God does not Exist: Therefore there is no self to pity, hate, defend, or feed.

[JEDIYoda]

Therefore any rational person

using the term - any rational person is the exact same things as using the term -- well, everybody knows....has this really come down this low....since you can`t prove their is no god...you resort to using childish terminology?

 

[sandorski]

You cannot prove that god does not exist. You will never be able to prove that god does not exist. It is however possible that there may one day be proof that god does exist.

So on the one hand you have something that is possible, while on the other had you have something that is flatly not possible and will never be possible. Therefore any rational person must lean towards that which is at least possible vs that which is clearly not possible.

Faeries, Bigfoot, Unicorns, Leprechauns also possibly exist. Is it reasonable to believe they do?

The most logical thing to believe are those things that are indicated by Evidence. To merely believe in things that might be possible is to believe in things that may lead us to wrong conclusions.

Just consider gods and the religions that have existed around them. Do gods require us to hold certain things reverently or in contempt? Do gods require us to sacrifice our children to them? Slaughter neighbouring Tribes? Rape women? Burn witches? Was it reasonable for people to believe in all these possibly existing gods merely because there is a possibility these gods exist?

Sure, it is possible a god exists, maybe even one that created the Universe and everything in it. However, it is also possible that this god does not even Know of our existence or doesn't care one bit about our existence. Nevermind requiring anything of us.

The only reasonable choice is to not believe until a god or gods are shown to exist. Any attempt to appease such a thing is completely vain in the meantime and as history shows repeatedly leads to one atrocity after another.

 

[MajinCry]

who? It`s easy to talk yourself into believing that God does not exist! That dude never did prove that God does not exist!!

In the same way that you cannot prove that Crom does not exist, you cannot prove that Yahweh does not exist.

That is to say, you can't prove a negative. A positive, on the other hand, is to be proven; which is why Christopher Hitchens debated people positing that Yahweh exists.

And not a single religious fella has managed to prove that a god exists, never mind Yahweh.

 

[jackstar7]

using the term - any rational person is the exact same things as using the term -- well, everybody knows....has this really come down this low....since you can`t prove their is no god...you resort to using childish terminology?

Holy cow... you pulled from what I was quoting to make it look like I said it...

I've said eleven words in this thread prior to this post, and I never said that. Please be more careful.

 

[elitejp]

People want proof that God exists. I want proof that the world came into being by a series of accidents. Both are impossible to prove in a lab room. But we can take what is readily available and then come to our own conclusions. I always saw the world as something extremely complicated meaning for me it couldn't be something that was accidental. So that helped lead me to be a christian. But that didnt mean I closed my eyes to everything and stopped using my brain. I continued to research and evaluate what Christianity is and God. Now im grown up and the changes I have seen from people I know having serious problems to accepting Jesus as their savior and instantly being free from that problem, isnt something that can be explained. But they didnt really stop and argue that the academia world doesn't believe God exists and this isnt possible, rather they were pretty excited to have their life changed. Now im not saying that this always happened. Not everything Ive seen is instantaneous rather the opposite but it isnt like somebody getting a better life is bad in any way.

 

[John Connor]

God is real because you are real. End of story.

 

[sm625]

However, it is also possible that this god does not even Know of our existence or doesn't care one bit about our existence. Nevermind requiring anything of us.

This is not possible. God, by definition, sees all and knows all, therefore it is not possible that god doesnt know about our existence. As for caring, that may be a human concept. We may not be capable of understanding how a god might "care" or not care. But most likely god has chosen not to interfere with our development.

 

[sandorski]

This is not possible. God, by definition, sees all and knows all, therefore it is not possible that god doesnt know about our existence. As for caring, that may be a human concept. We may not be capable of understanding how a god might "care" or not care. But most likely god has chosen not to interfere with our development.

How could you possibly know this? Sounds like wishful arrogant thinking.

 

[jackstar7]

Blasphemer!

 

[JEDIYoda]

So close!

exactly!! You were right!! My bad!!

 

[sao123]

Does God Exist?
God does not exist, because to exist a thing must be created. God, by definition, is supposed to be the creator, and therefore cannot exist.
...
Instead, it is clear, that God cannot exist for the very fact that no matter how great the being is that you imagine: it must come from somewhere, even nothingness, which is greater still than that being that you imagine.

So full of fail it hurts.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

My two cents:

I don't find the essay's argument for God's nonexistence very compelling, at all.

