Since gods do not exist, what do you believe is out there

[William Rea]

Der um I want to make it clear that no gods exist is not the same as gods don't exist, err, it's the difference from a fifth degree black belt atheist and a fourth degree blue belt atheist.

Lol

Black belt fifth dan, 'Exist gods do not'.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Ok, we beat the gods issue to death, and, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion from all that is that there are no gods. Gods are a figment of our imagination. But, that does not explain anything. Many big mysteries remain. Who or what created the universe? Are we alone and on our own in this vast universe? Is there a force we have yet to find? Could there be an energy field that unites us all in some as yet unknown way? Life after death? A bunch of stuff.

Let's hear some ideas, beliefs or just general philosophies about the great unknown.

Regarding your thread title. Prove it. Prove that God/s do not exist. You make a definitive statement like that then you have to have proof. That is after all the scientific way. I won't hold my breath waiting for your proof.

 

[William Rea]

Regarding your thread title. Prove it. Prove that God/s do not exist. You make a definitive statement like that then you have to have proof. That is after all the scientific way. I won't hold my breath waiting for your proof.

Kind of moving the goalposts from 'reasonable conclusion' to 'proof' but in the end, you are correct and, speaking as an atheist, I have no sympathy for atheists that use this phrasing when, 'I lack belief' is what they really mean.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Regarding your thread title. Prove it. Prove that God/s do not exist. You make a definitive statement like that then you have to have proof. That is after all the scientific way. I won't hold my breath waiting for your proof.

I agree, Kal. And I will not hold my breath either.

 

[calamity]

Regarding your thread title. Prove it. Prove that God/s do not exist. You make a definitive statement like that then you have to have proof. That is after all the scientific way. I won't hold my breath waiting for your proof.

I think we have reasonable proof that the gods man has so far described in his stories and books do not exist. All it takes is debunking one of the claims attributed to such a god to show it does not exist. So, since the bible claims their God made fruit trees before he made the sun, we know that this God, as he is described, does not exist.

We can pick apart every god in similar fashion. So, the gods we have on record, do not exist.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Kind of moving the goalposts from 'reasonable conclusion' to 'proof' but in the end, you are correct and, speaking as an atheist, I have no sympathy for atheists that use this phrasing when, 'I lack belief' is what they really mean.

I want to take this opportunity to agree with you also, William. Although in Calamity's case, (considering all the posts I've read of his on this issue) I suspect he actually meant the phrasing he used rather then the more appropriate and more logical one you suggested.

 

[calamity]

I want to take this opportunity to agree with you also, William. Although in Calamity's case, (considering all the posts I've read of his on this issue) I suspect he actually meant the phrasing he used rather then the more appropriate and more logical one you suggested.

See post 230

 

[Kal'Stang]

Kind of moving the goalposts from 'reasonable conclusion' to 'proof' but in the end, you are correct and, speaking as an atheist, I have no sympathy for atheists that use this phrasing when, 'I lack belief' is what they really mean.

Yeah, I have no problem with anyone stating that they believe or don't believe in <insert ANY topic here> (might shake my head at them or agree with them depending on topic, but I have no problem with it). I do have a problem when they make definitive statements such as what Calamity did in this thread and not have proof to back it up.

 

[Frank Apisa]

See post 230

In post #230, you wrote:

I think we have reasonable proof that the gods man has so far described in his stories and books do not exist. All it takes is debunking one of the claims attributed to such a god to show it does not exist. So, since the bible claims their God made fruit trees before he made the sun, we know that this God, as he is described, does not exist.

We can pick apart every god in similar fashion. So, the gods we have on record, do not exist.

I think we have reasonable proof that the gods man has so far described in his stories and books do not exist.

No, you absolutely do not.

All it takes is debunking one of the claims attributed to such a god to show it does not exist.

That is one of the reasons you are making the mistake mentioned in that first sentence.

