How can God not exist?

[glaucon]

As previously pointed out by me, the first part of this definition, up until the word ''especially'' is not contingent on the supernatural.

We've been over this numerous times before.

An atheist does not have a set of beliefs such as described.
Of particular note, before your qualifier "especially", an atheist (nor scientist, for that matter..) has nothing whatsoever to say about "purpose"....

And for the record, I'd say it's time to invest in a new dictionary....
That definition of "religion" seems a tad vague...

In any case, let's move on.

 

[SciWriter]

''God as proposed'' I take it, means a trancendental, spiritual being as described in any scripture. Right?

Yes, the Being who supposedly created everything, including the universe.

What are you comparing ''God'' with when you use the term ''massive''?

He is described as being able to plan and create everything. This takes a lot of power, thinking, and doing.

As you have already refered to ''God'' as ''as proposed'', meaning ''spiritual''.
To then insert that God ''...cannot be elemental or fundamental'' is a contradiction.

No, I'm showing that the proposed cannot be actual.

spirit; the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.

That is for you to prove.

You're contradicting yourself by pressuming that ''God'' is bound by time, like
the universe He is purported to have made (''God as proposed'').
If however, you insist that ''God'' is a material being, thus being under the control of material nature, then you must give an explanation as to how this is so, in light of ''God as proposed''.

God doesn't exist, so there's no material or otherwise for Him. He can't be fundamental no matter what one says He is made of.

Time: First there was only 'God', then there was a universe. This is a difference in what was before and after.

You have to prove a non-material nature. It could not talk the talk of the material without itself being material.

So, again, you cannot rely on magic, but must show how it all works.

 

[Kumar]

How can God not exist?
In view of HIS so considered omnipresence, it can't be taken that God not exists.

How can GOD exist?

Though HE is considered as indescribable (to commons?) it become our prime duty & curicity to know HIM or to know GOD in us at first.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SciWriter,

He is described as being able to plan and create everything. This takes a lot of power, thinking, and doing.

Not if you're refering to ''God as proposed''.

No, I'm showing that the proposed cannot be actual.

Then state your reason why He was proposed by humans from nothing.

That is for you to prove.

Not my problem, take it up with dictionary, wika.

God doesn't exist,

That claim means nothing.

...so there's no material or otherwise for Him. He can't be fundamental no matter what one says He is made of.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Time: First there was only 'God', then there was a universe. This is a difference in what was before and after.

Time relates to matter.
God, ''as proposed'' is pure spirit (definitions provided).

You have to prove a non-material nature. It could not talk the talk of the material without itself being material.

Trying to prove God ''as proposed'' by physical means is a futile exercise,
but it doesn't mean God does not exist.
Try and be a little more flexible.

So, again, you cannot rely on magic, but must show how it all works.

To me, magic is pulling rabbits out of hats, or sawing pretty ladies in bits, and putting them back together again.
I'm not sure how this relates to God.

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

My dictionary definition of religion;

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

Here's another one:

religion - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; an institution to express belief in a divine power.

As previously pointed out by me, the first part of this definition, up until the word ''especially'' is not contingent on the supernatural.
The term especially, while giving significance to the supernatural, does not
mean that such ''a set of beliefs...'' must require supernatural ideas.

Ok then. Let us define "religion" as you suggest - as a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe".

If I believe the universe is uncaused and has no purpose, and is in fact an illusion, then that set of beliefs consitutes my religion, does it? There's no requirement for belief in anything supernatural, or any need to follow any rituals, or any need for any kind of moral code or guidelines as to how I ought to live.

And if I believe that the cause of the universe was the big bang (nothing before that), that the universe has no purpose and that its nature is as revealed by the scientific method, then by your definition science is basically a religion. Is that your contention?

 

[SciWriter]

To me, magic is pulling rabbits out of hats, or sawing pretty ladies in bits, and putting them back together again.
I'm not sure how this relates to God.

Faith is even admittedly a belief in the unknown invisible, which is not a known; so 'God' has been pulled out of a hat by magic. At least a rabbit is visible. All these claims of 'spirit' are an appeal to magic, too. Yes, 'God' is a fine wish for some, but still only a wish. Beings come later on; they take composition.

A theory that magically adapts to every twist and turn is not even interesting. Plus it uses what it's trying to prove as support for what it's trying to prove.

Proof is not just saying a word like 'spirit', one that was even made up just for that occasion.

