Prove God does not exist!

[KaNick]

This morning I cursed "god" and asked him to strike me down. I did this experiment to decide if there was a god. Needless to say, I felt not the slightest tingling. I shall continue this as my morning ritual. Watch the obituaries.

 

[romelus]

I just stated that as a possibility. I do not claim to know why people cannot teleport. That is one possibility. Others include: non-utopia condition caused by The Fall.

ok i take it you are saying that because of The Fall, certain powers were taken away from mankind. but no one is sure just exactly what powers were removed and what powers are possible (the bible certainly doesn't make any predictions about cloning, etc), because we gain new powers through science all the time. just 100 years ago men could not fly, after all...

A condition in which people have to believe 110% without question would seem to be a condition of slavery or the equivalent of being an automation. It seems more likely that God wants free people to choose whether or not they will believe. Loving God seems to require the ability to actually choose whether or not to do it. If there is no real choice then it is simply a state in which an automation is performing the function that occurs as a result of its structure. The human causing good or evil on another person issue I think can be resolved by the apparent necessity of humans to be able to have meaingful relationships with one another. It seems quite possible this is a necessary ingrediant in the path of choosing what type of person one is (benevolent or manvolent for example).

this seems quite spiteful and sadistic to me. imagine you were rich beyond imagination, and you could finance every charity on the planet by just snapping your fingers. yet you only give money to charities that come to beg from you and worship you, and allow millions to die even though you could save them with just the snap of your fingers, all because their ancestor ate your apple. that is one awful man you'd say.

another example. you own a kindergarten full of kids. yet to see which of them are benevolent or manvolent, you don't take away the sharp knives in the play area. you can, but you won't. that's one awful teacher you'd say

that's why it's a can't, won't, or doesn't exist situation

 

[FredLC]

Thanks for the reminder!
If the universe is eternal and exists prior to the BB in a compressed state, then where is it? How would you describe/characterize its location. A "point" only exists in relation to what is not the "point". The moment you compress the universe you create a duality, even if the point of compression is infinitely small. It must be different from what is around it or it wouldn't be a distinct point.

So you have to describe the nature of the "non point".

If the point is everywhere, then it is no longer a point, but infinite.

You realize that the same question is applicable to the current inflationary status of the universe, don't you?

Hence, saying that the relation "primordial point"/"void" is the same as "inflationary universe"/"void", pretty much answers it.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

What if, from god's perspective there are no evil acts. Is it possible that people have misread god's message? Could god then be both onmipotent and benevolent?

If God has no understanding of our standards of evil, not only he isn't omniscient; he also isn't benevolent through our very same standards. Calling him benevolent than would be to change the meaning of the world to something that does not fulfil the intentions of the religious people, for this amoral entity would consider equally bad, or equally good, both helping disabled senior citzens to cross the street, and ass-raping girl scouts.

After all, in your own words, "from god's perspective there" would be "no evil acts".

Regards .

 

[Birdjaguar]

@FredLC: Check your PM, my reply to 124, soon.

 

[Smidlee]

this seems quite spiteful and sadistic to me. imagine you were rich beyond imagination, and you could finance every charity on the planet by just snapping your fingers. yet you only give money to charities that come to beg from you and worship you, and allow millions to die even though you could save them with just the snap of your fingers, all because their ancestor ate your apple. that is one awful man you'd say.

save them from what??? if this man supports every charity he would also support terrorists and wackos. Also Bush Sr. tried to help the needy but forgot to handle the greedy first which of course failed. Who ancestor ate an apple? I hope you are not referring to Adams in scripture because Adam sin BEFORE he ate the fruit.(don't know what fruit it is) Of course if the true problem was the fruit then all God had to do was to remove the tree yet it wasn't the fruit at all. There are dispensation trues taught in scriptures: this is the dispensation of innocency which as showed failed.

 

[CurtSibling]

This morning I cursed "god" and asked him to strike me down. I did this experiment to decide if there was a god. Needless to say, I felt not the slightest tingling. I shall continue this as my morning ritual. Watch the obituaries.

The first steps to freedom, good fellow.

Realising that from a myth, there is nothing to fear.

 

[Perfection]

Realising that from a myth, there is nothing to fear.

Except those who believe in the myth...

 

[HamaticBabylon]

I think there should be a new rule:

No Religion on the Internet!

 

[CurtSibling]

I think there should be a new rule:

No Religion on the Internet!

Yes, Comrade Censorgrad!

 

[Pointlessness]

Like what? What does god do to correct the evil? I would say a god who does nothing to correct evil is malevolent by definition. Would you like to dispute that definition?

Besides, I already destroyed my own proof in the post you quoted from. I merely disproved the notion of a omnipotent, completely benevolent god.

What if, from god's perspective there are no evil acts. Is it possible that people have misread god's message? Could god then be both onmipotent and benevolent?

This is an interesting take on the topic.

My response to that would be that humans have always considered god to be following their notions of good and evil. Hence, the Ten Commandments.

As FredLC said, good and evil have always been human concepts. God, also a human concept, should take on the same stance on evil.

Also, religionists claim god created humans. Therefore, god gave humans' their concepts of good and evil. Therefore, is it not reasonable to claim that god bears the same stances on these concepts, since god itself gave humans these stanses?

