Proofs that God is imaginary

[Integral]

[snipped] But the point is that until you have a verifiable action, you have no proof either way. And, in any case, using the Shakespearean system, most of what believers would consider to be proof can very easily have another explanation.

Perhaps we're using different definitions of proof. I would consider any of the standard a priori or a posteriori proofs sufficient for proving or disproving God's existence, if any were strong enough. Your proof seems to require a direct action by God. I would contend that this is sufficient but not necessary.

 

[Cutlass]

Perhaps we're using different definitions of proof. I would consider any of the standard a priori or a posteriori proofs sufficient for proving or disproving God's existence, if any were strong enough. Your proof seems to require a direct action by God. I would contend that this is sufficient but not necessary.

Considering the weight and consequences of the question, I think the weight of the proof has to be equally high.

 

[warpus]

I'm not sure about this. It is certainly possible to prove certain sub-classes (ed: or, certain definitions) of God do not exist by methods of contradiction.

The question, of course, is whether the traditional monotheist God (one which is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent for certain values of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnivenevolence) can be disproved in the same way. The problem of evil tries, and gets much farther than most believers give it credit for.

That's not a proof - that's just philisophical pandering that gets you nowhere.

Why? Because aside from "Oh, he's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnivenevolent", you've got nothing else to work with.. And that's incredibly vague.

Why do you have nothing else to work with? Because God is magical and can do anything. Any sort of proof can be countered with "Oh, he works in mysterious ways" nonsense.

The definition is way too vague for you to be able to prove his inexistence.

It'd be like trying to prove that unicorns don't exist. Impossible. And they are even clearly defined!

 

[Integral]

I'll not deny that pinning down omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence is a tricky proposition. However, assuming that you can get someone to commit to particular definitions of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, it may well be possible to show that the current state of affairs is simply inconsistent with those definitions. It will then be necessary for that person to either abandon their commitment to a traditional monotheist God or modify their ideas about God's attributes (which amounts to the same thing).

 

[warpus]

I'll not deny that pinning down omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence is a tricky proposition. However, assuming that you can get someone to commit to particular definitions of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, it may well be possible to show that the current state of affairs is simply inconsistent with those definitions. It will then be necessary for that person to either abandon their commitment to a traditional monotheist God or modify their ideas about God's attributes (which amounts to the same thing).

Have you ever seen anyone successfully convince a believer that their idea of God does not exist, on philisophical grounds alone?

And even if you did, what you said is exactly what would happen - they would just go "Oh.. well, I guess I was wrong about some of God's attributes"

and, back to square one. God is not disproven - only redefined.

 

[fishjie]

its a step in the right direction.

most ppl who transition from believer to atheist do so in gradual steps. they keep redefining god until it is no longer then one that a typical fundamentalist worships.

its a legit strategy that's worked time and time again.

 

[warpus]

its a step in the right direction.

most ppl who transition from believer to atheist do so in gradual steps. they keep redefining god until it is no longer then one that a typical fundamentalist worships.

its a legit strategy that's worked time and time again.

[citation needed]

cause my athnostic moment was more of a "hey.. wait a second!" type thing.

 

[fishjie]

oh. well if you go on various websites like ex-christian.net they have "testimonials" of how they turned atheist. many of them did so in such a slow manner, where they had to keep redefining god as they struggled to come up with various rationalizations for their beliefs. also in the book "losing faith in faith from preacher to atheist" by freedom from religion president dan barker, he was a former fundie and he described his transformation into atheism as a slow gradual manner.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not sure that you're going to get far by telling Christians that they are idiots, but the argument of Epicurius is the best, still:

• 'God' is omnipotent
• 'God' is Good, and wants to make people have as good lives as possible
• Evil exists
• If God is able to defeat evil, but does not, then he is not good, and therefore is not God, and therefore God does not exist
• If God wants to remove evil, then he cannot, and is therefore not omnipotent and therefore does not fit with the definiton of God and therefore - God does not exist

This is only valid if we assume that God operates on the same level of justification and consciousness that we do. Perhaps he can see a picture bigger than we can possibly comprehend? He is, after all, God.

 

[Xyan]

This is only valid if we assume that God operates on the same level of justification and consciousness that we do. Perhaps he can see a picture bigger than we can possibly comprehend? He is, after all, God.

With claims like us being in his image, it makes no sense to be operating on a different level of justification and consciousness. If I am to create something I would care about, that object will fit into my mode of understanding and rationalism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

With claims like us being in his image, it makes no sense to be operating on a different level of justification and consciousness.

Why doesn't it? Where does God say "and you will be as smart and wise as I?" He just says we look like him, ferchrissake.

If I am to create something I would care about, that object will fit into my mode of understanding and rationalism.

Of course, you're not God. There's no reason to believe that God operates at the same level of consciousness that we do. It would be like expecting a monkey to be able to comprehend why he's put in the room with all the buttons; maybe he might get a tiny bit of it, but he's never going to have a clue about the research and other reasons we put him in the room with the fancy buttons to play with, because he's not mentally capable of operating at the level necessary to understand it.

 

[flyingchicken]

Of course, you're not God. There's no reason to believe that God operates at the same level of consciousness that we do. It would be like expecting a monkey to be able to comprehend why he's put in the room with all the buttons; maybe he might get a tiny bit of it, but he's never going to have a clue about the research and other reasons we put him in the room with the fancy buttons to play with, because he's not mentally capable of operating at the level necessary to understand it.

