Does GOD Not Existed? - Page 2

i wil make a point on the being god piece again all i was trying to say is yes 9/11 happened it has already happen and u cud say god allowed it to happen which means if i were god i will do the same thing becus i will be same god not myself for the only god i cud be is god therefore i would be the god that exsist right now i cant be another god myself cus that god doesnot exsist period.
i think our mean problem in this life is there are to much humans trying to be god or performing gods duties i mean these people judge, punish and condemn others jus becus they let this whole freewill go to their head and tried to make themselve god or someone close to him or very similar. its jus mankinds obsession wit control and power everyone who do bad our driven by these two problems they want to have control over their lives or lives of others which is a want for power which all comes back to selfishness our greatest weakness cus dont matter how u look at it everything someone does wrong they do it for themselves no one else.

anyway i will end there
Dwight E. Fox
Bahamas

I think I R Me's "theistic showdown" idea closely fits my theory of how man came to conceive of the concept of a God. Plus I thought it was funny. However I want to back off from the arguement from evil which most have been arguing about in this thread.

Here is a theory about why God does not exist that is logical. Everyone is familiar w/ cause and effect, right? Well, if you track the causal chain of events back to their source eventually you will discover what started it. Religious people suggest that this is God and scientists cosider the possibility that black holes may have this effect. In our case we will call God the "first mover" or the entity that gave cause a kick in the ass to produce its ever expanding infinity of effects. The problem with this theory is that God must then be self cause b/c there is no one/thing to 'cause' God. An uncaused cause or an unmoved 'first mover' is a logical impossibility which is at least some evidence for the proof of the non-existence of God.

"Dumb teen....>Do u think all this world (i mean the Univers) hase been created by it self?
what does that mean?..I really can't undrestand...U think all these rules in the world have no creator...so where did they come from?..."
Where did it come from? My personal idea is that the first instant of the universe all the laws were defined absolutely randomly and everything that defines our universe was determined absolutely randomly.
Given how the universe is, this is far more likely then say, a God. A God who came from nowhere? Or I suppose this God created himself?

"and let me give u a simple example...>imagin that u r in the middle of sea...there is no one there..and there is a horrible storm...and u have to swim jus to no where!!!
then in that time...is there any hope for u to get to the sea side safely?...jus tell me would u have any hope or not...(imagin of the worst situation in the sea)."
Well if its that bad, probably not.

Anyone ever heard of "Pascal's Wager?" If God does exist and you go to church every Sunday, say ur hail Mary's, etc. rather than utilizing that time to practice your golf game you can at least expect from the time you put in going to chuch that you will go to heaven.

On the other hand if God does not exist and you go to church, 'hail' the Nazi Mary, etc. and do not go golfing you have wasted your time.

So the big question is, do you bet on God and go to church or do you utilize your time to practice your golf game?

The answer is that the arguement fails!
God thinks gambling is a sin.

I hear a whole lot of talk about all the evil in the world, but where's the talk about all the good that's happened? If evil is evidence for God's existence, what is all the good happening evidence for? If the 'sheer blatant evil roaming around the earth' makes a Christian God improbable, then all the 'sheer blatant good roaming around the earth' makes a Christian God probable. What books have you read DumbTeen?

All the talk about having an all good world (meaning no evil by human standards) is only a human ideal. And we have no right saying that this should be God's ideal. Who are we to tell God how to create the world?

rschulz said:

quote:

---

The problem with this theory is that God must then be self cause b/c there is no one/thing to 'cause' God. An uncaused cause or an unmoved 'first mover' is a logical impossibility which is at least some evidence for the proof of the non-existence of God.

---

This is a misunderstanding about the Christian God. You imply in your theory that God is bound by time and space. If God is the creator of time, wouldn't that give him rule over it? And if he has rule over it, he isn't bound by it. By saying that God has always existed, we basically speak a contradiction in terms. God can't ALWAYS exist if he isn't bound by time. That's why a lot of people choose to call God Eternal, and not Immortal. Which gives logical reason to believe in an uncreated creator.

DumbTeen also said:

quote:

---

My personal idea is that the first instant of the universe all the laws were defined absolutely randomly and everything that defines our universe was determined absolutely randomly.
Given how the universe is, this is far more likely then say, a God.

---

So, the universe was caused by randomness. Everything in creation is cause and effect even down to the choices we take as humans. So, are you saying that over an infinite period of time, everything that is had enough time to create what exists today? That doesn't make any sence to me. By guessing that the universe had an infinite amount of time to create itself, is like implying that there was an infinite regression of time going backwards. If we had that much time, I would think that we would be far more advanced by now. I would think that we would be as advanced as we could possibly be. With an infinite amount of time and no starting point, I should be dead by now, and we should at least be flying in space ships into other galxies. If we had an infinite regression of time, our sun should have burned out by now. This is definitely not 'far more likely than say, a God.'

If by saying that all of our laws were defined randomly, you have to say that there was a starting point for laws to be defined, you must imply a cause. What was that cause?

I believe that the purpose of this thread is for people who don't believe in God, for them to explain why.

