God doesn't exist

Unicorns don’t exist. Flying cars don’t exist. Extraterrestrials don’t exist. Big foot doesn’t exist. Blue oranges don’t exist. Cold hot water doesn’t exist. I didn’t exist before my great grandpappy was born.

Our imagination does exist and it runs wild. Everything we can imagine is a reflection of our real world that can be shifted into other possible geometrical shapes or colors or words or what have you.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS? CAPS LOCK I’M HOPING.

Define God.

It’s not as simple as yelling. Unlike Unicorns, God makes up a good part of the justification for morality, as it is. If you want to get rid of what you see to be an insane belief, and it unfortunately serves some very important purposes, you’re going to have to replace it somehow.

I wrote about it here: ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 18&start=0

Keep in mind I was younger than I am now. Notice specifically the careful use of the word “pooped”.

One day they will find the remains of horses with a single horn on their skulls. Boy, will that shut up some arguments :laughing:

How do we know Ben Franklin existed? It could all have been an elaborate hoax for some diabolical reason to gain power. I am certain no one alive ever met him. Do you know anyone that can actually prove they met him? papers and paintings prove nothing, Skeletons are a dime a dozen. Does anyone know his exact DNA sequence? No. So since you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt, Old Ben probably did not exist. He was made up in order to gain certain parties power.

There may be no proof for the existence of the above mentioned, but you also have no proof that they do not exist. Of course, there is no reason to prove they exist. I do think it is unwise to dabble in concretes.

Why is our imagination any less real than what you percieve to be “our real world?” How do you know that the real world as you percieve it is not just your imagination running wild?

I think the most successful definition of God is that which lacks definition, because it is impossible to argue.

I disagree, I think people are deceived into thinking it is part of the justification for morality, just as design is an illusion of evolution by natural selection.

If anything, it is an emotional crutch and addiction.

Assuredly, the only argument it would “shut up,” is that which denies the existence of unicorns. It would not, however, support the myth that they can or could fly, unless wings were also found.

It could have been a hoax. And it’s slightly possible George Bush was born a woman. Perhaps Darwin never existed. Hell, perhaps the world didn’t exist before you were born. But to say because there’s a slight chance of something, therefore it’s probable, isn’t rational, which is exactly what you’ve done above.

You can’t prove anything doesn’t exist, which is why it’s such a poor argument.

Is there a rhino the room that I’m not seeing? You damn right, and it’s an invisible rhino.

It is unwise to dabble in concretes, which is why there always remains the slight possibility that God exists, even if that possibility is about 1 X 10^-1393913013901840193849810938401840101. And if you want to bet on that horse, best of luck.

That depends on your definition of real. My definition of real has to correlate with an objective physical reality, and by my definition of said reality, others can subjectively sense it.

The real world might be my imagination running wild, but it would behave just as if it was a “real world” in that case, and adding the additional assumption isn’t very helpful.

If you use terms loosely enough you can argue just about anything, even if it is ridiculous.

A: I see a bird.

B: Me too, and a squirrel. Where’s your proof?

A: Well, it’s chirping in that tree up there. See its tail twitching and its beak moving? It’s that feathery little creature on that branch. Don’t you see? He sees you.

B: No, but I know it’s there.

A: I don’t understand why not. You have eyes and ears like mine and they’re in perfectly good condition.

B: Is that what you rely on for proof of existence?

A: For the most part. I could say I saw a squirrel too but I’d be lying because there isn’t one in my sight. I don’t sense it and, hence, cannot prove it’s there. It may be somewhere on or in that tree or at this park but I can’t say for sure and so I won’t claim it is at all.

B: Ah, but I go by the premises that if there’s even the slightest possibility that there’s a squirrel around, I’m going to say I have proof for it and say that there is.

A: So, you go by more than just your senses? You go by a 6th or something? I call that lying.

B: You could say that, but I’m a believer. There’s a distinct line between a lie and a belief.

A: Oh really? And what’s that?

B: A lie isn’t true but a belief can be.

A: But aren’t they both relying on a false statement to cover the fact that there is no current solid evidence that can be demonstrated to the senses?

B: Yes.

A: Then…I don’t get it. A lie can be true also but isn’t. Faith in a lie doesn’t make it true. No matter how much wording you put into it, it’s not physically approachable. It could be from the past or the future but it’s not true until it’s verified by the subjective observer and their direct interaction.

B: Don’t you trust other sources of information?

A: The key words are “trust”, “belief”, faith" and so forth. These are not providing me with facts. I am the fact, they are the transformation of me into abstract language only I can interpret and deal with on a personal level. They cannot be converted backward or forward except through other language using bodies. An abstract idea is not first found and then made into material existence, no, it is the opposite and only opposite that this is plausible unless the idea is from a language using body who is passing the concept on and in such a case the likelihood of its proof in relation to reality is questionable.

