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

Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:45 AM:	#176
Why would the un-physical laws apply to physical laws ?

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:57 AM:	#177
Thats what Casualty said....
"There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 03/08/08 - 11:02 AM:	#178
What non-physical laws? I'm confused? I don't understand the point in arguing about the mechanics, and workings of something proported to exist that was freshedly pulled out of someone's ass. Unless then can actually demonstrate these proported things, I don't see a difference between arguing how they work, and arguing what colour, shape, consistency, and numeration the spots are on fairy wings.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

PontificatingChauncy
Student (aren't we all?)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2007
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 219

Posted 03/08/08 - 12:09 PM:	#179
Casualty- That was the (intended) purpose of my earlier post. If god is spiritual, and we are physical, then we cannot, by definition, interact: In the theoretical question of god making and lifting heavy things, he can't lift anything, he doesn't have hands! Unless a third mode of existence, part spirit and part matter, is in place by which god prods the universe to his desire. From a theological perspective, I believe this is reffered to as the "Holy Ghost". My point is, if the HG exists, we should be able to SEE it: not understand it, not trace its motive, but we should be able to feel its constant, slightly material presence.
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. That thing is a chauncy

Wolf Isle
pseudo-theurgist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 02, 2008
Location: Brasil
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/08/08 - 02:37 PM:	#180
Casualty wrote: I am referring all the way back to the beginning question. He asked that the physical laws give way and make it impossible for God to exist there. I am like: Who says God adheres to physical laws? I said that physical laws give way to the existence of God? I dont think thats what I said. I certainly did not mean that. It´s the other way arround.
"homoiôsis theô kata to dunaton"

dejardi
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2006
Location: Northeast
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 165

Posted 03/08/08 - 02:50 PM:	#181
"Demonstration. The universe = everything that exists . Therefore god cant exist, or, is a part of this universe just like us." First of all, it's notoriously silly to attempt to draw ontological conclusions from pemises that do no more work than define -- or redefine -- how we choose to use a particular term. Second of all, we use the term "universe" in different ways. Some do try to use it as a term for all that exists. Others limit it to what is (in principle) possible to observe, either in itself or in its effects. This is why scientists can speak coherently about multiple universes; if the universe is all that exists, the notion of a multiverse is a contradiction in terms. But no one is so simple minded as to suggest that the possibility of multiple universes is defeated by asserting, "But the universe is by definition all that exists." Finally, since it's not contradictory to say, "God created the universe," there's no problem in the first place.

Wolf Isle
pseudo-theurgist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 02, 2008
Location: Brasil
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/08/08 - 03:48 PM:	#182
Pontificating: "If god is spiritual, and we are physical, then we cannot, by definition, interact: In the theoretical question of god making and lifting heavy things, he can't lift anything, he doesn't have hands!" Why do you conclude that the "spiritual" cannot interact with the physical? The existence of these laws can´t be reduced to a chain of causal material relations. At a certain point, observing a phenomena, you will just reach that this phenomena behaves in that certain way, because it does (like the example of gravity). If we go deep enough in the investigation, we will reach an eventual dead end in matter. Pontificating: "Unless a third mode of existence, part spirit and part matter, is in place by which god prods the universe to his desire. From a theological perspective, I believe this is reffered to as the "Holy Ghost". My point is, if the HG exists, we should be able to SEE it: not understand it, not trace its motive, but we should be able to feel its constant, slightly material presence." We can suppose that something like the Holy Ghost exists, but it is not yet physical, I think. We could say that the law of gravity is a manifestation of the Holy Ghost on the material realm, one of the manifestations. That does not mean the Holy Ghost is physical. Wosret: "I chose dragons because they are a physical creature that (I assumed) he would agree does not exist. There are nonmaterial modes of existence, therefore god exists doesn't follow any more than: There are material modes of existence, therefore dragons exist." A dragon is a symbol, an image for something that is not physical, like God on a painting, for example. It represents an archetype, psychologically speaking. We can suppose that we can either call that what created the metaphysical realm, God; Or we may call the very totality of the metaphysical realm, God (but I don´t particularly agree with this last statement). Ruthless: "Also Wolf, from where does your theory of other modes of existence sprout? Its not far from some of my own theories but how did you come to such a conclusion?" These theories are a mix of ideas of mine, the theories of Carl Jung, Plato and neoplatonism. I will try to explain better as we discuss. What is your theory like?
"homoiôsis theô kata to dunaton"