 

[wynn]

Think about it.
1)[SOUND OF THUNDER CLAP]
2)Initial human response:Fear of danger and unknown; Shock and awe.
3)Repeat many times:[SOUND OF THUNDER CLAP]
4)Secondary human response: No danger; normalize; curiosity; possible conclusions; daydream; embellishment.

5. Lack of caution.
Building nuclear powerplants on the sea shore and such.

6. Nature strikes again.

7. Humans wonder how it could all have gotten so wrong.

8. For millenia, humans do not change their ways, but continue with curiosity; possible conclusions; daydream; embellishment.

 

[wynn]

I asked myself a question just a moment ago. It was "in what tangible and recognizable way does my atheism become apparent in my day to day life?". The answer is that it only becomes apparent when confronted with theism, and even then only if the situation warrants some kind of response to it.

Before you eat and drink, do you express gratitude?
When someone sneezes, what do you say?

 

[wynn]

And the term ''atheist religion'' described the type of religion, that these people
who are atheists, take part in.

Some references:

* * *

Death of God theological movement:

The cover of the April 8, 1966 edition of Time and the accompanying article concerned a movement in American theology that arose in the 1960s known as the "death of God". The death of God movement is sometimes technically referred to as "theothanatology" (In Greek, Theos means God and Thanatos means death.)

The main proponents of this theology included the Christian theologians Gabriel Vahanian, Paul Van Buren, William Hamilton and Thomas J. J. Altizer, and the rabbi Richard L. Rubenstein.

In 1961, Vahanian's book The Death of God was published. Vahanian argued that modern secular culture had lost all sense of the sacred, lacking any sacramental meaning, no transcendental purpose or sense of providence. He concluded that for the modern mind "God is dead". In Vahanian's vision a transformed post-Christian and post-modern culture was needed to create a renewed experience of deity.

Both Van Buren and Hamilton agreed that the concept of transcendence had lost any meaningful place in modern thought. According to the norms of contemporary modern thought, God is dead. In responding to this collapse in transcendence Van Buren and Hamilton offered secular people the option of Jesus as the model human who acted in love. The encounter with the Christ of faith would be open in a church-community.

Altizer offered a radical theology of the death of God that drew upon William Blake, Hegelian thought and Nietzschean ideas. He conceived of theology as a form of poetry in which the immanence (presence) of God could be encountered in faith communities. However, he no longer accepted the possibility of affirming belief in a transcendent God. Altizer concluded that God had incarnated in Christ and imparted his immanent spirit which remained in the world even though Jesus was dead.

Unlike Nietzsche, Altizer believed that God truly died. He is considered to be the leading exponent of the Death of God movement.

Rubenstein represented that radical edge of Jewish thought working through the impact of the Holocaust. In a technical sense he maintained, based on the Kabbalah, that God had "died" in creating the world. However, for modern Jewish culture he argued that the death of God occurred in Auschwitz. Although the literal death of God did not occur at this point, this was the moment in time in which humanity was awakened to the idea that a theistic God may not exist. In Rubenstein's work, it was no longer possible to believe in an orthodox/traditional theistic God of the Abrahamic covenant; rather, God is a historical process.[3]

* * *

Christian atheism

Christian atheism is an ideology in which the God of Christianity is rejected but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed. It is a belief that the stories of Jesus were meant to be related to in modern life but not taken literally. This belief is that the God of Christianity is nothing but a symbol.


Thomas Ogletree, an assistant professor of Constructive Theology at Chicago Theological Seminary, lists these four common beliefs:

1. The assertion of the unreality of God for our age, including the understandings of God which have been a part of traditional Christian theology
2. The insistence upon coming to grips with contemporary culture as a necessary feature of responsible theological work
3. Varying degrees and forms of alienation from the church as it is now constituted
4. Recognition of the centrality of the person of Jesus in theological reflection [1]

* * *

Paul Tillich

 

[Kumar]

Instead of supernatural, can't we use "yet appear to be supernatural" under current status of scientific understandings.

As sceince is regularily getting new knowledges & is in process for trying to become absolute & final, who knows, if all so taken as supernatural, pseudoscientific or para-normal becom natural, scientific & normal. Not so?

 

[Kumar]

The nature of a substanceAccording to Jainism, Universe and its constituents are uncreated and everlasting. These constituents behave according to the natural laws and their nature without interference from external entities. Dharma or true religion according to Jainism is vatthu sahāvo dhammo translated as "the intrinsic nature of a substance is its true dharma." Kārtikeyānupreksā (478) explains it as : “Dharma is nothing but the real nature of an object. Just as the nature of fire is to burn and the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect, in the same manner, the essential nature of the soul is to seek self-realization and spiritual elevation.”[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Jainism)

Above link can suggest better because based on qualities instead on entities.