Well, I don't know why people refer to God as a 'being'. I mean, I just think that God is some force. Perhaps nature itself is God. Many people question why everything is the way it is, like why does time go fowards etc. The most logical one is that there was some artbary decision that lead to these initial configurations of the universe. If you say that they were chosen randomly, then that means that there are a an infinite number of universes, however, the artbary decision theory is probably the most logical.
It can be said, that these configurations like gravity gradually evolved after the big bang, but again, why does the universe contain matter, why is fire red, why was there a big bang and so on. So unless you are saying that there are an infinite number of universes with all the different configurations possible, the initial artibary(or God?) theory is the most likely one.
So yes, I think there is a God, but not one who inteferes in our sex lives or something! I think that God didn't really have that much of a choice in creating the universe, and probably just had to start it and gave it 'characteristics', and everything was then left to chance.

" That doesn't make any sence to me. By guessing that the universe had an infinite amount of time to create itself, is like implying that there was an infinite regression of time going backwards. If we had that much time, I would think that we would be far more advanced by now. I would think that we would be as advanced as we could possibly be. With an infinite amount of time and no starting point, I should be dead by now, and we should at least be flying in space ships into other galxies. If we had an infinite regression of time, our sun should have burned out by now. This is definitely not 'far more likely than say, a God.'"
I said none of this. I said that the laws that define the way our universe functioned were defined the first instant and probably randomly. The universe we exist in today obeys to laws and is not terribly random, (barring quantum mechanics) but the reason there are some laws over others is random.
If it isn't random, then there is most certainly a God.

A O D thats exactly what I mean by thinking outside the box.

Here is something you might relate to
http://www.ldolphin.org/cohere.shtml

My links don't seem to work, so maybe copy and paste.

hmmmm, Yeah checked it out, bit on the relgious sid though.

Anyway, so if anyone doesn't beleive in God then u r saying that there are infinite universes with infinite initial configurations, otherwise if you say that these configurations were artibary, then there is a God.

quote:

---

be30mple - how can you believe in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being when there's so much evil around you?

Decius, please tell 11 million holocaust victims that they are inconsequential.
Its all fine that using abstract reasoning nothing really matters, indeed nothing matters, we're just a few atoms on a small world of a normal sun in an average galaxy. However, regardless of any reasoning, what matters is human life, and the pains and pleasures of mankind.
You cannot just sweep these under the carpet and call them inconsequential.

---

Ah well that is an easy one, GOD created this world (existence) because He knew we would fuck it up, afterall isn't that what the the Old Testament says? GOD threw us out of His Garden to safeguard it from our insanity! We are here to prove our worthyness to enter into it.
As stated, if man had the powers of GOD, what would the world be like? If being given the mere faucalties of self-will (rule) we committ such atrocities of this world, what would that world be like?

Strongclad you said: "This is a misunderstanding about the Christian God. You imply in your theory that God is bound by time and space. If God is the creator of time, wouldn't that give him rule over it? And if he has rule over it, he isn't bound by it. By saying that God has always existed, we basically speak a contradiction in terms. God can't ALWAYS exist if he isn't bound by time. That's why a lot of people choose to call God Eternal, and not Immortal. Which gives logical reason to believe in an uncreated creator."

If God is outside space and time/causality it is a dodge from the question, "does God exist?" Simply saying that God exists outside of time and space does not give any reason to say he exists. What you presuppose is that the idea of God existing outside space and time has merit. (What is, 'outside space and time?') To the human understanding it does not have merit, since we are not able to conceive of a being outside the causal chain of events, (I.E. – a consequence without and act) It simply cannot be done. If you can do this, prove it in your next post and I will be considered wrong.

Moreover, the argument from causality does give us reason to accept or reject the existence of God, whether it is correct or not. If it would be necessary for God to be caused, then it leaves the question, "Does God exist", insufficiently answered. If God is not linked to the causal chain of events, then at least we can rule out the argument from causality for our next discussion.

But at this point simply proposing 'God is outside space and time" is a mute point b/c you simply pull us further away from the possibility of the human mind to understand and conceive of the existence of God. If this is the case you are doing nothing more than 'dodging' the question.

Thank you rschulz for bringing my error to light. I admit that a few of the points I made were wrong and I will retract them.

Simply saying that God exists outside of time and space does not give any reason to say he exists. This is true, because merely making a statement or claiming something as true doesn't make it fact. Assuming from the start that the idea of God existing outside of space and time has merit doesn't make it true if there is no evidence shown for it. And still then it is up to the one viewing the evidence to make up his mind whether he believes it or not.

So, in these points I will conclude that I was wrong. But I also think that there were a few of your own statements that make the same kind of assumptions.

In your first post you stated:

quote:

---

Everyone is familiar w/ cause and effect, right? Well, if you track the causal chain of events back to their source eventually you will discover what started it.

---

Although I believe this is true, there are always setbacks to it. We are not always going to find out what the source is. This is a cold hard fact. The measures taken to find the source have still not brought forth any conclusion to this question of life's existence. It's not like claiming Kennedy was shot -- we can all know that he was alive and murdered based on the testamonies from those of the past, this is a fact which stands unopposed. But the realm of science and experimentation have not come to any conclusions yet for why there is something rather than nothing, only theories and possibilities.