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/08/08 - 07:41 PM:	#183
I would think that humanity is something of a hybrid. We are both a "physical", and "spiritual" in being. Look at any other animal. They do everything selfishly and to benefit themselves as best they can. They fight to survive in the food chain. But why are people so different? If we were at some point monkeys and before that a fish/amphibious reptile or some such. We would hold no sense of morals. We would not be able to make society work. We would not be able to create and make laws work. Our knowledge is "millions" of years beyond all other animals... but why is that? Think of a chocolate cake. It has two layers. These layers were placed directly, together with one above the other. The top layer (frosting) holds the seen aspect of the cake until the cake is cut. Beneath that is the flavoring layer (custard). Which holds the unseen aspect of the cake until cut. When a person dies, why are they no longer there? The encasing remains (frosting) but the flavoring has vanished (custard). In essence, you are not a body with a soul. You are a soul with a body. When you lose your case, your being is no longer there. So we, ourselves, are a part of both planes of existence. In conclusion our encasing holds us like an anchor to a physical world. Whereas our souls are no longer held by said "anchor". When we die the "cake" is cut. Then we lose our hold to one plane of existence so I must logically say our spiritual being would no longer be here. Note: I realize we're dealing with more then a two layered "cake" but for now I must leave it at two since I'm sure there are far too many layers for me to assess.
"There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:22 PM:	#184
Wosret wrote: What non-physical laws? I'm confused? I don't understand the point in arguing about the mechanics, and workings of something proported to exist that was freshedly pulled out of someone's ass. Unless then can actually demonstrate these proported things, I don't see a difference between arguing how they work, and arguing what colour, shape, consistency, and numeration the spots are on fairy wings. Well I'm with you on this one . Ruthless, for Reason wrote: Thats what Casualty said.... Sure it did. @DEJARDI . As I said to Ruthless, if you think the meaning of word universe is relative, i've got another word for you: God . And this topic is about the existence of God, not the creation of the universe by God. So if you want to add creation, I'll say universe = everything that existed, exists, will exist (and even not exist) . Edited by Nick666 on 03/08/08 - 10:31 PM

Wolf Isle
pseudo-theurgist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 02, 2008
Location: Brasil
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/09/08 - 09:20 PM:	#185
Interesting post, Ruthless. I´ll comment on some of the parts. Ruthless, for Reason wrote: I would think that humanity is something of a hybrid. We are both a "physical", and "spiritual" in being. Look at any other animal. They do everything selfishly and to benefit themselves as best they can. They fight to survive in the food chain. I don´t think the fact that animals not being capable of making ethical judgement, implies in them not having a "spiritual" side. We are actualy making a wierd use of the word spiritual. We can refer to the 2 layers of the cake as physical and metaphysical. This way, we can refer to the non-physical world without necessarily using the word "spiritual", because this word refers to the capability human beings have to be ehtical. So, animals surely don´t have the spiritual potential humans have, but it doesn´t mean they don´t have "the other layer of the cake". They are not realy selfish, because they don´t have the level consciousness to act selfishly. They just act the way they must. We can´t expect ethical decisions from an animal, so we can´t realy say they act un-ethically. If we accept that the whole existence has two "cake layers" (but there are surely more layers that are unseen, as you said), we are back to that discussion we where having earlier, about what is the universe. We can accept both the physical and the non-physical aspects of existence. Ruthless, for Reason wrote: But why are people so different? If we were at some point monkeys and before that a fish/amphibious reptile or some such. We would hold no sense of morals. We would not be able to make society work. We would not be able to create and make laws work. I don´t see why the fact that the human race evolved from a species with a lower level of consciosness, would make it uncapable of being spiritual and ethical. Ruthless, for Reason wrote: Our knowledge is "millions" of years beyond all other animals... but why is that? Think of a chocolate cake. It has two layers. These layers were placed directly, together with one above the other. The top layer (frosting) holds the seen aspect of the cake until the cake is cut. Beneath that is the flavoring layer (custard). Which holds the unseen aspect of the cake until cut. When a person dies, why are they no longer there? The encasing remains (frosting) but the flavoring has vanished (custard). The bodilly aspect remains after death, and the invisible is gone? I though it was the other way arround. Our body dies, not that wich inflated life into it. Ruthless, for Reason wrote: In essence, you are not a body with a soul. You are a soul with a body. When you lose your case, your being is no longer there. So we, ourselves, are a part of both planes of existence. In conclusion our encasing holds us like an anchor to a physical world. Whereas our souls are no longer held by said "anchor". When we die the "cake" is cut. Then we lose our hold to one plane of existence so I must logically say our spiritual being would no longer be here. No longer trapped in the physical, ok. Ruthless, for Reason wrote: Note: I realize we're dealing with more then a two layered "cake" but for now I must leave it at two since I'm sure there are far too many layers for me to assess. Agreed.
"homoiôsis theô kata to dunaton"

