How can God not exist?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
Yes in a Newtonian universe. The trigger for a nuclear bomb is rather small compared to it's effect.
They didn't invent the idea of a god either, they just referred to the most powerful human king they could think of and made him immortal and infallible.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Rav already beat me to this one. My views are essentially the same as his. (I find myself agreeing with Rav a lot.)
Rav already pointed out a serious difficulty that threatens both arguments. Namely that the idea of perfection isn't really a concept at all. It's more of a conceptual function (the analogy is with a mathematical function). Whatever actual example we produce to illustrate perfection, perfection is... better... than that. So as you pointed out earlier in another thread, the word 'God' functions kind of like a direction sign, telling us "God's over there", at the end of the road leading to perfection.
Right. That's how I would approach it.
Well, we can recognize (or define) 'better' and 'worse' in our own experience. We do that all the time. So we have our scale. Then we imagine the hypothetical end of the scale out at the 'better' end, the place where no more 'worse' remains to mess anything up.
It's just theoretical. I doubt that anyone has ever encountered perfection. And as you seem to suggest, I'm not sure if we could recognize it if we did encounter it. But we don't need to, since the whole exercise is kind of a hypothetical projection. Perfection is 'over that way', whatever lies at the end of the yellow-brick-road.
Rav already pointed out a serious difficulty that threatens both arguments. Namely that the idea of perfection isn't really a concept at all. It's more of a conceptual function (the analogy is with a mathematical function). Whatever actual example we produce to illustrate perfection, perfection is... better... than that. So as you pointed out earlier in another thread, the word 'God' functions kind of like a direction sign, telling us "God's over there", at the end of the road leading to perfection.
Right. That's how I would approach it.
Well, we can recognize (or define) 'better' and 'worse' in our own experience. We do that all the time. So we have our scale. Then we imagine the hypothetical end of the scale out at the 'better' end, the place where no more 'worse' remains to mess anything up.
It's just theoretical. I doubt that anyone has ever encountered perfection. And as you seem to suggest, I'm not sure if we could recognize it if we did encounter it. But we don't need to, since the whole exercise is kind of a hypothetical projection. Perfection is 'over that way', whatever lies at the end of the yellow-brick-road.
One thing I have learned, if someone does not want to understand something, there will never be enough proof or expanation to change their mind.
Let me give an example. I am comfortable with the BB theory. But say I didn't want to believe this. You will never be able to prove it too me if my mind is already biased. I can say, show me the BB by pointing to the sky so I can see it? The BB is not obvious with just the eyes so such proof will be lacking.
The best proof of the BB, involves knowing something about electron emissions and relativity, for example. But since I don't want to know the proof, if I don't learn the needed background to understand that proof, even valid proof means nothing to me. If you can't understand, ever valid proof, then it has not been proven to you.
Say I am dense in science s,o I can't grasp relativity to see the proof. I would need to have faith in those telling me this is true; he is an egghead and must know. But say faith is considered stupid in my group. I can't have faith, that this is proof simply because you said it is true. You have to prove it to me directly, someone who won't or can't get the background due to bias.
In discussions of God, the atheist agenda is to discredit discussions of anything good about religion. They don't have faith and can't and won't learn any spiritual pre-requisites that are needed for subtle proof. They are in the same position as the uneducated who can't understand the proof of the BB, since they can't or won't learn. Therefore proof is lacking. The discussion always breaks down to name calling and negative emotional appeal; pearls and swine.
Let me give an example. I am comfortable with the BB theory. But say I didn't want to believe this. You will never be able to prove it too me if my mind is already biased. I can say, show me the BB by pointing to the sky so I can see it? The BB is not obvious with just the eyes so such proof will be lacking.
The best proof of the BB, involves knowing something about electron emissions and relativity, for example. But since I don't want to know the proof, if I don't learn the needed background to understand that proof, even valid proof means nothing to me. If you can't understand, ever valid proof, then it has not been proven to you.
Say I am dense in science s,o I can't grasp relativity to see the proof. I would need to have faith in those telling me this is true; he is an egghead and must know. But say faith is considered stupid in my group. I can't have faith, that this is proof simply because you said it is true. You have to prove it to me directly, someone who won't or can't get the background due to bias.
In discussions of God, the atheist agenda is to discredit discussions of anything good about religion. They don't have faith and can't and won't learn any spiritual pre-requisites that are needed for subtle proof. They are in the same position as the uneducated who can't understand the proof of the BB, since they can't or won't learn. Therefore proof is lacking. The discussion always breaks down to name calling and negative emotional appeal; pearls and swine.
I have to agree with Rav and Yazata, as usual. So now we have answered it. I do notice, though, that believers often neglect to answer the counter proposals.