If I were to say that Ford automobile ever made was painted black...and you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that not every Ford automobile ever made was painted black (not that hard to do)...YOU WOULD NOT BE PROVING THAT FORD AUTOMOBILES DO NOT EXIST. You would merely be proving that some the attributes assigned to Fords...were incorrect.

Debunking a claim about any particular god does not (and cannot) PROVE that the god does not exist.

So, since the bible claims their God made fruit trees before he made the sun, we know that this God, as he is described, does not exist.

We know that the description appears to be wrong. We do not know that that particular god does not exist. And even if we could prove that that particular god does not exist...would not "prove" or support your contention that we know "gods do not exist."

We can pick apart every god in similar fashion. So, the gods we have on record, do not exist.

Even if every description were defective...we would not be proving that the god does not exist...just that the description is faulty.

In any case, even if we proved somehow that every god ever conceived of by humans does not exist...that would not prove nor support your contention that we know "gods do not exist."

 

[Kal'Stang]

I think we have reasonable proof that the gods man has so far described in his stories and books do not exist. All it takes is debunking one of the claims attributed to such a god to show it does not exist. So, since the bible claims their God made fruit trees before he made the sun, we know that this God, as he is described, does not exist.

We can pick apart every god in similar fashion. So, the gods we have on record, do not exist.

Actually the bible says that god created light before fruit trees so you haven't debunked anything with that line. Also the bible is written by man, not God. And man makes mistakes. So using anything written in the bible is doomed to be attributed to nothing more than a mistake made by man, not God.

Besides, who says that God can't make mistakes? Being omnipotent and omniscient just means that god is all powerful and all knowing. Doesn't mean that gods attention cannot waver or get distracted at a critical moment.

 

[calamity]

Actually the bible says that god created light before fruit trees so you haven't debunked anything with that line. Also the bible is written by man, not God. And man makes mistakes. So using anything written in the bible is doomed to be attributed to nothing more than a mistake made by man, not God.

Genesis clearly states grass, herbs and fruit trees growing here on earth before God put the sun and moon up above.

Besides, who says that God can't make mistakes? Being omnipotent and omniscient just means that god is all powerful and all knowing. Doesn't mean that gods attention cannot waver or get distracted at a critical moment.

Sounds like moving the goal posts to me. "Well, we didn't really mean that when we described god. He's this now."

 

[Kal'Stang]

Genesis clearly states grass, herbs and fruit trees growing here on earth before God put the sun and moon up above.

You can grow plants inside a cave. All you need is a light source. And the first thing god said when creating the universe was "Let there be light". In any case, even if what you said were to be true...so what? Nothing you said here discounts what I said of the part of my post that you deleted and didn't address.

Sounds like moving the goal posts to me. "Well, we didn't really mean that when we described god. He's this now."

Nope, no moving of goal posts required. Can you show me where omnipotent and omniscient means "never able to make a mistake"? Not my fault that you are adding more to a definition of a couple of words than there actually is.

Besides, you have essentially said that you could debunk any type of belief in god/s. In which case, there are no goal posts to move because you opened yourself up for ALL beliefs. Including the belief that God can make mistakes.

 

[William Rea]

You can grow plants inside a cave. All you need is a light source. And the first thing god said when creating the universe was "Let there be light". In any case, even if what you said were to be true...so what? Nothing you said here discounts what I said of the part of my post that you deleted and didn't address.



Nope, no moving of goal posts required. Can you show me where omnipotent and omniscient means "never able to make a mistake"? Not my fault that you are adding more to a definition of a couple of words than there actually is.

Besides, you have essentially said that you could debunk any type of belief in god/s. In which case, there are no goal posts to move because you opened yourself up for ALL beliefs. Including the belief that God can make mistakes.

Damn, you noticed the little 'g' on 'gods' as well.

 

[calamity]

You can grow plants inside a cave. All you need is a light source. And the first thing god said when creating the universe was "Let there be light". In any case, even if what you said were to be true...so what? Nothing you said here discounts what I said of the part of my post that you deleted and didn't address.

