How can God not exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sarkus,

Jan, you missed the point of my post... in that you basically assume the existence of God in the "proof" and thus conclude that God exists... along the lines of "If God exists then I conclude that God exists".
I.e. it is a meaningless proof.
Click to expand...


Granted. If you go back and read you will see that I have corrected it.

Yet your means of asking was to post various "proofs" of God's existence...
Click to expand...

Proving God was not the point of the exercise, as I pointed out that God has always existed (as far as we know), even if only in the conscious mind.

and thus the question "how can God NOT exist?" is thus taken as an emotional plea, along the lines of "how can you NOT see that God must exist?"
Click to expand...

The question was a bid to find out how God could NOT exist, or, how could God have been created by a finite mind, with no pre-existing idea, experience of such a being.


The answers you and others gave, does not account for the actuality of the real qualities we ascribe to God. The comparison you made would have been
put in after the idea of actual God.

jan.
 
Mind Over Matter,


We can truly create things, even if we use pre-existing matter or concepts to do so. Ex nihilo (from nothing) is not the only kind of valid creation.
Click to expand...

To create is ''to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. ''

#5 is invalid. Part of the reason for this is the weakness of #3, but even if #3 were correct, one simply can point out that we arrive at our idea of God from an a posteriori process by which we see the created world and reason back to the role of the creator.
Click to expand...

What wuld be the need to assume a ''creator''?


Hence, in some way our knowledge of God comes from our senses and what our mind does with the concepts derived from sense data. The idea of God is not created ex nihilo in our minds, but is an idea that we arrive at through an active process on our part.
Click to expand...


Same as above.


jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
IOW, how can a mind invent God when we have no previous idea or experience of Him.
So it is NOT a conclusion, but a question.
Click to expand...

But the answer is the same as "How can a mind invent magic, when magic never existed?" or "How can mankind imagine the Nine Realms of Norse legend, when eight of those places are not Earth and never existed?" Your response would seem to be that those 8 places are in a sense like Earth (even though not entirely like Earth) so there is a model on which the imaginative authors simply added variations...just as Tolkien created Valinor as the homeland of the elves who leave Middle-Earth (akin to the Norse Alfheimr).

You then assert (as I understand the argument) that there is nothing else like God, so if He were a creation, then He would be the only thing created without some analog in our own experience. Assuming I follow that argument correctly, I do not believe that God is unlike other things in our experience. Granted that his power is supposedly infinite, but we only hand-waive his infinitude, we never really ponder it. In the same way we readily imagine other infinite things: the set of whole numbers, (depending on one's cosmological beliefs and preferences) the extent of space and time in the universe, a hypothetical plane of infinite length and width, etc. We do this largely by not trying to intellectually grasp the concept of infinity other than to apply certain logical rules to it. In the same way there are numbers so large that we cannot really "grok" them, and so we don't really bother...the number of grains of sand on Earth, the number of particles in the universe (10^82 being our best guess), etc.

Infinity is not an unfamiliar concept, and none of the powers we usually ascribe to God are all that mind blowing. In fact we ascribe human emotions to God (God is angry, God loves, etc.), despite his presumably monstrously complex psychology and knowledge, and many go so far as to imagine him as a bearded old white man and many believe he has a specific "name" even though even though He wouldn't really need one.

The Mormons believe God has a physical body and lives in this universe with us and that He is only all-powerful with respect to this world He created...other worlds have other gods...and they do not believe there is a "more powerful" God above him. Many Christian sects do *not* believe God is omnipotent (though many believe he chose to limit is own omnipotence when he gave humanity free will). The Hindus believe that there is a natural force that binds the universe, including the gods, but that force is not "omnipotent"...it's not even a conscious entity. Buddha expressly rejected the notion that there was a Creator and belief in a "supreme" being is considered a hindrance to enlightenment in that religion.

Contrary to what you asserted many pages earlier, most polytheistic religions (like Shinto) do not believe in a spirit more powerful than their own deities (in the Shinto religion even Amaterasu, the Sun goddess and most venerated being in that religion is not omnipotent and supreme over all other spirits). I think you may have come to believe it because you have probably read of classical Greek thought are translations by Christian theologians, who often tried to insert references to a single God in translations because they found the Greek polytheism distasteful. There are some henotheistic religions, but there are genuinely polytheistic ones as well. There is no universal "intuition" that all people share that an omnipotent God must exist. It is really a culturally taught meme.

