the non existence of god

:smiley: the being we all know and love does not exist for he defies scientific knowledge and human logic.

i cant believe somebody would say something so incredibly outlandish and pure evil. ye shall be smotten in a most painful and annoying way such that ye may see the glory of god manifest. DELETE HIS HARD DRIVE! :imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :evilfun:

by the way why dont you read every single other post on the religion board, including about 5 in the past day and maybe just maybe this topic has already been discussed in every possible way.

future man, calm down.

scientifically it is impossible to prove the existence of god, I’ll give him that.

But the lack of proof scientifically hasn’t stopped new things from being discovered.

i put at least 5 seconds of thought into my posts, and an amazingly large amount of content.

i wonder what gavmtcc would say to this guy. is it possible to have less than zero content in a self-righteous reference to information that nobody wants to read?

oh and sphinx, logic and science are things that are used to describe this universe. god created this universe and its laws. what makes you think the same laws apply to him?

interesting logic. That’d be like me saying “I invented this squirzel and it’s physical laws.”,“but it’s physical laws don’t apply to me so the squirzel will never know wether or not I’m really here.”

and it’s ridiculous for another reason, god created the universe and its laws, but he is exempt from those laws he’s in a “ultra universe”

the question then becomes did someone create gods ultra universe?

besides to say “god created the physical laws” is really a cop out.

thats not what i said, i said its not neccesary for it to know that i exist. i could make him not have legs, face him the other way and run in the opposite direction. he will have no idea what ‘behind him’ means because he cant turn around.

no thats not the question. i say god a part of the ultra universe to avoid that question.

lets say idraw a picture, and my drawings, while immobile forever and not experiencing the passage of time, they manage to be sentient. they ask, in their special immobile way, “how did we get here” and i draw jesus and have him tell them that i drew them. so then they ask “well what drew him” and if jesus explained that a long time ago two gods had sex and made god, my drawings would be like wtf are you talking about. whats a penis. whats parents. whats time.

why should we expect to be able to understand things that are not a part of our universe. we were made to understand the universe.

Oops, I’m sorry, I accidentally posted twice.

Sometimes I think we’ve developed this fictitious being in the back of our minds to keep faith in and control us, but really we’re just letting our subconscious self control our conscious self and there is no superior deity.

thats what he and his soulless selfish automatons of evil want you to think. like freud the sex monger.

Interesting. But in your first phrase you speak of the “god” part of our minds controlling us, and in the second phrase you speak of letting the subconscious control the conscious. I would think that the conscious, reasonable part of the mind would keep order, not the subconscious, which is often thought of as, well, primative? This is to show a problem with your thesis as stated, which could encourage some further thought. If there were something to it, however, i wonder if maybe some religions are more subconscious-inspired than others? And others more rational-inspired?

BTW, are you thinking more of a Freudian/Adlerian or a Jungian subconscious?

Enlighten me?
un chevalier mal fet

Okay, I’m sure i’ve said this before, let me say it again: –

First, (this one’s new) how do you “know” that which defies knowledge?

Second, if by science and logic you include philosophy, no i do not agree he “defies” logic in the sense of being unthinkable or unprovable, even if he is beyond our abilities to completely comprehend.

If, however, by scientific knowledge you mean scientific method or mean some form of positivism, moderns seem to exclude the spiritual from their studies “from the beginning” – i don’t know what they could prove if they allowed themselves. And as for positivism, that just seems like silly stuff to me – I mean it does have practical fruit, but doesn’t examine all possible causes like philosophy can.

Welcome to the boards!
un chevalier mal fet

Logic can prove or dissprove anything depending on what result you want.
You can’t prove or dissprove God because he is a thought from long ago, there are no facts WHATSOEVER and no fiction WHATSOEVER, you can’t prove or disprove anything without a background.

Proving God’s existence based on the Bible is like proving Harry Potter exists.

The same historians who wrote about Moses and Abraham could also say the Universe has a beginning. You can’t know unless you are there. History is only as good as we can translate it anyway, in our world, how do we know Fact from Fiction? were we there? no. We half to assume that these people kept records of EXISTING history.

By the same token what’s to keep us from believing in little green gnomes that live in a higher universe that create and form the weather to there own liking. But since they’ve been doing it for so long that they got bored, and now they make common weather patterns, and hardly ever mix things up.

If you’re going to allow “God” to be exempt from understanding in this fashion, how can you rule out my gnomes? The same logical deduction required to rule out my gnomes when cross applied top a god, rules him out.