Are you arguing that the earth was here before the sun? We know that's not true.

Nope, no moving of goal posts required. Can you show me where omnipotent and omniscient means "never able to make a mistake"? Not my fault that you are adding more to a definition of a couple of words than there actually is.

Besides, you have essentially said that you could debunk any type of belief in god/s. In which case, there are no goal posts to move because you opened yourself up for ALL beliefs. Including the belief that God can make mistakes.

The things written about gods, which defines them, are easily debunked. Do you believe Zeus exists? Or Thor and Loki? Of course not. We all know those gods are fictional. Right? I just apply that same logic to this other made up god.

 

[Nilly]

You can grow plants inside a cave. All you need is a light source. And the first thing god said when creating the universe was "Let there be light". In any case, even if what you said were to be true...so what? Nothing you said here discounts what I said of the part of my post that you deleted and didn't address.



Nope, no moving of goal posts required. Can you show me where omnipotent and omniscient means "never able to make a mistake"? Not my fault that you are adding more to a definition of a couple of words than there actually is.

Besides, you have essentially said that you could debunk any type of belief in god/s. In which case, there are no goal posts to move because you opened yourself up for ALL beliefs. Including the belief that God can make mistakes.

There are numerous logical inconsistencies revolving around specific gods. For example, if god is also defined as perfect then (along with omniscience and omnipotence) then no, he would not make mistakes.

Take, for instance, a god that takes the following properties (not naming any specific gods names):

• perfect
• immutable
• omniscient
• omnipresent
• all-loving
• the creator of the universe
• has 4 corners
• is circular in shape

This would lead to a paradox between immutability and creation:

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

or between immutability and all loving:

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is all-loving.
3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events.
4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.
5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

the omnipotence paradox:

1. If God exists, then he is omnipotent.
2. An omnipotent being should be able to create a task that he cannot accomplish.
3. Hence, it is impossible for a being to be omnipotent (from 2).
4. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1 and 3).

perfection vs creation:

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

circular vs square

1. If God exists, then he has 4 corners
2. If God exists, then he is circular in shape
3. A circular being cannot have any corners
4. Therefore, it is impossible for a being to both have corners and be circular. (from 3)
5. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 4)

There are numerous others. Of course, not every god is attributed these qualities. Many gods, in Hindu, Roman, Greek theology are morally flawed, vindictive and make mistakes. So these paradoxes aren't aimed at debunking the existene of all gods. Just the existence of gods with the specific set of attributes I defined above.

 

[mbig]

Regarding your thread title. Prove it. Prove that God/s do not exist. You make a definitive statement like that then you have to have proof. That is after all the scientific way. I won't hold my breath waiting for your proof.

He said that was "the only Reasonable conclusion", not that it was 1000% true.
And based on Evidence, he is correct.
Amazing/Suspect you get a 'like' from someone who has reached the Same 'Conclusion' as the OP!

And IRONic, the Top of the Same Page/23 as your post

"Proof" is mostly used by Ignorant Theists who are:
1. Trying to discredit the "mere" 'Theory' of Evolution.
2. Responding to Atheists pointing out they have not only no "Proof" of god, but No EVIDENCE... So..
3. Theists go for the Fallacious "you can't Prove there's no God". (the negative)
No Kidding!
And they can't Prove I'm not god, which doesn't make that likely either.

Of course, Unlike scientific theories, god has No Evidence either.
So Thiests love to go for the "Proof" standard, which neither can meet, as a way of making both mere 'beliefs'.
Evo has overwhelming Evidence, God has NONE.
But under the Moral equiavlence/abuse of the "Proof" standard, they are "both the same/just beliefs", Theists tell us.

4. Scientists, who are much more likely atheists than not, AND much more likely than the general population are, Understand the 'proof' standard, while many creationists are totally Ignorant of the Context of proof, [scientific] theory, and evidence.
As evident on this mb....