B: Oh, wow. I think I have what you’re saying.

A: See that bird now?

B: Yeah, I saw it all along.

Watch “13th Floor” (also translating directly from my language, might not be the exact title of the movie). Or read most critiques about Descartes proof for existence.

We are always living in some kind of belief, belief in our senses… Belief in logic… Belief in science… We can’t prove absolutely nothing, not that there’s even a subject, the only thing certain is that there is ‘thought’. And well, that there is ‘thought’ isn’t really much.

Of course, the difference is that it doesn’t matter if Ben Franklin existed. We don’t hold to His doctrines because of His divine power and omnipotence. We can examine the words attributed to Him objectively, determining if the advice they contain is good advice or not. And we’re free to disagree with Him; He was only purported to have been a man, albeit a wise one. He was not a God.

How many “God doesn’t exist” threads have there been already?

We ain’t talkin’ about unicorn pixy stuff if we seriously gunu say about pre-cosmic otherdimensional creative super powers.

Judgements are made by me. I don’t think, therefore, am; I am, therefore, think. I don’t exist out of belief, but being; belief out of existence. This is nowhere near the first time I brought up this argument and, consequently, won.

Thinking is only a process we use to understand existence. Existence doesn’t need thought, but thought needs existence.

Die tomorrow and the world doesn’t care, you’re replaced.

past>present>future

Phaedrus, did you feel that wind over your head or was it beside you? The name does not matter I could have said King Henry the VIII or Dylan Thomas or you. wether we hold to God’s doctrines is irrelevent.

Humans believe in things for which there is no proof. If we had to build a society based upon mere facts, I have a feeling we would never have made it out of the caves and women would have clubbed to death the first few lying SOBs that came to their cave door looking for some.

We believe in order to cope and grow. Wether it is real or not is the irrelevant part.

Just see if god can stand up to any of the Applied Contradiction Principals.

  1. No being can exist who is contradictory
  2. God is a being with contradictions
  3. Ergo, God cannot exist

One can take the Omniscient vs. Omnibenevolent

  1. A terrorist by direct knowledge can take pleasure in an act of murder or genocide, which is blatantly evil.
  2. God is all good, hence he cannot know the pleasure in the act of murder
  3. Hence god cannot exist.

There’s a bit more evidence for the life of Ben Franklin than the life of Jesus, Kris. Humans may believe in some things without proof, but ol’ Ben isn’t one of them. In any event, you seem to use “believe” and “faith” interchangeably- they’re not the same thing. The vast majority of things we believe don’t require faith, just a preponderance of evidence. Take object permanence, for example. The kind of belief that’s basically catagorizing experience did help us out of the caves. The religious kind of faith wants to put us back in.

As for the wind, I really didn’t get that one. =P~

. . . which is all beside the point unless you are arguing that God existed somewhere in the distant past (like Ben Franklin) but no longer exists today (like Ben Franklin).

No one argues that Ben Franklin exists today. People do argue that God exists today. And that’s the difference in the two arguments.

Sure, people can and do believe in all sorts of nonsense. But they cannot and do not rationally believe in nonsense.

People may believe that they can fly like birds from the tenth floor of a building safely to the ground below. They may sincerely believe this. Unfortunately for them, if they act on such beliefs, real facts about the world get in the way of their well-being no matter how sincere and well-intentioned their beliefs might be.

How do I know any of you exist?

How do I know I’m not a dream character in God’s dream. And if God doesn’t exist, then who’s dream is it?

Why does it have to be anyone’s dream?

How do you differentiate a dream from a non-dream? In other words, for one to know what it is like to be in a dream, one must know what it is like to not be in a dream. Therefore, apply the criteria that you use to tell the two (a dream state and a non-dream state) apart and you’ll know whether you’re in a dream at the moment or not.

If there is no difference between being in a dream and not being in a dream, then it doesn’t matter that we are in a dream because this dream we are in is all we mean by ‘reality’; i.e., this dream we are in IS reality because there is nothing else to know.

True, ‘reality’ is sonomous with ‘dream’. But if I replaced the word ‘dream’ with ‘reality’, would that make you feel better?

Is nothing real because it’s all a dream, or is everything real because it’s precieved as not a dream? It’s all a matter of perspective.

So perhaps me thinking you exist, makes you exist?

No, not particularly.

If there is no contrast between two things, the ‘two’ things are not different things. ‘Marilyn Monroe’ and ‘Norma Jean Baker’ are not two different things. They are, instead, two different names which refer to the same thing. If there is no discernible difference between the thing that you refer to as a ‘dream’ and the thing that you refer to as ‘reality’ then more than likely you are only using two different names for the same thing.

There is no evidence that I know of to support that. No, I am afraid that I exist probably only because I exist unless you can show otherwise.

You have answered wisely.