Wolf Isle
pseudo-theurgist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 02, 2008
Location: Brasil
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/09/08 - 09:43 PM:	#186
Wosret wrote: "What non-physical laws? I'm confused? I don't understand the point in arguing about the mechanics, and workings of something proported to exist that was freshedly pulled out of someone's ass. Unless then can actually demonstrate these proported things, I don't see a difference between arguing how they work, and arguing what colour, shape, consistency, and numeration the spots are on fairy wings." What part of the metaphysical laws do you want me to try to explain? (I´ll try) Nick666 wrote: And this topic is about the existence of God, not the creation of the universe by God. So if you want to add creation, I'll say universe = everything that existed, exists, will exist (and even not exist). Let´s go back to the existence of God, but this discussion is relevant to try to understand these 2 different modes of existence. I believe we can only discuss the existence of God when considering the metaphysical mode of existence. Perhaps it´s present in your deffinition of universe, when you say "and even not exist", in the sense that the non-physical is not yet manifest. But I don´t know.
"homoiôsis theô kata to dunaton"

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/09/08 - 10:14 PM:	#187
Yeah thats my whole point ! Words are useless ! Even definitions are useless cause theyre made up of words. If I want I can include the metaphysical existence in the universe. The point is that we can invent and make up a shit load of things and words, that may or may not have anything to do with anything .

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 03/10/08 - 01:51 AM:	#188
Wolf Isle wrote: What part of the metaphysical laws do you want me to try to explain? (I´ll try) I don't want it explained, I want it demonstrated. Can you do that?
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

figster63
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/10/08 - 12:13 PM:	#189
In plain English your definition of god is not what my definition of god is. For me god is not a deity. What cannot be created or destroyed? Energy. What is the bible's explanation of god? He has no beginning or end, he is everything. God=energy. Also anybody who thinks they know the answer to whether or not there is a god is a fool. There is no logical way to explain it. It is like Aristotle trying to explain gravity in his age.

Casualty
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/10/08 - 02:15 PM:	#190
figster -Also anybody who thinks they know the answer to whether or not there is a god is a fool. Call me a fool. Worset -I don't want it explained, I want it demonstrated. Can you do that? In four words? No, but God can. figster -God=energy. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 1st John. The jewish word used was "ethos" it means energy and/or miracles. Interestingly, when we follow the Word we put ourselves in the position for God to do miracles. So if Worset wants God to demonstrate himself to him, all he has to do is go to church and do what he truthfully thinks God might be telling him. Then he will see a miracle displayed. As for the other question from pont. The spiritual is foundation. Man is spirit. His body allows him to interact with the physical. The church is the body of Christ, the woman and man become one, God and the church become one. Christ becomes the head of everything then gives it over to God. It is all a "filling" or "indwelling." You can actually feel God. He moves and actually breathes into our nostrils sometimes to. That is what He did to make us. Immanuel = God with us. He is there and He physically will manifests when He wants. But I do not think we will be able to see the Father's face till everything is finished.

figster63
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/10/08 - 02:51 PM:	#191
Casualty do you believe or not believe in a god? Im confused. I reword what I said. I meant anybody who trys to PROVE God is real or not is a fool. To me there are many different meanings to what a god is. I follow the example of Catholicism, while I study theoretical physics. I think before debating whether of not there is a god, we should give our meanings of God.

Casualty
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/10/08 - 05:45 PM:	#192
I believe there is a God, and He is the God the Bible speaks of. I do not wanna get into our meanings of God cause that would take away from my last post, to which I am highly anticipating Worset's next reply.