 

[Iggy]

I find this altered version a little more appealling:

I think there should be a new rule:

No Religion!

 

[Ayatollah So]

The non-existance of any deity at all, cannot be proven. But, The non-existance of God, Allah, Hindu spirits or Buddha spritits can be proven to a certain extend.

New gods can be created faster, than I can debunk them .

Yup. The different gods differ a lot in their implications or non-implications for the way the world is (or would be if they existed).

Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, for example, if they exist, are bound to be found sooner or later if enough people are looking for them. At some point the rational conclusion, if no evidence of them is found, is that they don't exist.

But then, WMDs occupy physical space, have specific chemical compositions, etc. Some "gods" seem to be specifically designed to avoid testable physical implications. Absence of evidence doesn't help decide these cases, because it's exactly what you'd expect either way, whether the god exists or doesn't.

There's another way to decide the unverifiable gods, though. Not "don't exist", but "don't care".

 

[Ayatollah So]

I would say a god who does nothing to correct evil is malevolent by definition. Would you like to dispute that definition?

I would. I don't think you're being fair to the theists. "Malevolent" already has a meaning, which doesn't include allowing others to do evil if the reason for the allowing is to give freedom to those others.

Consider the transfer of power to the Iraqi government. If the new government passes an evil law, and the occupying forces allow this because they insist that the Iraqis must rule themselves, that doesn't make those forces "malevolent" in the ordinary sense of the word. (OK, too many Iraq analogies. So sue me.)

 

[Pointlessness]

I would. I don't think you're being fair to the theists. "Malevolent" already has a meaning, which doesn't include allowing others to do evil if the reason for the allowing is to give freedom to those others.

Consider the transfer of power to the Iraqi government. If the new government passes an evil law, and the occupying forces allow this because they insist that the Iraqis must rule themselves, that doesn't make those forces "malevolent" in the ordinary sense of the word. (OK, too many Iraq analogies. So sue me.)

To watch something evil happen, while having the power to stop it, and doing nothing to stop it, would be malevolent.

Consider your Iraq analogy. If the Iraqi government passes a law approving genocide, that all Kurds must be executed, would it not be malevolent for the US to sit back and enjoy the view?

 

[stormbind]

This morning I cursed "god" and asked him to strike me down. I did this experiment to decide if there was a god. Needless to say, I felt not the slightest tingling. I shall continue this as my morning ritual. Watch the obituaries.

God is not evil. What makes you think God would strike an idiot down when there's still hope he will be saved?

 

[Free Enterprise]

Consider your Iraq analogy. If the Iraqi government passes a law approving genocide, that all Kurds must be executed, would it not be malevolent for the US to sit back and enjoy the view?

I think there are some problems with the analogy however I do not have the time to address them very much right now therefore I will focus on expanding on a theodicy (perhaps another person can review the analogy?).

If everyone time an evil act was commited by a human it were either prevented or halted that would cause humans to become slaves. Slavery is immoral by definition I think. Therefore enslaving humans by forcing them to be good people could perhaps be a grave problem. I must state that this which I have posted here is only a brief synopsis of the subject. There are many ideas and theories in this subject.

 

[FredLC]

If everyone time an evil act was commited by a human it were either prevented or halted that would cause humans to become slaves. Slavery is immoral by definition I think. Therefore enslaving humans by forcing them to be good people could perhaps be a grave problem. I must state that this which I have posted here is only a brief synopsis of the subject. There are many ideas and theories in this subject.

This theory is completely flawed.

basically, you are saying that, to not be evil by enslaving humans, God must be evil by allowing horrible things - including slavery - to happen. You can elaborate more, but it's hard to escape this core.

This and the assumption that freedom of choice is in itself slave to a dichotomy of good and evil. Afraid not, our dear God could have very well set an idyllic environment where all choices resolve in something beautiful and pleasent. Such is beyond humans, but not beyond the almighty. Only thing we would loose is a sensibility of comparison, not our fundamental freedom.

Just to ilustrate: should I win a talk show, and get as 1st prize either a trip to Milan or one to Amsterdan. Choosing my preferred is exercizing free will - and both choices are good. So yes, my friend - there can be a choice between the good and the even better.

Regards .

 

[KaNick]

God is not evil. What makes you think God would strike an idiot down when there's still hope he will be saved?

I may be an idiot, but at least I don't base my life on fairy tales.

 

[romelus]

save them from what??? if this man supports every charity he would also support terrorists and wackos. Also Bush Sr. tried to help the needy but forgot to handle the greedy first which of course failed. Who ancestor ate an apple? I hope you are not referring to Adams in scripture because Adam sin BEFORE he ate the fruit.(don't know what fruit it is) Of course if the true problem was the fruit then all God had to do was to remove the tree yet it wasn't the fruit at all. There are dispensation trues taught in scriptures: this is the dispensation of innocency which as showed failed.

you are arguing on technicality

say this rich man knows which charity is good and which is evil, and he can support all the good charities at the snap of his fingers and save millions of lives, yet he doesn't. would you say this man has got problems? wouldn't even you help the good charities if it didn't take any more than snapping your fingers?