And in the past (1/28/14) to YOU/Your OP
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/208108-atheists-8.html#post1063918053

OF COURSE we can't prove there's No god. (A Negative)
EVERYONE understands this.
Also of course, YOU can't Prove I'm not god!
Which doesn't make it a valid proposition.... either.

That's WHY FSM/Flying Spaghetti Monster (and Pink Unicorn) was/were created.
To show the that these supernatural Fabrications, which also "cannot be Proven/Disproven", are also NOT valid reasons TO believe them.
Ergo, the OP is kinda elementary/Juvenile argumentation

Let me help with this.
I am an atheist.
I believe there is No god
Which is Not to say 1000% "there is no god'".
But Logically, there is No Proof or even evidence of Any god, and All gods on which we have a verdict have been proven Bogus.
Tens of Thousands of False Gods (Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc) which have the Same bogus basis as the current necessarily Whittled Down gods (life, universe). IOW, we don't have an explanation so let's assign a god for it.

Then there's the issue of WHICH "god".
If, by some miracle, one happens to be correct, all the others are wrong.
So at least 3/4 of believers are Necessarily Wrong (99.8% if you're Jewish or Native American) even if the One stepped in it. Macro-viewing Hundreds of cultures, all with their own deities, it's Obvious these are convenient local legends, NOT any universal truth/god.
IOW, which 'god' the vast majorities believe in depends on a geographical/cultural accident of birth, Not a discernible truth.

So in light of:
ALL the "I dunno it must be god"S on which we have a verdict being Bogus...
The incredible Lack of evidenceS of any gods...
The Many "only" "gods" which Negate each other, and make the vast majority of other contradictory .ones false...
I can say, for all PRACTICAL purposes (in addition to mere lack of belief), "there is no god", fully realizing Proving that Negative is Impossible.

But if the stars all line up overhead one night and form the word "JESUS", or ANY other Evidence comes to light, I would be glad - even 'thrilled' - to change my mind.
Until and unless, Atheism is the most/only logical position.​

So Yes Kal, if your claim to fame is that Atheists can't "prove" there's no god... /Yawn.
Of course, We've been there/done that. And I might add, to NO response.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Are you arguing that the earth was here before the sun? We know that's not true.

Interesting that you keep ignoring what I said. Let me quote it for ya again, see if you ignore it again. "Also the bible is written by man, not God. And man makes mistakes. So using anything written in the bible is doomed to be attributed to nothing more than a mistake made by man, not God." Care to address this this time around?

The things written about gods, which defines them, are easily debunked. Do you believe Zeus exists? Or Thor and Loki? Of course not. We all know those gods are fictional. Right? I just apply that same logic to this other made up god.

Actually I believe that God was all of the gods that are written and told about. He just showed himself as what people needed at the time. :shrug: In either case, you still haven't shown where omnipotent and omniscient means "never able to make a mistake". In fact it seems that you've completely abandoned that argument and moved onto something else. Why is that?

 

[Kal'Stang]

He said that was "the only Reasonable conclusion", not that it was 1000% true.
And based on Evidence, he is correct.
Amazing/Suspect you get a 'like' from someone who has reached the Same 'Conclusion' as the OP!

Actually his statement is that god/s do not exist. He is making it a statement of fact. Facts are 100% true. Or they are not facts. Yes, some of his post mention "reasonable conclusion". Others however have stated it as a fact. Otherwise I never even would have entered this silly discussion as I have no real interest to talk religion. The old saying: "Say what you mean, mean what you say, or don't say it at all" is quite valid and is true of everything said.

 

[CLAX1911]

If God(s) exist then who/what created him, her or them? If one can accept that God was (or gods were) created from and by nothing then why can't matter, space and time have come into being (from and by nothing) in the same way?

Who said God or gods have to be created?

 

[calamity]

Interesting that you keep ignoring what I said. Let me quote it for ya again, see if you ignore it again. "Also the bible is written by man, not God. And man makes mistakes. So using anything written in the bible is doomed to be attributed to nothing more than a mistake made by man, not God." Care to address this this time around?