 

[Enmos]

When someone sneezes, what do you say?

Eww!

 

[Dywyddyr]

As sceince is regularily getting new knowledges & is in process for trying to become absolute & final

No one expects science to become "absolute and final". Stop pushing this ridiculous agenda/ myth.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

religion - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; an institution to express belief in a divine power.

Agreed.
Apart from the pointless adjective ''strong''.
But, times have changed as have ''institutions''.
Wouldn't you agree?

Ok then. Let us define "religion" as you suggest - as a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe".

Okay.

If I believe the universe is uncaused and has no purpose, and is in fact an illusion, then that set of beliefs consitutes my religion, does it?

Not necessarily, in the same way that belief that God is the cause of the
universe, doesn't constitute a religion.

And if I believe that the cause of the universe was the big bang (nothing before that), that the universe has no purpose and that its nature is as revealed by the scientific method, then by your definition science is basically a religion. Is that your contention?

No.
My point was, ''religion'' will not cease to be, but will transform itself (as it has always done), moving with the times.
The definitions both you and I put forward kind of shows this. I think theism
will eventually cease to be the main thrust of religious belief, giving way to atheism. This does not mean all atheist will embrace it.

jan.

 

[Kumar]

No one expects science to become "absolute and final". Stop pushing this ridiculous agenda/ myth.

Ok, I shall take it accordingly, though it is fact not a radiculous agenda/myth.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ok, I shall take it accordingly, though it is fact not a radiculous agenda/myth.

Please support this contention.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SciWriter,

Faith is even admittedly a belief in the unknown invisible, which is not a known; so 'God' has been pulled out of a hat by magic.

No. Faith is a belief in something that cannot be known directly, but can be
understood. And it applies to everything, and everyone, not just theists.

Again, I ask you to explain why would someone create a non-existent being
to believe in?

At least a rabbit is visible. All these claims of 'spirit' are an appeal to magic, too. Yes, 'God' is a fine wish for some, but still only a wish. Beings come later on; they take composition.

Why ''wish'' for a non-existent being?

A theory that magically adapts to every twist and turn is not even interesting.

The fact that you think ''God'' adapts to every twist and turn, is very interesting. Primitive man must have been truly excellent because he not
only thought of some non-existent thing to explain lightening and thunder, he
made it so that it adapts to every twist and turn in the modern, scientific, technological, world.

Plus it uses what it's trying to prove as support for what it's trying to prove.

The point of this thread is ask how can God not exist, not to prove God's existence. If you can provide an explanation that show God was invented by man, then you may have a point.

Proof is not just saying a word like 'spirit', one that was even made up just for that occasion.

Can you prove that it was made up?
Or at least give a plausible explanation?
If not, then I'm going to go with it as I see no reason not to.

jan.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

SciWriter,

No. Faith is a belief in something that cannot be known directly, but can be
understood. And it applies to everything, and everyone, not just theists.

How is this different from a magic hat?

Again, I ask you to explain why would someone create a non-existent being
to believe in?

Plenty of reasons. To comfort fear of death. To explain what is yet inexplicable. To control the primitive masses and make them adopt a behavior that is beneficial to society/the rulers. I'm sure someone can think of more.

Why ''wish'' for a non-existent being?

To give life meaning + see above.

The fact that you think ''God'' adapts to every twist and turn, is very interesting. Primitive man must have been truly excellent because he not
only thought of some non-existent thing to explain lightening and thunder, he
made it so that it adapts to every twist and turn in the modern, scientific, technological, world.

It's not the primitive man that invented religion that makes it twist and turn. It's the religious people of today.

Can you prove that it was made up?
Or at least give a plausible explanation?
If not, then I'm going to go with it as I see no reason not to.

You're going to go with it no matter what. Your mind is made up and that is absolutely fine. Just don't pretend that any argument can sway you. Just like God, invisible unicorns cannot be proved non existant. And to me those are equally interesting and likely phenomena that we shouldn't really waste time on.

 

[Jan Ardena]

YoYoPapaya,

How is this different from a magic hat?

a) that's not for me to answer
b) they don't relate

Point out the similarity if you feel it's relevant.
Otherwise it's nothing but nonsense.

Plenty of reasons. To comfort fear of death.