I do think that the idea of God is real enough that it affects all of us here in the material world, and that has some interesting implications, ontologically-speaking.

Then the essay went on for too long reifying "nothing" that I didn't finish it.

 

[kage69]

It struck me as reactionary and muddled, with a nihilist flavor that doesn't seem applicable to positions maintained by Hitchens, Harris, Shermer, Dawkins etc. It would be interesting to see what direction it would have taken had the author been able to avoid often using the same sense of religious certitude deists use in justifying their positions and submitting examples. Seems a bit out of place for those supposedly speaking within the realm of knowledge, and not belief.

Kinda smacks of theists 'heading for the hills' of the metaphysical for cover, after finding the burden of proof is just too damn heavy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E99BdOfxAE A clip for all the wu-wu lovers out there. Love the comments.

Sam: "All religions are wrong."
Michael: "Don't fall for the silliness of religion."
Deepak: "You need to look within yourself to find God."

Jean: "Mustard is a delicious condiment. I'm reminded of the time that I took a ferry to Jersey City. My mom used to dress in the fanciest of dresses. They had taffy back then for 10 cents. We drove an old Chevy that played 50's music. At the time, I had a canker sore on the inside of my cheek..."

 

[Dr. Zaus]

My two cents:

I don't find the essay's argument for God's nonexistence very compelling, at all.

I do think that the idea of God is real enough that it affects all of us here in the material world, and that has some interesting implications, ontologically-speaking.

Then the essay went on for too long reifying "nothing" that I didn't finish it.

Thanks! Reification of non-existence (or non-existence's creation of reality...) seems to be precisely where physics is, please see this presentation by Suskind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U

I agree that the idea of God exists; but this is probably the most cynical argument for the existence of God: Therefore I would say the pragmatic argument for God is the closest to a well founded argument for Atheism.

Really, my basic argument is that Theists and Non-Theists start with the same premise:

God is that which was not created.

Is this a fair statement?

 

[sao123]

Thanks! Reification of non-existence (or non-existence's creation of reality...) seems to be precisely where physics is, please see this presentation by Suskind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U

I agree that the idea of God exists; but this is probably the most cynical argument for the existence of God: Therefore I would say the pragmatic argument for God is the closest to a well founded argument for Atheism.

Really, my basic argument is that Theists and Non-Theists start with the same premise:

God is that which was not created.

Is this a fair statement?

No. Not created is an property attributed to God. It is not an attribute which defines what God is.
A much better beginning premise would be God is that which has created all things which have been created.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"A much better beginning premise would be God is that which has created all things which have been created."

Which, from the perspective of created things, would be a non-thing or 'nothing'. Yes?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Thanks! Reification of non-existence (or non-existence's creation of reality...) seems to be precisely where physics is, please see this presentation by Suskind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U

I don't have time to find the relevant segment of that video. Can you point me to a particular time? I am glad you brought it to my attention, and I do intend to watch the whole thing eventually.

I'll speculate that he speaks about the quantum vacuum and particle fluctuations. If that's the case, then I think there's likely some equivocation going on. I don't think that particle fluctuations represent things "created from nothing," although I know that this is a popularized way of describing it. Rather, I think they reveal that there is no such thing as "nothing" in reality. It's basically tautologous when you think about it. No thing is nothing, and the "quantum foam" that seems to exist within the quantum vacuum is a thing.

In my experience it has been helpful rather than to say "X came from nothing," but instead "there is no thing that created X," or "X was not created by any thing."

Perhaps my speculation is off-base, and if so, I hope you will clarify.

I agree that the idea of God exists; but this is probably the most cynical argument for the existence of God: Therefore I would say the pragmatic argument for God is the closest to a well founded argument for Atheism.

The whole problem with arguments that purport to conclude the nonexistence of God is that their premises lack empirical foundation. At most, we can say certain god-concepts are inconsistent/incoherent, or are incompatible with accepted facts about reality. Unfortunately, there is no limit to the number of god-concepts which are coherent and both internally and externally consistent.

Really, my basic argument is that Theists and Non-Theists start with the same premise:

God is that which was not created.

Is this a fair statement?

I agree that it should be a premise that both theists and atheists accept, but each for different reasons.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No. Not created is an property attributed to God. It is not an attribute which defines what God is.

I don't agree that "not created" is a property or attribute. It is rather the absence of a property or attribute.