Wolf Isle
pseudo-theurgist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 02, 2008
Location: Brasil
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/10/08 - 08:35 PM:	#193
figster63 wrote: In plain English your definition of god is not what my definition of god is. For me god is not a deity. If by deity you understand a being with a mind that is like the human conscious mind, I agree, but you don´t have to understand it like that. figster63 wrote: What cannot be created or destroyed? Energy. What is the bible's explanation of god? He has no beginning or end, he is everything. Would you simply prefer to call God, "Energy"? Energy is the potency for something to happen. We could also say God created energy. figster63 wrote: God=energy. Also anybody who thinks they know the answer to whether or not there is a god is a fool. There is no logical way to explain it. It is like Aristotle trying to explain gravity in his age. I´m not sure there is a way to prove the existence of God, but we might work on the way we understand Him. I think logic may indicate His existence, but not prove it. When you say God is energy, your providing your understanding of the existence of God, you are affirming the existence of something. Because you believe God can´t be considered a diety, you don´t include yourself as a fool? Your saying that there is something, your just not calling it God. Aristotle´s explanation of what gravity is would not be devoid of logic.
"homoiôsis theô kata to dunaton"

Wolf Isle
pseudo-theurgist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 02, 2008
Location: Brasil
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/10/08 - 09:07 PM:	#194
Wosret wrote: I don't want it explained, I want it demonstrated. Can you do that? I´m not sure that´s even possible, but I´ll try. It´s probably going to be a very week attempt. But I don´t think the existence of God needs to be demonstrated. It´s more about trying to understand what He is. I´ll post later, it´s 2 in the morning right now.
"homoiôsis theô kata to dunaton"

figster63
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/11/08 - 11:48 AM:	#195
Wolf Isle wrote: If by deity you understand a being with a mind that is like the human conscious mind, I agree, but you don´t have to understand it like that. Would you simply prefer to call God, "Energy"? Energy is the potency for something to happen. We could also say God created energy. I´m not sure there is a way to prove the existence of God, but we might work on the way we understand Him. I think logic may indicate His existence, but not prove it. When you say God is energy, your providing your understanding of the existence of God, you are affirming the existence of something. Because you believe God can´t be considered a diety, you don´t include yourself as a fool? Your saying that there is something, your just not calling it God. Aristotle´s explanation of what gravity is would not be devoid of logic. I meant to say like a 2nd dimensional being knowing what height and depth was. Again a mix up in meanings. Our definitions of God and energy are different. I believe in God. I just don't believe in it as a diety. Energy is not the only the potency to happen. Theoretically at a subatomic level you only get at bundles of energy. Matter is a form of energy. Light is energy everything is energy. How can God make something that is everything? Also you are right I would be calling myself a fool. A fool knows nothing. "A true wise man admits he knows nothing." And he who knows nothing doubts nothing. The fact that a think this is true is foolish because nothing can be completely proven. Thats why I believe in God, but notice how many people who believe in God have seen no truth but their own logical explanation. But the fact I know nothing makes me wanna know everything.

Casualty
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/12/08 - 07:47 AM:	#196
Wosret never posted again...

Agnostic G
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 03/14/08 - 02:47 AM:	#197
It is possible using science to demonstrate the falsehood of specific Biblical claims Can you explain which specific claims you refer to in particular please? I can think of a few Biblical claims (major ones) that have not be disproved by science and look very unlikely to be. P.S New here, why is this site so slow?? Or does it just the time when I log in? Edited by Agnostic G on 03/14/08 - 03:16 AM

Agnostic G
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 03/14/08 - 03:12 AM:	#198
then everything would be created completely randomly What ever harmony Earth may have is completely random Why do you state things factually and then go on to to tell us it's a THEORY!? ?? Edited by Agnostic G on 03/14/08 - 03:18 AM

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 03/14/08 - 04:28 AM:	#199
Agnostic G Scientific theories and facts are not mutually exclusive. Everything in natural science is theory, it may be a theory that the earth goes around the sun, or that germs are responsible for infection, or that life on earth has evolved over billions of years, but I think that the evidence is easily enough to establish them as facts as well. If anything can be called a fact, surely they can. Although the person you quote is wrong if they are speaking about evolution. The word "created" is surely misused, and natural selection is the non-random driving force behind evolution. People seem to hear "spontaneous genetic mutation" and then think that evolution is a theory of chance. It is not, the mutation aspect is non-controversial, we are all mutates. All of us underwent on average 4 mutations during developement. Natural selection is what matters, it is what discriminates the good from the bad. In either case, you just need to read up on what a scientific theory is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.