Correct. Man wrote it ergo he invented God as a figment of his imagination. You can't have it both ways: the book is about a real god but written by men who make mistakes. It doesn't work that way. The god they describe cannot exist.

Actually I believe that God was all of the gods that are written and told about. He just showed himself as what people needed at the time. :shrug: In either case, you still haven't shown where omnipotent and omniscient means "never able to make a mistake". In fact it seems that you've completely abandoned that argument and moved onto something else. Why is that?

If he showed himself, he did a ****ty job of making himself clear. In fact, it takes a lot of suspended belief in reality, given what we know today, not to see that all the gods described to date are fictional characters.

 

[calamity]

Actually his statement is that god/s do not exist. He is making it a statement of fact. Facts are 100% true. Or they are not facts. Yes, some of his post mention "reasonable conclusion". Others however have stated it as a fact. Otherwise I never even would have entered this silly discussion as I have no real interest to talk religion. The old saying: "Say what you mean, mean what you say, or don't say it at all" is quite valid and is true of everything said.

Let me put it this way. Is there any doubt that fictional characters in Steven King novels do not exist? None at all. So, why does everyone suddenly lose their senses when the novel happens to involve a god?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Correct. Man wrote it ergo he invented God as a figment of his imagination. You can't have it both ways: the book is about a real god but written by men who make mistakes. It doesn't work that way. The god they describe cannot exist.

Soooo.... because man wrote a book on god then god cannot possibly be real? Does that mean that all those science text books in school means that the science they talk about isn't real also? You argument is that anything that isn't written by man is real while what is written by man isn't real. That isn't proof of anything. That's simply, as my wife calls it, insane troll logic.

If he showed himself, he did a ****ty job of making himself clear. In fact, it takes a lot of suspended belief in reality, given what we know today, not to see that all the gods described to date are fictional characters.

That is of course your belief. I have yet to see any proof one way or the other that god/s exist or not.

 

[mbig]

Soooo.... because man wrote a book on god then god cannot possibly be real? Does that mean that all those science text books in school means that the science they talk about isn't real also? You argument is that anything that isn't written by man is real while what is written by man isn't real. That isn't proof of anything. That's simply, as my wife calls it, insane troll logic.

Not at all.
Kind of missed the mark again.
It means it's apparent from the thousands of 'Holy' books and thousands of Different 'gods', that it/he/Thet/themburp were a Creation of each culture.
This is NOT true about Science where (ie, Chemistry, Physics, Biology) mean the same thing/reach the same conclusions in Tokyo, Heidelberg, or Botswana, beacuse they are based on demonstrable/repeatable Facts.

 

[calamity]

Not at all.
Kind of missed the mark again.
It means it's apparent from the thousands of 'Holy' books and thousands of Different 'gods', that it/he/Thet/themburp were a Creation of each culture.
This is NOT true about Science where (ie, Chemistry, Physics, Biology) mean the same thing/reach the same conclusions in Tokyo, Heidelberg, or Botswana, beacuse they are based on demonstrable/repeatable Facts.

Exactly. All these gods are described in different and completely arbitrary ways. It is the culture which defines the god. Most cultures had a dozen gods or more. And, even the cultures which finally settled on one god often have several other magical people in their myths: saints, messiahs, prophets, etc. All of them unique to that culture. This is, to me at least, proof that god is a figment of each culture's imagination.

 

[calamity]

Soooo.... because man wrote a book on god then god cannot possibly be real? Does that mean that all those science text books in school means that the science they talk about isn't real also? You argument is that anything that isn't written by man is real while what is written by man isn't real. That isn't proof of anything. That's simply, as my wife calls it, insane troll logic.



That is of course your belief. I have yet to see any proof one way or the other that god/s exist or not.

If it's a belief, it is one based on the same logic that believes the characters in Steven King's novels are fictional. Why are stories of gods treated different? They shouldn't be...it's obvious those stories are fictional. Be they King's fantasies, Homer's myths or biblical testaments, the stories do not match observable reality.