The human mind is the pinnacle of understanding capability, as are our senses in the field of sensing! Do not question it, for it is beyond your level of understanding and possibly sensing.

 

[civ_king]

'scratches head' could of sworn I made this thread already 'wanders off'

 

[Kerozine]

The concept of 'God' was created by man to account for the human condition -- the meaning of our existence.

 

[civ_king]

we created god to account for what we could not explain

 

[Berzerker]

I stole the content of this thread mainly from this site:

http://godisimaginary.com/

Here are my personal Top 3 points which are supposed to give every sincere Christian a headache:

How can you excuse this?

Maybe we aint God's highest priority, or maybe God started everything in motion and doesn't control events.

Those verses are IMO pure gold for every raging Atheist who tries to accumulate ammunation for his disputes with Christians.

After reading this, how will you defend your belief?

Disclaimer: Why am I making this thread? It's not about trolling, but it is simple curiosity on my side to hear what some of our Christian posters think about this stuff which I copied.

Should have addressed it to Christians

Have you ever taken the time to read the Bible's story of Noah's flood? And have you ever pondered what this story's position in the Bible might actually mean? While there are many people who consider the Bible, and therefore Noah's story, to be literally true, most educated and intelligent people understand that the story of Noah's flood is a myth.

What is a myth? A lie, a falsehood, or just a story about some past event so long ago the facts are harder to discern.

They understand that Mt. Everest was never covered in flood water, they understand that the ark could not hold the millions of species that are now found on earth, and they understand that there is no DNA evidence to show that all animals on earth came from single breeding pairs just a few thousand years ago.

The Bible doesn't say Mt Everest was covered, only several meters above the local hills. Given the fact the Persian Gulf was a lush river valley during the ice age due to lower sea levels a rapid rise of 20-40 ft would be devastating. The Black Sea was flooded by both fresh and sea water, first when glaciers up north melted and then by the Mediterranean breaching the Bosphorus. The Tlingit of Alaska believe the Flood happened 14 kya, thats very close to events marking the end of the last ice age. As for animals, smart people might conclude the Ark contained domesticated animals living in that immediate area.

But there is one part of the story of Noah's Ark that deserves special recognition. It shows us something about God that is quite unsettling to any intelligent person who takes the time to consider his actions. That special section is this:

God senselessly murdered millions of humans and billions of animals in the flood

In the Sumerian version Enlil sought to keep an impending natural disaster secret, his older half brother Enki told Zuisudra (?) how to survive it. This pair of Gods are behind much of the conflict between the biblical God and Serpent. Ea/Enki is the serpent, he is the god of wisdom but he's second fiddle to Enlil. It was he and his wife who created humans from an already existing creature roaming his Absu. Enlil took some for pets (Adam and Eve) and Enki taught them how to procreate much to Enlil's displeasure.

How do we know it was senseless? Because "God" is supposed to be "all-knowing" and "all-powerful."

There's all sorts of examples in the Bible of God being ignorant, and less than all powerful.

If God were to exist, God would know what was coming when he created Adam and Eve. Therefore, God knew he would be murdering millions of people.

No free will?

 

[Xyan]

We are not God's priority. According to Terry Pratchett, it's the mighty beetle.

 

[Xyan]

Why doesn't it? Where does God say "and you will be as smart and wise as I?" He just says we look like him, ferchrissake.

Of course, you're not God. There's no reason to believe that God operates at the same level of consciousness that we do. It would be like expecting a monkey to be able to comprehend why he's put in the room with all the buttons; maybe he might get a tiny bit of it, but he's never going to have a clue about the research and other reasons we put him in the room with the fancy buttons to play with, because he's not mentally capable of operating at the level necessary to understand it.

Ah... we are part of a research program then. Cold, objective, research.

If we are not, and is instead loved like our pet monkey, I would not subject my monkey to the risk of dangerous buttons. And if I love my monkey, I will make a little more effort training my pet to be a little more intelligent. Teaching pet dogs tricks takes more effort.

Conclusion I get from your reasoning = We are NOT loved. We are like an ant the playful boy burns with a lighter just to see the ants scream.

And we don't have to be smarter than a creator, but we have to operated under the same moral standards. But it is apparently not so.

 

[Agent327]

Meant to point out the absence of logic in yours.

It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.

And although I support your conclusion, any logical arguement leading up to it is, once again, totally lacking.

And I haven't seen yet any conclusive 'proof' of God's existence or non-existence. (And that includes everything posted on this thread - and similar threads - so far. There's nothing new about people publishing "Proofs that God is imaginary", nor the opposite; theologians have published "Proofs that God is real" ever since the Middle Ages - just Ask A Theologian.)

This is only valid if we assume that God operates on the same level of justification and consciousness that we do. Perhaps he can see a picture bigger than we can possibly comprehend? He is, after all, God.

We may theorize on the attributes of God, but there's no conclusive evidence to the effect that 'he' is male, good, omipotent, omniscient or whatever attribute humans may attribute to a divine entity. There is simply nothing conclusive to be said on the subject. Without an undeniable definition of what 'God' is, everything statable amounts to nothing but pure speculation.

 

[sourboy]

George Carlin answered this a long time ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o