A much better beginning premise would be God is that which has created all things which have been created.

And what would it mean if we found out that no thing has been created?

A relevant question:

If I take a ball of clay and shape it into a bowl, did I create the bowl, or did I just reconfigure the clay?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

You need to hear his presentation of Boltzmann's box first, but:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U&t=56m

We are in one of an unlimited number of vortices where-in the universal constant allows for temporal directionality. However; against this universe of universal constants there are infinite other universes each coming closer to not having a temporality.

I don't agree that "not created" is a property or attribute. It is rather the absence of a property or attribute.


And what would it mean if we found out that no thing has been created?

A relevant question:

If I take a ball of clay and shape it into a bowl, did I create the bowl, or did I just reconfigure the clay?

It really depends on the level of analysis and the temporal bounds of the question.

At a very basic level, at a very long period of time, there is nothing because it will eventually all 'fizzle out'.

At a very high level, over a short period of time, there is a bowl that has emergent properties of use within a socio-cognitive system that is quite distinct from the clay out of which the bowl was made.

Is a bowl a relevant transformation of clay vis a vis the social world? Yes. Is it a relevant change vis a vis the eventual expansion of the universe into nothing? No.


When you appeal to empiricism remember (I think its in this video where I heard it): A few billion years from now an intelligent life could evolve that looks out into the universe, seeing the sky black excepting for its own galaxy. Being scientific, that species would empirically validate the absolutely wrong hypothesis.

 

[Charmonium]

The multiverse is just a theory created to explain quantum indeterminism. According to Bell's theorem, in a universe where quantum mechanics describes reality, you have to give up either the idea of realism or locality. Realism means that when you close the refrigerator door, the light is still on even though you can't see it. To be more accurate, it means that things continue to exist even when not observed.

Locality means that cause and effect are local phenomena. You can't have a change on one side of the universe affect something on the other side instantaneously.

However multiple experiments have shown that reality is non-local. If you have 2 entangled photons separated by many light years of distance, measuring one will cause the other to decay from its state of superposition to a single definite state complementary to the first photon.

The idea of the multiverse is an attempt to explain how this happens. Essentially, every quantum state of every particle exists concurrently just in different universes. So in essence, there are an infinite number of universes.

That's not a great description, but you can read more here - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

 

[SMOGZINN]

A few billion years from now an intelligent life could evolve that looks out into the universe, seeing the sky black excepting for its own galaxy. Being scientific, that species would empirically validate the absolutely wrong hypothesis.

What hypothesis, that they are the only galaxy in the universe? They probably would, just like we did. Then they would continue their research and learn more. Just like we did. They would find out that there are gravitational forces acting on their galaxy from outside of their galaxy and reconsider that hypothesis. They would learn of the expanding universe and once again and reconsider their hypothesis. Eventually they would come to the conclusion that there might be things out there too far away to see. Just like we did.

Science is an iterative process.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

What hypothesis, that they are the only galaxy in the universe? They probably would, just like we did. Then they would continue their research and learn more. Just like we did. They would find out that there are gravitational forces acting on their galaxy from outside of their galaxy and reconsider that hypothesis. They would learn of the expanding universe and once again and reconsider their hypothesis. Eventually they would come to the conclusion that there might be things out there too far away to see. Just like we did.

Science is an iterative process.

They could not come to that conclusion as anything that expands away from you faster than the speed of light is functionally in a black hole. The cosmic background radiation gone, all other galaxies flying away: they would conclude they are in an eternal singular galaxy and never have a sense of a big bang.

Empiricism can only get you so far before you reach the limits of what can possibly be observed... which seems to be the lesson of quantum physics.

 

[MongGrel]

God is real because you are real. End of story.

Did god tell you that?

You should sign up for pope.

 

[Charmonium]

Empiricism can only get you so far before you reach the limits of what can possibly be observed... which seems to be the lesson of quantum physics.

Well technically, the wave function permits any particle to be anywhere in the universe at any time. It's just that the probability of it being very far away from where it is detected is infinitesimally small. But it's not prohibited.

But particles can and do disappear from one point and reappear on the other side of a barrier without traversing the distance in between all of the time - quantum tunneling.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

They could not come to that conclusion as anything that expands away from you faster than the speed of light is functionally in a black hole. The cosmic background radiation gone, all other galaxies flying away: they would conclude they are in an eternal singular galaxy and never have a sense of a big bang.

Aren't they?