Even in this forum, you can see that the intuition is not universal...unless you think everyone refusing to acknowledge such a belief is just being contrarian.
 
Pandaemoni said:
But the answer is the same as "How can a mind invent magic, when magic never existed?"
Click to expand...
Yeah, and it's the same as "Can any event occur that has no cause?" That things can happen magically/accidentally without cause? That micro events can flit in and out of existence based on zero history, nor initial conditions? If all events do in fact have causes, then does this require one to accept an objective reality? If we accept the well known response of: 'the Universe makes a choice', does this not require an objective reality that is making the choice?
 
Signal said:
Please explain.
If we agree with no. 2 - that we are dependent - then this means we cannot really do anything on our own.
Click to expand...
First of all, saying we are dependent only logically means that we are not our own existence, and that we could have not existed. However, when you say that we really do nothing completely on our own, you touch upon the notion of God as the First Cause of all things. This doesn't just mean that He was the original cause in a chain of causes, but that he is the First Cause of every action that we take. So, your statement is true. However, just because God is the first Cause of our creating a novel, for example, that doesn't mean that we are not true causes ourselves and does not mean that we have not truly created a novel, which we have.

Jan Ardena said:
What wuld be the need to assume a ''creator''?
Click to expand...
I find St. Thomas's Second Proof, that from causality, the most convincing of the proofs for Gods existence. One is not "assuming" a creator in the sense of making an assumption without proof, but one is actually proving that nature cannot be without an uncaused cause, and being which is not contingent, but is necessary being.

Signal said:
Except that I think that our mind and our senses are not really our own; they are not our own in the sense that we cannot fully control them.
We are dependent on our mind and senses, and they are dependent on other factors.
Click to expand...
Your senses are recepticles of data from the outside world. There is no need for you to have to control them in order for them to provide you with valid information. Even if you do not control them in a volitional manner, however, they are still "yours" as they are a proper operation of your specific nature. Likewise, there are operations of your mind and soul which occur without your volition, including the ever important operation of the Agent Intellect which abstracts forms from material phantasms (the technical terms of Aristotle). Thus, in theory, you are perfectly capable of abstracting an idea from nature without a volitional act, yet in a true sense, you are the generator of that idea. Usually it takes a more volitional act to then create more complex ideas, like unicorns, fairies, and aliens, but your mind is certainly capable of creating these ideas.

Signal said:
I doubt it is even possible to prove (or disprove) God.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it at all, and in fact think that it has been sufficiently accomplished by St. Thomas. I just don't think that a proof can be generated from the Ideo of God itself, but needs to come from the nature of created/natural things.
 
"How can God not exist?"

In other words:

How can it come to be that God does not exist?
What causes need to be in place so that we can say that God does not exist?
 
Sarkus said:
Anything anyone says about, intends about or does in relation to what they consider to be God, is a reflection of their consciousness about God.
Click to expand...

How can it be otherwise? This holds true for anything one wishes to discuss.
Click to expand...

It is important inasmuch as with it the focus is shifts onto a person's consciousness, as opposed onto objective reality.


What do you mean by "dependent"? That we can not do anything on our own? We can not seemingly create or destroy energy, but everything else is up for grabs, surely.
I think you will need to further expand on your meaning of "dependent", though, if you wish to rely on it - or even have the same understanding as you.
Click to expand...

For example, a million factors need to be in place for me to be able to write this post - while I have no control over them. There has to be a Universe, with time and space, and plants that produce oxygen, I had to be given a body, there had to be low enough levels of lead and other toxins in my drinking water, someone had to invent and make the computer I am using, my parents, teachers and others have taught me to speak and write a language, somehow it came to be that my body is healthy enough that I can type, etc. etc.
I can't claim ownership or control over any of these things; even if just one of them wouldn't be happen, I couldn't be writing this post. Thus I am dependent on numerous factors.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
First of all, saying we are dependent only logically means that we are not our own existence, and that we could have not existed.
Click to expand...

