xvortexbladex
Registered Member
This is just something I find hilarious. Jesus was supposed to die on the cross...but he then came back to life...so what did he accomplish? Had he actually remained dead, then he really did accomplish the task of giving his life for our sins. However, when he came back to life, it is comparable to taking the welfare check right out of the needy's hand again; the big "F- You" to all of humanity. Some savior!
Religion however, is a very interesting topic. If you strip away the belief in god, then you have a philosophy. Buddhism originally was a philosophy until some people decided to worship Buddha like a God. Take away Jesus and God and you have message for how people should live their everyday lives. That also means you take away all he parts about the Israelites warring in the name of God against the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans, etc. Take away Mohammed and Allah and you have the same thing, without having to kill in any of their names, in fact, you can even take it farther and abolish anything that has to do with misogyny. Take Hinduism and take away their primary and secondary Gods and all you are left with is how to live in harmony with nature. The only reason why religion is religion is because there is an invisible being with whom the theistic leaders can wage wars for or justify their actions with.
Even if the religion becomes philosophies, they still have to face some pressing problems. Some of them are: the inaccuracies of explaining the world, its emphasis on creating the "us or them" dilemma to polarize people against one another, some demand the unjust treatment of those different from the "leaders", etc.
To show that there is little credible evidence for a god, you have to attack the root axioms first. This would mean we have to start at the primacy of existence vs the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness means that there is a conscious act that brought everything into existence. This is also called the "first cause" argument that theist tend to use in their apologetics. The "first cause" states that in order for everything to exist, there has to be a creator, if there is a creator, there is a beginning and an end. Here is where we have problems. If we analyze this objectively, we notice that we are begging the question here. We have to accept at face value that existence had at one moment been nonexistent, that there is a beginning and an end, and that there is a creator; none of the statements is necessarily true, but the theist wants you to assume that they are in order for the argument to be effective. Let us look at why the argument fails at the most fundamental level. First of all, the act of creating, whether intelligent or unintelligent, requires a physical entity to enact the forces for creation. If there is already a physical entity to enact the forces, then there could not have been "nothing" before "anything". Thus, existence exists and the primacy of existence is starting to become a more reasonable argument than the primacy of consciousness. The act of creation requires time and space if the fact that something created has a beginning or end. If there had been nothing, then that means time also has to be created. Why? because time is arbitrary, it is just the relative positioning of two entity to each other, time can be distorted if need be and thus there really is not such thing as the time we know. So to say that time can be created is absurd, this means time has to exist even before the act of creation. Again, if something has to exist before the act of creation, then existence has always existed. So, here is where things get kind of screwy. Theist then propose that their god exists outside of existence so that it does not have to be bound by any of these rules. Sound great doesn't it? Well, actually, it still doesn't get them out of the trap of simultaneous existences. If something is outside of existence, that means it does not exist, because there is no possible way even conceptually for anything to exist outside of existence. Because if it exists outside of existence, it still exists within the realm of existence and get their god absolutely nowhere.
Here is something interesting to consider. The universe is the sum of all existence, anything that is known to exist can only be found in the confines of this universe, no one can say for sure that they can exist outside of this universe because there has been no evidence for it and no one has ever experience that before. The theists say their god exists outside of existence, that means it cannot be anything definite and thus has an infinite identity (this also means the god is everything yet also nothing, and is outside of this universe.). However, they turn around and say their god is just, wise, etc. Those descriptions limit him within a sphere. If he is a wise god, then he cannot be unwise. But in the previous definition that God can be anything, then that means he can also be unwise too. The theists are now trying to violate the law of identity. A=A, A cannot = non-A, and thus A cannot equal A and non-A simultaneously. The letter "A" is the essence of the object. A chair is no longer the same chair if any part of it's identity is changed. The same with a god. If the god is infinite in capabilities, it is non-A, if god has a definite and definable ability, then it can be designated as an A. The god is now a contradiction because both characteristics are trying to become one. No contradictions can exist in this known universe (unless the contradiction is a concept), a paradox can. Contradictions means both qualities has to exist simultaneously, not one at a time in repetition since such entities do exist.
Thus, if God has a contradicting nature, and contradictions cannot exist outside of a conceptual level, then it is most likely that God does not exist except within a conceptual realm. If God has to exist in order to act out the creation of existence, there cannot be inexistence, and thus contradicts the act of creation itself. Therefore, see the conclusion mentioned before. Just because God most likely does not exist, does not make the conclusion definitive. However, the conclusion does work consistently until some evidence comes about to prove the notion incorrect.