You also said:

quote:

---

In our case we will call God the "first mover" or the entity that gave cause a kick in the ass to produce its ever expanding infinity of effects. The problem with this theory is that God must then be self cause b/c there is no one/thing to 'cause' God. An uncaused cause or an unmoved 'first mover' is a logical impossibility which is at least some evidence for the proof of the non-existence of God.

---

First off, this is not proof for the so-called "non-existence" of God. There is no way one can prove "non-existence." The only thing your statement does is try to cast doubt and unreliability on the theory of the "uncaused-cause." It is only proof against that theory in general. You yourself know that you cannot show that God doesn't exist. You can only show whether someone's theory or so-called "evidence" is invalid. And only then can you cast real doubt on the claim (made by a human) that their god is real.

The one thing that you have not shown is that your statements are valid. You claim that the theory of an uncaused-cause is a logical impossibility, but you say no more. There is no reason given for its impossibility, no explanation as to why it doesn't work. There is only the hint of an assumption.

Many people claim that there is evidence for an uncaused-cause of the universe. (I'll get into that later if you like )

I must state further that I was not intending to dodge the question "Does God exist?" by introducing the theory of a God whom is outside of space and time. I was merely using using it to buttress my claim in a God that is the unmoved-mover. So I'm sorry if you thought I had that intention.

One point of yours that kind of struck me was this one:

quote:

---

What you presuppose is that the idea of God existing outside space and time has merit. (What is, 'outside space and time?') To the human understanding it does not have merit, since we are not able to conceive of a being outside the causal chain of events, (I.E. – a consequence without and act) It simply cannot be done.

---

I agree that I do not show any evidence of any sort for the first statement. But in the second sentence you make a claim that humans cannot conceive of a being outside of time and space, and this may be true (that humans cannot concieve this), because I have yet to see any scientific explanations (using experimentation) showing it to be a reality. But, I think you are wrong in implying that because we cannot show it to be true, it must therefore be false. Just because we cannot prove (by literally showing) that there is a being outside our causal chain of events -- like opening the front door to let your friend inside -- doesn't mean that this being isn't there (we both agree that statements don't make facts). Many people contend that there is a being outside of our universe, and give many explanations as to why this is true. (I can point you in the right direction if you would like to tackle this subject. )

Although this is a little off topic here -- but it does take us back on track with the question "Does God exist?" -- I would contend that the "Natural Moral Law" (the law of "fair-play" ) is evidence for the existence of a "person-like" creator. I'll go into this later though.

Let me know what you think of my comments.

Strongclad, you said,

"this is not proof for the so-called "non-existence" of God. There is no way one can prove "non-existence." The only thing your statement does is try to cast doubt and unreliability on the theory of the "uncaused-cause." It is only proof against that theory in general."

Actually, it is a portion of a strong proof for the non-existence of God called the Cosmological argument. A proof, which was, originally intended to serve as proof for the existence of God, 'refurbished' by Aquinas from Aristotle's notes.

This is basically how it goes:

1. Some things are caused.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Therefore, everything that is caused is caused by something other than itself.
4. A causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time.
5. If the causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time, there must be a first cause.
6. Therefore, everything that is caused has a first cause, i.e. God.

There have been many objections to the problem, which may or may not make it true. The problem is that when Aquinas applied the problem to God, God then becomes part of the causal chain of events. Therefore the question we ask is, "how was God caused?"

God ends up being labeled as 'necessary' for the existence of the universe or God exists in 'itself.' Then Leibniz comes along and says basically, there are reasons for everything even though we may not know those reasons (Necessary/Sufficient reason).

The explanation for God then ends up becoming a paradox, or a 'necessary truth that ends up being a contradiction.' Another example of a paradox would be the statement, "There are no universal truths." So the proof for God being the 'first mover' ends up relying on the answer to the paradox. And like you said before people of course have to choose at that point whether they accept the sufficient reason/evidence.

And so what you said is true..."First off, this is not proof for the so-called "non-existence" of God", since God is outside of this scope of the argument. However, I do think that it does serve as evidence to help guide us in the right direction when thinking about the 'almighty.'

Please comment on: 'evidence of an uncaused-cause' and 'the explanation(s) of a being outside our universe."

Dumbteen, you sound like you really wish that God did not exist, or that you are mad at him. Like you know he is there but he did something to make you mad.

Take God out of the picture, and then let's see who is responsible for the 9-11, the holocost, and such. Tthe people are.... The people did it. Put God back in the picture, and then find out who actually did those things. The people still did it, God just let it happen.

To amend this question, we could change it to "who is God?"

Why does God let the terrible happen,
Why does God let good people seffuer,
Why does God let bad people get away?

I say God allows us to do what we do because it is our choice and our life. God intereferes when it is our choice to ask him, or if there is some plan to this world that he wants carried out. We will live our lives and then who knows what. I believe there is an afterlife where we will be judged according to what we do, and that is who God is.