Why all of a sudden would death be feared to the extent that
an imaginary being would be concocted, where one was previously unecessary?

To explain what is yet inexplicable.

Again; why go to the extent of creating something that does not exist?
It doesn't make sense.

To control the primitive masses and make them adopt a behavior that is beneficial to society/the rulers. I'm sure someone can think of more.

There are other ways to create this control.
Why go to the extent of creating an imaginary being.
I'm trying appeal to your sense of reason here, as I'm sure you can
think of less dramatic ways to acheive these goals.

To give life meaning + see above.

You keep coming back to the same points.
There is no need to create an imaginary being to give meaning to anything.
Animals don't do it, children don't do it. Why would anyone do it?
If God doesn't exist, then you live, grow, and die. What more meaning to life
would there need to be why a person would invent an imaginary being?

If you cannot see the possibility that maybe God wasn't an invention of the human mind, then why bother to post?

It's not the primitive man that invented religion that makes it twist and turn. It's the religious people of today.

By ''today'' do you mean 5-6000 years ago?

You're going to go with it no matter what. Your mind is made up and that is absolutely fine.

Your reasons have been duly noted, but they do not justify the need to
make up an imaginary being as there are other more plausible scenarios that
explain the mentioned situations.
And to add, if those are the only reasons you have, then your arguments are in bad shape.

Just don't pretend that any argument can sway you.

They're not arguments, they're reasons that have been pulled out of that
(magic one if you like). They do not relate to anything that humans or animals have done. In fact tell me of any human that has created something that there is no prior concept of, then we'll have somewhere to begin.

Just like God, invisible unicorns cannot be proved non existant.

I'm not interested in proving existence, I'm interested in proving whether or not God was an invented concept, or, maybe He wasn't.

Anybody can say anything.
You saying man invented God to explain stuff, is no more enlightening than
me saying, He wasn't.

jan.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

YoYoPapaya,

a) that's not for me to answer
b) they don't relate

Point out the similarity if you feel it's relevant.
Otherwise it's nothing but nonsense.

They are exactly the same. You can grasp the concept of a magic hat with an invisible rabbit inside. Just like you can understand the concept of an invisible magic man in the sky.

Why all of a sudden would death be feared to the extent that
an imaginary being would be concocted, where one was previously unecessary?

So you're saying christianity was the first religion? Man has always made magic explanations for stuff we don't understand.

Again; why go to the extent of creating something that does not exist?
It doesn't make sense.

Creative minds do it all the time. That's how fiction is created.

There are other ways to create this control.
Why go to the extent of creating an imaginary being.
I'm trying appeal to your sense of reason here, as I'm sure you can
think of less dramatic ways to acheive these goals.

Man is susceptible to magic thinking. Why not exploit that. Seems like a pretty easy way doesn't it?

You keep coming back to the same points.
There is no need to create an imaginary being to give meaning to anything.
Animals don't do it, children don't do it. Why would anyone do it?
If God doesn't exist, then you live, grow, and die. What more meaning to life
would there need to be why a person would invent an imaginary being?

People do things they don't NEED to all the time.

If you cannot see the possibility that maybe God wasn't an invention of the human mind, then why bother to post?

I suppose there is a chance. There's also a chance that you will evaporate the next time you shave in the shower. I ignore that chance as well.

By ''today'' do you mean 5-6000 years ago?

no

Your reasons have been duly noted, but they do not justify the need to
make up an imaginary being as there are other more plausible scenarios that
explain the mentioned situations.
And to add, if those are the only reasons you have, then your arguments are in bad shape.

The only proof i need is the bible. People make up fiction and magic stories all the time. Your assumption is that there is a reason for everything. There's not.

They're not arguments, they're reasons that have been pulled out of that
(magic one if you like). They do not relate to anything that humans or animals have done. In fact tell me of any human that has created something that there is no prior concept of, then we'll have somewhere to begin.

LOL I don't know where to begin? How about all new inventions in the world. Scientific and medical breakthroughs. Fiction books. The religions that didn't survive like all the polytheistic religions of the Incas and Aztechs for instance.

I'm not interested in proving existence, I'm interested in proving whether or not God was an invented concept, or, maybe He wasn't.

Anybody can say anything.
You saying man invented God to explain stuff, is no more enlightening than
me saying, He wasn't.

Which one do you think is more likely? That man (who we know for a fact exists) wrote a book to support their magic thinking, which we know he's susceptible to, or that somehow a magic being in the sky made a man out of clay, stole a rib from him and created a woman etc etc...