Here is an example in another thread, which any, such as Jan or Signal, should still feel free to answer here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2727498&postcount=48
Why neglect?
Some believers don’t wish to deal and respond to the self-contradictedness of the concept of God because then they may have to actually consider it, but their emotions sway them away and back to their suppositional notions, wherein they conceive of invisible beings, and talk to them, and even speak for them, concocting more invisible notions such as souls, not caring or even wanting to know that these entities would have to be material in order to talk the talk of the material. More appeals to magic can take care of that problem.
On forums they get banned for not being able to discuss ideas. As anywhere, they say “huh?”, plead ignorance of science, employ tired old deflections upon the person, or on emotions as saying the ideas are to inflame and bring “hate”. It’s no wonder, though, for what else do they have? Even more piles of invisibles? After a point that begins to look really silly, and so they just outright neglect the ideas, instead adding made-up words to support their own position, such as “soul”, “angels”, “immaterial realm”, “spirit”, and other such obvious unshowables, along with the chutzpah to even proclaim them as the truth. Invisibility Disorder.
Here is an example in another thread, which any, such as Jan or Signal, should still feel free to answer here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2727498&postcount=48
Why neglect?
Some believers don’t wish to deal and respond to the self-contradictedness of the concept of God because then they may have to actually consider it, but their emotions sway them away and back to their suppositional notions, wherein they conceive of invisible beings, and talk to them, and even speak for them, concocting more invisible notions such as souls, not caring or even wanting to know that these entities would have to be material in order to talk the talk of the material. More appeals to magic can take care of that problem.
On forums they get banned for not being able to discuss ideas. As anywhere, they say “huh?”, plead ignorance of science, employ tired old deflections upon the person, or on emotions as saying the ideas are to inflame and bring “hate”. It’s no wonder, though, for what else do they have? Even more piles of invisibles? After a point that begins to look really silly, and so they just outright neglect the ideas, instead adding made-up words to support their own position, such as “soul”, “angels”, “immaterial realm”, “spirit”, and other such obvious unshowables, along with the chutzpah to even proclaim them as the truth. Invisibility Disorder.
I think it comes down to what function or power we believe that proofs as such are supposed to have; what hopes we place on our intellectual understanding.
"Proving" something implies some kind of projection or other, on somebody's terms.
Proofs don't happen in a vacuum, on their own, regardless of who is trying to proove what to whom, when and where.
Inherent in many theistic efforts to "prove God" is to take this into account. Conversely, atheist counterarguments generally try to be impersonal, neutral, objective, decontextualized, as if the same proof is supposed to be convincing for everyone, everywhere, at all times.
This atheist tendency seems unfounded to me.
I'm not the author of that argument, I provided a source (I put it in italics so it would be easier to quote).
That is an incomplete understanding. I'll post you a thread in physics.
This is an extraordinary claim, and you will have to substantiate it.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Even Descartes's supposed proof fails in many respects. We can have an idea of infinity without that idea itself being infinite. Our conception of God is a finite one because our nature is finite. Ideas only exist in us according to our nature and natural limitations (the Thomistic position), and Descartes didn't seem to recognize this. The referrent of the idea may be greater than ourselves, but the idea itself is not, and is only a limited reflection of the referrent for that reason.
Aristotle's position is that men are born with blank slates and only learn from experiences, and of course, the position of the Scholastics. In fact, it was precisely that position that Descartes was arguing against claiming that the senses, and hence experience, were unrealiabe. (I just hate to see credit given where it isn't deserved) Of course, just because our knowledge comes through the senses does not preclude our ability of forming a conception of God, which of course we all have.
Do we?
ugh.
Apparently it's true, you can't read.
Here we go: 1st year philosophy:
You said:
Premiss A
Premiss B
Conclusion
Note how premiss B is nothing more than a hypothetical expansion of premiss A. In other words, it's not a different premiss.
Now, regardless, the ONLY possible valid conclusion that can be derived from your statement here (I say statement, because there is just one, and I don't say argument, because, again, there isn't one...) is as follows:
God might have always existed in the mind.
Period.
Note how that is very different from:
ergo: non sequitur
Thus endeth the lesson.
I'm not remotely concerned with your conscience.
I am however concerned with how your behaviour affects the enjoyment of this forum by the other members. Suffice it to say that I have had numerous complaints about you and your posts, and in particular about your complete lack of attention and refusal to respond appropriately. Quite simply, you are disruptive.
You seriously need to take some time to think. Or perhaps go out and take some courses... I don't know. What I do know is that you either have a complete lack of respect for others, or you're simply ignorant of your inappropriate behaviour. In any case, if you feel victimized, that's a shame. I'm not alone here in being mind-bogglingly frustrated by your rudeness. So if you're the victim, I guess all the rest of us are bullies....