It would make sense that the conscious part of the mind is the one regulating us, however maybe we just don’t realize how much impact our “God” figure has on us. The conscious part of the mind may be the one creating morals and regulations, but it’s only to follow our subconscious “superior’s” best interest.

Do you understand what I’m trying to say? For some reason I’m having trouble making my point any clearer. :blush:

I’d like to say I’m approaching more from a freud point of view.

A genome does not have an essence, god does. Instead of disproving god through the empirical sense, you have to understand god in the transcendental realm: man has an idea of god, thus he is a conception; since man cannot know all, because we are limited by our perception, it is impossible for us to know infinity, thus the conception of god is a viable conclusion.

“Well sure, with logic you can prove anything that’s even remotely true!” – Homer Simpson

If you don’t believe in the efficacy of logic, it seems impossible for you to go far in philosophy.

I was going to say “You don’t prove God from the Bible”, but if you matched up the prophecies of Christ with his life, you might come to the conclusion that the prophets had something behind them.

But, as for philosophical arguments for God’s existence, they don’t come from the Bible, but from the nature of the world around us. If you haven’t read him, I recommend the Five Ways to God’s existence of Aquinas…once you come to believe in logic.

Peace out!
un chevalier mal fet


I’m sorry, but I don’t know what this is supposed to mean.

So do the gnomes that I proposed. It was one of my premises, that they live in higher universe.

This argument no matter how weak it actually is, could also be used to make my gnomes viable.

What’s to keep someone(me) from using all the arguments you just presented as a justification for an inifinite amount of supernatural beings, and supernatural events that I claim can only be explained by appealing to ignornce of them because they lie in alternate realms and higher universes.

Essence is the “thing-in-itself.” Every finite being is dependent on something else: we are dependent on the trees for oxygen; the trees are dependent on the earth; the earth is dependent on the galaxy; and so on and so forth. There is unity everywhere in nature except for the start of it, which is independent of all objective reality. This is essence: the thing-in-itself independent of reality.

Your proposal is a perception of the gnomes: it does not have an essence - only conceptions in the transcendental can have a true nature. The essence of man comes first, then his perception in the empirical world (human mode). The essence of god lies in the subjective reality, a perception by man is in the objective. Since you conceive your gnome in the objective, it can only be a perception.

Because you do not value the conception of objects, you rely on your five senses to explain reality - the outer shell. There are a plethora of evidences indicating the existence of the transcendental realm: animal sexual drives, maternal and survival instincts, love impulses, purpose-driven (aka determinism), time, space, etc. It’s an early study, but these are knowledges before life: our essence is pre-wired to carry out certain tasks - especially survival, sex (reproduction), and maternal (motherly love) instincts. We are precondition to perceive our reality through time and space: our position in space and conception of time. This is knowledge of causality; this is how we change form. Without this knowledge beforehand, our senses will be chaotic (think dreams), and there would be no order. This is all your conception before you enter the empirical reality (real world).

There is a spectrum in the transcendental we need to look at: the evidence indicating the existence of an essence (god) is consider to be more real than not. This is a lot more advance than your gnomes argument.

phenomenon, i dont get it…

nihilistic you are absolutely right. we know nothing about god so its entirely possible that he takes the form of mischevious gnomes. the things we use to define what we want from god, like his mercy and his ability to create the world or whether or not he continues to affect the universe today, all of these things are completely uncertain. people only believe them if they want to. or for some reason they trust the local rich guy to tell them about it.

the thing is, it seems to me that there has to be something that answers the question of ‘why is it here’. either supergnomes or whatever god looks like (probably does not emit visible photons) do the job just fine. ‘nothing’ or even future science do not explain why is it here.

I fail to see how explaining to me that your conception of god is a “thing-in-itself” is anything other than wild speculation and an abhorent misuse of reasoning. I claimed the exact same transendence for my gnomes, and there are inifniite things that I could formulate that could lay claim to “thing-in-itself”. What’s to stop me, using your line of reasoning, from claiming that there are blobs of electromagnetic entitties that live in a “higher realm” that control humans. One blob to one human?

What discerns your arguments of god, from my arguments of transcedent gnomes, and blobs?

Again I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. From where I’m sitting it just looks like this argument presupposes a god, and works from there. Notions of “thing-in-itself” and “true natures” are just as speculative and unfounded as the very conception of god.

Since when does “thus-and-so” being required for human understanding translate into “thus-and-so” is transcedent and of a “true-nature”. There is no reason to believe that any of these things give rise to a god or “higher realms”.

You assume that our senses aren’t chaotic because they’ve formed to something, rather than what we precieve forming to our ideas of order. You assume absolute external reality. I see nothing by assumptions.