A little proof of the NON-existence of God

Pinnacle_of_Reason · August 12, 2005, 3:36am

i can’t believe we are still discussing this question. why can’t the author read some books instead of sprewing his ignorance onto the forum. he doesn’t even understand the words ‘existence’ and ‘god’ yet he’s using the words when he obviously has no idea what they mean. I wonder if he ever read Tractus or even heard of logical positivism (which is only partially correct), if he really want the answer, read my essay.

Dr.Satanical · August 12, 2005, 4:37am

Yes. The fact that you can use linguistics to prove contradictory claims.
That in and of itself nulifies linguistic proof and renders it impotent.

…and don’t roll your eyes at me, bitch, or I’ll pluck them out and eat them.

SA_mkhya · August 12, 2005, 5:08am

We can prove anything DEPENDING ON OUR ASSUMPTIONS.

But I, I tell you that the goal is to find a proof which rests upon the smallest possible number of assumptions, and on assumptions which are very widely accepted, such as the principle of non-contradiction.

Pinnacle_of_Reason · August 12, 2005, 5:20am

note: principle of non-contradition applies only to logical issues. and what exactly is anything? seriously, you are speaking in mystical English.

S_Hall · August 14, 2005, 12:15pm

I disagree. The growth and decay of everything shows neither beginning nor end of anything. It is only change. Phases begin and end but nothing ever really “begins” but a new cycle.

my_real_name · August 14, 2005, 8:12pm

Hi, Mr. Hall. What do you think of various eras of animal life on earth beginning and ending the reign of various species? (I mean like Dinosaur eras here.) Aren’t those cycles in stages? Stages from the simpler – eventually needing a Creator in the beginning – to the more complex?

my real name

Lasko · August 14, 2005, 8:37pm

MRN,

Thats exactly my point. Eventually regardless of how long, things end, now as to whether something else comes in its place is another question but everything started and everything as far as presently as we know it ends.

my_real_name · August 14, 2005, 8:47pm

I think you missed the argument. (Which I have now deleted by accident.)
About how things which cannot be, may at some time all not be.
I fashioned the argument after Aquinas’ Third Way.
Here it is more fully:

newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

In Summa Theologica:

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

mrn

Lasko · August 14, 2005, 8:53pm

Perhaps the same thing shall happen to us as it did to the dinosaurs. Perhaps it is not our time to die just yet, the bigger question is if it does happen, what shall evolve after us? Dinosaurs—>Humans—> ???

my_real_name · August 14, 2005, 9:02pm

Cockroaches, some say,
but I fancy racoons evolving much sooner.

Lasko · August 14, 2005, 9:35pm

I’m rather fond of the cockroach theory… Ironically it would be funny…

We kill them daily by the thousands… but somehow they end up ruling the planet in our fall out… hmm… Sounds possible haha

my_real_name · August 14, 2005, 9:39pm

Interesting quote.

Argument from authority:
“The glory of God is a human being fully alive.” – some Saint or other

Lasko · August 14, 2005, 9:43pm

Arguement from Lasko:
“The Glory of Thyself is a God being fully alive.”

my_real_name · August 14, 2005, 9:49pm

Argument from Psalms:

“Not to us, Lord, not to us,
but to Your name give glory –
because of your goodness, because of your truth.”

Lasko · August 14, 2005, 10:06pm

Argument from Lasko:

“Not to you, Lord, not to you,
But I give myself glory –
because of my goodnes, because of my truth”

We can keep going on about this back and forth or I can make a point to it.

Point being regardless of quotes or text… its just quotes and text written in the hand of MAN… and the grape vine tends to change things often enough.

my_real_name · August 14, 2005, 10:17pm

From where do you think you get goodness or truth?

mrn,
grand inquisitor

Lasko · August 14, 2005, 10:21pm

From where do you think God gets goodness and Truth? And why Do you think he has any?

I know myself and have seen the good deeds I do in daily life. I consider myself a moral man who tries living a “Christ-Like” life without the belief in Christ or God. I am a Satanist with the search for God in my path as well. Satanism is more a philosophy than a way of life to me.

The only thing we know historically about God… is the Bible or other religious documentation. Written by human hands and hand down generation by generation taking revision after revision. I myself on the other hand you can see feel touch smell (regardless of good or bad smell) and taste.

I have never experienced God so in my perspective I have not seen, Felt, Touched, Smelt, or Tasted God. To me I am God, as are you and all others around the world.

my_real_name · August 14, 2005, 10:36pm

Shalom, Lasko.

Please pardon me if I don’t taste you.

However, Scripture says: “Taste and see the goodness of the Lord.”

If all things come from God, He, as Creator, must be good and true for there to be goodness and truth in our experience – unless they can be reduced to other experiences.

Does this make any sense? I say it so often, it seems, on these boards, and no one ever says: “By Jove, I never thought of that – that seems absolutely correct! You must really know your philosophy!” But seldom do they stay and argue against it either.

Bonum et pachem,
my real name

Lasko · August 14, 2005, 10:44pm

If he, the creator, created everything, why does that make him Good?

Could creating everything also be considered Bad? Why make humans and take the chance of people running a muck of your name? Why not just sit back and watch the peace of nothingness?

choymantisbxr · August 14, 2005, 11:33pm

gee, wow lasko, way to completley dodge all the points a made in my last post. im sure if you ignore them long enough, theyll go away just like everything else in existence right?