And yet are completely unwilling to listen to the answers that have been given to you...
Sorry.. that's not an "in-depth approach"; that's myopia.
Excellent. You should have stated that right from the start in your OP.
Given that then, you've already seen the responses of all others here with respect to seeing "what else there is": nothing.
End of thread.
Jan, I'm afraid that when things are pointed out to you, as has been done throughout this thread by nearly every other poster, you either completely ignore them, or deny them without so much as an attempt at support.
Quite simply, you cannot be reasoned with.
If you choose to engage in discussion (sic) in this manner, then I kindly ask you to refrain from doing so in the Philosophy forum.
I simply cannot waste much more time on you.
Fair Warning.
Hey Signal.
Yeah, I've been trying to respond for a few days now. Suffice it to say that I've been tied up with unfortunate administrative work as of late....
I have read it, and am glad to see you're trying to steer the train back on to the track.....
Yes (provided we're not one of the original Pirahas, weren't raised by wolves, and have normal intelligence and socialization).
For example, a common atheist conception of God is that "God is an illusion".
This is a conception.
My own version of The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God would be like this:
1. We have ideas of many things.
2. We are dependent beings.
3. We cannot actually create anything on our own, we can only use and rearrange what is already available (both physically and mentally).
4. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God.
5. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and we cannot actually create anything on our own.
6. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us.
7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.
Between 6 and 7, we could add that aliens or demigods have caused us to have an idea of God, but that just relegates the question to what their nature and position is; but unless we define those aliens or demigods to be God, we're back to God being the originator of the idea of God (even in a scenario of a deist god who "set the whole thing in motion (and gave the aliens and demigods instructions to give us the idea of God) and then retreated").
First - what is the "idea of God" that you are considering?
As others have argued, merely referring to attributes as "infinite", for example, doesn't mean we truly have the idea of what it means.
One argument is that if it can be coneptualised by man then it is necessarily finite in extent, and thus not an "idea of God" by default.
Second - if it can be shown how a specific "idea of God" can be shown to be possibly based on things already available, then it disproves this argument (for that specific idea)... not that it disproves the idea itself, just that it would show this line or argument as not proving God.
So, what is this "idea of God"?
If it is "first cause" then this is clearly just an extrapolation of the idea that all events need a cause... and from there it is just a reductio ad absurdam... or ad Deum.
So nothing external needed here... which means this "proof" is not a proof for this specific idea of God.So what "idea of God" are you proposing to push through this argument?
Using the word "god" confuse me, because this word is quite clearly described in different forms in different religions.
It would not be more correct to use "an entity" and we try to define this "entity"?
From my point of view to your question, I would respond:
I do not know, I have not sufficient evidence to make a decision and say "There is a god" or "There is no God".
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
A very good point, succinctly stated.
Another good observation. I don't know enough about the history of philosophy to know whether Descartes was personally motivated to argue that the senses are unreliable, or whether he felt forced to respond to the ancient skeptics, whose writings had been re-published in the Renaissance and were a major topic of philosophical discussion during his lifetime. They had certainly argued against the reliability of the senses. Descartes was a mathematician, so there was likely a bit of unacknowledged Platonism implicit in his trust in clear-and-distinct ideas and in his confidence in mathematical proof.
I don't.
Obviously I have a concept of the Biblical Yahweh and the similar Quranic Allah. I have a concept of Vishnu and Shiva. And so on. But these are all characters from religious mythology.
What I don't possess is a conception of what the referrent of all the mythic monotheist personas might be, if anything. (I personally believe that they don't have an existing referrant, but hold open the possibility that I might be wrong.)
We are basically brains having thoughts, and some of these which arise are simpletons or even forbidden thoughts that get squashed, such as killing some bad driver, as do some imaginations of the impossible, such as giant redwood trees sprouting wings and flying to the moon. Other, less obvious thoughts and imaginations may slip through logic and take hold, but their subject matter is not necessarily true just because we thought of it. 'God' is an extension of the human family structure and a wish for the comfort to be taken care of here and possibly in an afterlife, which state can become immune to any further pondering which would demonstrate the impossibility of it all. Only elementals can be first, not some infinite and working conglomeration of mind that then creates everything else.
the idea of a god is very mundane. it is a concept derived from one who rises to power or control and usually a male figure representing power or goddess representing fertility.
we attribute everything with extensions because that is the world we live in. we wonder how this all came to be and the easiest conclusion is that something must have created it. the idea that it was not created is foreign to us since there is a cause and effect in our lives.
also, the concept of creation is not foreign when people would witness effects without understanding how they came to be.
this is where the idea of the supernatural comes in or 'creation'.
The ground-state would necessarily have to have no creation, it being causeless, thus no Creator. After that there is cause and effect on up.
See The Theory of Nothing:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107254
- Status