith In Reason wrote: Then there is still the issue of where did God come from. Scientist don't conclude anything beyond a shadow of a doubt The Bible makes it apparent that God has no beginning. I would contend that he exists outside the realm of time in the way that we perceive time, therefore past, present, and future have no meaning to God the way they do to us, nor is he bound by these concepts. Though I still struggle to come to some sort of even basic understanding how that works. I guess sort of how the sun is at the center of the solar system and the planets revolve around it. I think God is the spiritual equivalent of that in that time revolves around God. He's just at the center of it. Time goes around and around but God just is. And yes, I am aware that the sun is not stationary, I was just using that as an example. It's not a perfect example, but I think it expresses the concept decently. This is alo, I would argue, how God is able to see everything - because he is outside of time and time revolves around him, he sees things, past, present, and future, as if they are always happening all the time. So that's how he never misses anything. If you read some of my other posts in some of the other threads, you will see that I often come up with very elaborate 'explanations' for how I think some of this stuff generally works. But this is one area I still need to explore in depth before I can say more on it.

Pascals Wager
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 01/08/08 - 10:14 PM:	#26
gesler0811 wrote: I do base my opinions of God on what is presented in the Bible. I have various reasons for doing so. Read my recent posts in the thread about salvation for a detailed explanation. But basically the more I study the Bible, and the more I apply the concepts presented to my life, and the more my faith in God grows, the more I see him at work in my life. God is as much a part of my life as any friend, relative, or neighbor. MY personal experiences mean everything to me, though nobody could ever appreciate them the way I can because they are my personal experiences. Personally, I think everybody owes it to themselves to give God a chance. You need to explore your options. I was a Catholic boy growing up who later became an atheist and then later returned to Christianity, though not Catholicism. So I have experience in both viewpoints, as for several years I was convinced that God did not exist. I would love to post my testimony of how I came back to God, and how he worked in my life,, though this forum does not exactly have a place for such things. The bottom line is I have held both viewpoints. I considered the possibility that there might not be a Gods so strongly at one time that I convinced myself. I wonder how many atheists on this board have actually tried to learn more about God in a non-skeptical way. I don't think it is possible to conclusively prove one way or the other whether or not God exists. It boils down to your personal beliefs. I adhere to the philosophy that we have all the information we need in order to come to God by faith. God, in my opinion, made sure that if you came to him it was because you have faith in him. The Bible makes it apparent that God has no beginning. I would contend that he exists outside the realm of time in the way that we perceive time, therefore past, present, and future have no meaning to God the way they do to us, nor is he bound by these concepts. Though I still struggle to come to some sort of even basic understanding how that works. I guess sort of how the sun is at the center of the solar system and the planets revolve around it. I think God is the spiritual equivalent of that in that time revolves around God. He's just at the center of it. Time goes around and around but God just is. And yes, I am aware that the sun is not stationary, I was just using that as an example. It's not a perfect example, but I think it expresses the concept decently. This is alo, I would argue, how God is able to see everything - because he is outside of time and time revolves around him, he sees things, past, present, and future, as if they are always happening all the time. So that's how he never misses anything. If you read some of my other posts in some of the other threads, you will see that I often come up with very elaborate 'explanations' for how I think some of this stuff generally works. But this is one area I still need to explore in depth before I can say more on it. Would you consider that your belief in God was based in reason, or in faith?

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 143

Posted 01/09/08 - 05:30 AM:	#27
Pascals Wager wrote: Would you consider that your belief in God was based in reason, or in faith? Generally speaking, I think at first you have to have faith, and if you are truly faithful, God will find ways to reveal himself to you over time as a reward. Particularly, I have faith, but I also have specific reasons for believing as I believe I have experienced God. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/salvat... I would hate to re-type all my experiences. Read my posts in this thread for more of an explanation.