No, I do not think that our existence is optional. I find it demoralizing to think that we could not have existed.
Whether and what kind of bodies we have is optional, but to think that I, the soul, could also not exist is demoralizing.
Yes, I think that both God and we are necessary beings.
If I am not necessary, this means that all my needs, interest and concerns, including those about God, are not necessary either. If I and my needs, interests and concerns are not necessary, this means that there exists no necessary relationship between me and God. Which opens up a number of problems.
Alas, this is topic for another thread!


However, just because God is the first Cause of our creating a novel, for example, that doesn't mean that we are not true causes ourselves and does not mean that we have not truly created a novel, which we have.
Click to expand...

Surely we play a part in what we do; but we cannot take credit.


Your senses are recepticles of data from the outside world. There is no need for you to have to control them in order for them to provide you with valid information. Even if you do not control them in a volitional manner, however, they are still "yours" as they are a proper operation of your specific nature.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem: my senses cannot be relied on to give me an objective perspective.

Unless we go with "Anything anyone says about, intends about or does in relation to what they consider to be God, is a reflection of their consciousness about God." - and presume that this is good enough.


Likewise, there are operations of your mind and soul which occur without your volition, including the ever important operation of the Agent Intellect which abstracts forms from material phantasms (the technical terms of Aristotle). Thus, in theory, you are perfectly capable of abstracting an idea from nature without a volitional act, yet in a true sense, you are the generator of that idea.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about that, given that I can trace most of my ideas to already existing ideas from other people, or a variation or rearrangement of those ideas, and I am quite sure the rest is similar.
I daren't say I have ever had a truly original idea.



I don't doubt it at all, and in fact think that it has been sufficiently accomplished by St. Thomas. I just don't think that a proof can be generated from the Ideo of God itself, but needs to come from the nature of created/natural things.
Click to expand...

My skepticism about proving God is aimed at the limitations that are inherent in intellectual pursuits as such.
I am inclined to agree with Merton -

"The only cure for non-belief is the mystical experience." - Thomas Merton
 
Signal said:
Do provide a reference for this from the suttas.
Click to expand...

Follow the references from here. Since Pandaemoni's comments on this matter are representative of what has always been the prevailing (and obvious) interpretation of Buddhist teachings on this issue, I believe it's up to you to do the research if you want to learn more.
 
Rav said:
Follow the references from here. Since Pandaemoni's comments on this matter are representative of what has always been the prevailing (and obvious) interpretation of Buddhist teachings on this issue, I believe it's up to you to do the research if you want to learn more.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know my references from the suttas, and I know the ones from the Wiki references, and more.
Contrary to popular opinion, it is not "obvious" from the suttas that the Buddha rejected belief in God as such.
What he specifically rejected was belief in a creationist theistic determinist system (a contemporary variation of that are some Protestant schools; AN 3.61), belief that Brahma is the supreme god (MN 49), and speculation or conjecture about the origin of the world, self and such (AN 4.77).
This is often, by Buddhists themselves, interpreted as a wholesale rejection of theism - when in fact it is not.
Moreover, notions of Buddhist atheism vary, depending on whether the Buddhist clergy took up debate with the Christian missionaries or not. It did so in Thailand, for example, so Thai Buddhism is atheistic in the way Western atheism is. Elsewhere, it is theistic in some way, or does not have a worked out doctrine against theism.

I would just like to see some proof from the suttas that the Buddha actually said there was no God, no Supreme personality of Godhead.
 
Signal said:
What he specifically rejected was belief in a creationist theistic determinist system
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think would be left, after you take those things away, that would qualify as being a supreme god.
 
A creationist, theistic system in which individual entities have free will. Some of Catholic and Hindu schools are like that.
 
Rav said:
Why do you think that the Buddha went to such lengths to provide an explanation for why people erroneously believe that there is creator if he did not mean to suggest that there wasn't one?
Click to expand...

I think that the Buddha emphasized the problems inherent in blind belief and having views as such, regardless of its content, as summed up in the Kalama Sutta.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top