(I know that someone out there might mention that when I said "objectively", human beings cannot be objective. My question for him/her is to assess whether that assertion itself is objective? "People cannot be objective" is an objective assertion and therefore contradicts the conclusion.)
Religion however, is a very interesting topic. If you strip away the belief in god, then you have a philosophy. Buddhism originally was a philosophy until some people decided to worship Buddha like a God. Take away Jesus and God and you have message for how people should live their everyday lives. That also means you take away all he parts about the Israelites warring in the name of God against the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans, etc. Take away Mohammed and Allah and you have the same thing, without having to kill in any of their names, in fact, you can even take it farther and abolish anything that has to do with misogyny. Take Hinduism and take away their primary and secondary Gods and all you are left with is how to live in harmony with nature. The only reason why religion is religion is because there is an invisible being with whom the theistic leaders can wage wars for or justify their actions with.
Even if the religion becomes philosophies, they still have to face some pressing problems. Some of them are: the inaccuracies of explaining the world, its emphasis on creating the "us or them" dilemma to polarize people against one another, some demand the unjust treatment of those different from the "leaders", etc.
To show that there is little credible evidence for a god, you have to attack the root axioms first. This would mean we have to start at the primacy of existence vs the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness means that there is a conscious act that brought everything into existence. This is also called the "first cause" argument that theist tend to use in their apologetics. The "first cause" states that in order for everything to exist, there has to be a creator, if there is a creator, there is a beginning and an end. Here is where we have problems. If we analyze this objectively, we notice that we are begging the question here. We have to accept at face value that existence had at one moment been nonexistent, that there is a beginning and an end, and that there is a creator; none of the statements is necessarily true, but the theist wants you to assume that they are in order for the argument to be effective. Let us look at why the argument fails at the most fundamental level. First of all, the act of creating, whether intelligent or unintelligent, requires a physical entity to enact the forces for creation. If there is already a physical entity to enact the forces, then there could not have been "nothing" before "anything". Thus, existence exists and the primacy of existence is starting to become a more reasonable argument than the primacy of consciousness. The act of creation requires time and space if the fact that something created has a beginning or end. If there had been nothing, then that means time also has to be created. Why? because time is arbitrary, it is just the relative positioning of two entity to each other, time can be distorted if need be and thus there really is not such thing as the time we know. So to say that time can be created is absurd, this means time has to exist even before the act of creation. Again, if something has to exist before the act of creation, then existence has always existed. So, here is where things get kind of screwy. Theist then propose that their god exists outside of existence so that it does not have to be bound by any of these rules. Sound great doesn't it? Well, actually, it still doesn't get them out of the trap of simultaneous existences. If something is outside of existence, that means it does not exist, because there is no possible way even conceptually for anything to exist outside of existence. Because if it exists outside of existence, it still exists within the realm of existence and get their god absolutely nowhere.
Here is something interesting to consider. The universe is the sum of all existence, anything that is known to exist can only be found in the confines of this universe, no one can say for sure that they can exist outside of this universe because there has been no evidence for it and no one has ever experience that before. The theists say their god exists outside of existence, that means it cannot be anything definite and thus has an infinite identity (this also means the god is everything yet also nothing, and is outside of this universe.). However, they turn around and say their god is just, wise, etc. Those descriptions limit him within a sphere. If he is a wise god, then he cannot be unwise. But in the previous definition that God can be anything, then that means he can also be unwise too. The theists are now trying to violate the law of identity. A=A, A cannot = non-A, and thus A cannot equal A and non-A simultaneously. The letter "A" is the essence of the object. A chair is no longer the same chair if any part of it's identity is changed. The same with a god. If the god is infinite in capabilities, it is non-A, if god has a definite and definable ability, then it can be designated as an A. The god is now a contradiction because both characteristics are trying to become one. No contradictions can exist in this known universe (unless the contradiction is a concept), a paradox can. Contradictions means both qualities has to exist simultaneously, not one at a time in repetition since such entities do exist.
Thus, if God has a contradicting nature, and contradictions cannot exist outside of a conceptual level, then it is most likely that God does not exist except within a conceptual realm. If God has to exist in order to act out the creation of existence, there cannot be inexistence, and thus contradicts the act of creation itself. Therefore, see the conclusion mentioned before. Just because God most likely does not exist, does not make the conclusion definitive. However, the conclusion does work consistently until some evidence comes about to prove the notion incorrect.
(I know that someone out there might mention that when I said "objectively", human beings cannot be objective. My question for him/her is to assess whether that assertion itself is objective? "People cannot be objective" is an objective assertion and therefore contradicts the conclusion.)