JGMU
TUFMTIO

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Location: God knows
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 256

Posted 01/09/08 - 09:30 AM:	#28
gesler0811 wrote: Your logic seems flawed. Did I understand you to say that God only exists if people believe in him, and then you reinforced that assumption with the claim that to dolphins God does not exist? Different people believe different things for starters. Are you suggesting that to different people, different things exist? God exists only because I believe in him, but to an atheist he does not exist? So God both exists and does not exist simultaneously? Yes gesler0811 wrote: So any opinion that differs from yours is 'stupid?' What are you, 12? Does your mommy know you are on the computer late at night bothering the big people? I was referring to the harmony of all things that exist in the world today. The fact that things have died does not support your claim, because I know things die, and the Bible says that things die. If you want to disagree with the Bible, first you need to start by NOT AGREEING with the Bible. I said it was stupid because your using an assumption that has been used by every other theist who is incapable of thinking on a large scale. You said that the fact that there exists such harmony in all things suggests a divine scheme has been carried out, Why?, you have been limited by your belief in thinking that it is impossible for harmony to happen by random, which is ridiculous as the entire universe has been created by pure random improbability and it's not perfect. Also you can't say it's harmonious and perfect as you have nothing to compare it with.

JGMU
TUFMTIO

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Location: God knows
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 256

Posted 01/09/08 - 09:35 AM:	#29
gesler0811 wrote: Yes, based on your general lack of respect and childish attitude I have probably spent way more time debating your little theories than you actually deserved. However I wanted to give you as little wiggle room as possible for when you chime in again and try to dance around the issue, redefine words or say "no, that's not what I really meant. What I meant was {fill in the blank}." Because inevitably you will try to do this. Or you will make some other assumption about the nature of God (like the assumption that he does not exist) and then you will assume that your assumption is a fact, and then you will use your fact to create some other fallacy. Your the theist and the only thing religion's good at is tip-toeing around past mistakes, the bible, the crusades, Cliff Richard, etc. Also you can't make a judgement on someone based on two short posts. Edited by JGMU on 01/09/08 - 09:41 AM

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 143

Posted 01/09/08 - 10:09 AM:	#30
JGMU wrote: Also you can't make a judgement on someone based on two short posts. You're right and I apologize. I guess it wasn't so much a judgment as a first impression. My first impression of you was as an immature little kid. If I am wrong I apologize. But first, I need to be convinced JGMU wrote: Your the theist and the only thing religion's good at is tip-toeing around past mistakes, the bible, the crusades, Cliff Richard, etc. My Bible doesn't mention Cliff Richard On what do you base the claim that the only thing religion is good at is tip-toeing around mistakes? I need more to go on here. Personally I don't justify a whole lot of the things people have done in the past in the name of God. You don't force somebody to become a Christian at swordpoint, that defeats the whole purpose. If you're basing your argument on the actions of goofballs who've gotten it wrong then sure you're bound to have a negative opinion of God. JGMU wrote: I said it was stupid because your using an assumption that has been used by every other theist who is incapable of thinking on a large scale. You said that the fact that there exists such harmony in all things suggests a divine scheme has been carried out, Why?, you have been limited by your belief in thinking that it is impossible for harmony to happen by random, which is ridiculous as the entire universe has been created by pure random improbability and it's not perfect. I don't believe that harmony cannot randomly happen, but I do believe that it is highly, highly unlikely. If I open the door to my bedroom and throw all my clothes through the doorway, sure there is the random chance that they will all fold themselves perfectly and then land in the drawer neatly on top of each other. But I think it is much more likely that they will just end up in a big pile on the floor. Or if I throw a canful of paint on a canvas I might get the Mona Lisa. I just don't think it is likely. And I never said the universe was perfect. You inferred that because I said it was harmonious. There's a big difference. Again you are basing an argument on an assumption. You are now saying that God cannot exist because the universe was created by pure random improbability. I am assuming you meant to show me a video of the universe being created by pure random improbability, but you just forgot to upload it?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.