Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[The Devil Inside]

*shrug* but she never told you to stop posting. even though i (almost) completely disagree with every single thing she has to say, the fact that she has been here THAT long, warrants a little respect...dont you think?
maybe im just talking out of my ass though, too.

 

[(Q)]

Jay

theres no proof in the first post.

There is nothing wrong with Cris' opening post. It is irrefutable and you agree with him.

 

[Godless]

I understand where you think there is a paradox. The operative word is think.

I know my sister well enough, yet I can't predict what she'll do.

As for god, hell he don't exist, and if it did, it would be bound by it's own omniscience.

If you are all-knowing, you know your future actions, what choices you will make, and you cannot change them otherwise your knowledge would be wrong, and you wouldn't be all-knowing. An omniscient being has no free will to choose actions; all its actions are predetermined.

Vexen

Thus this follows thinking, don't ya think?.

She disrespected me way before i disrespected her.

Boo Hoo!. Get used to it, atheist mainly get kicked out of fundies forums!.

Godless

 

[jay_7]

I know my sister well enough, yet I can't predict what she'll do.

As for god, hell he don't exist, and if it did, it would be bound by it's own omniscience.

Vexen

Thus this follows thinking, don't ya think?.



Boo Hoo!. Get used to it, atheist mainly get kicked out of fundies forums!.

Godless

Its difficult for us being in time to understand this concept. You have to remember God has no time, so this matter of knowing before hand doesnt make sence. I think this may be a ok way to explain it: Try and picture it as you have your own universe in a box at home right now, and the computer thats connected to it says whats going to happen, by prediciting and and estimating precise results that are completly accurate, but the computer is for the universe you own, not YOUR home, so it doesnt predict what you (the creator) are going to do, just whats going to happen in your box which consist fo the universe.

Or, i was reading this about time travel: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/through.html

If it's like they say, life is a blink of an eye in the travel of light speed/time, then of coarse God can know all. And that hes universe can be enternal without time.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Concerning the vexen link,

1. "An Omniscient (all-knowing) Being Does Not Have Free Will."

God's actions and God's knowledge arise simultaneously. Vexen understands this concept as revealed later on in his 4th argument concerning God's free will and time. God's knowledge does not necessarily mean that God does not have free will.

2. "A Perfect God Has No Free Will"

Just because God cannot choose to act imperfectly, does not mean He cannot choose between two perfect acts. Furthermore, free will is not the ability to choose between two or more options. Any animate creature does that. Free will is the capacity to consciously and deliberately, with awareness, move your will in a given direction (figuratively speaking of course). Even if God only had one choice, He still chooses it consciously, deliberately, with awareness. A single option does not negate the possibility of free will.

3. "A Moral God has No Free Will"

See previous answer. Also, God did not create morality. Moral choice is simply acting in accord with one's own nature. God has nature, therefore morality has existed eternally as a principle of God's nature. Moral choice only exists with the freely willing. So, the argument is moot, since if God were amoral, then that would necessarily mean He is not free of will. Likewise, if God were not free of will, then God would be amoral. The two go hand in hand. However, how is one to say that God is amoral? By arguing that He created morality? But I have indicated that that is not the case.

4. "God exists outside of time... where there is no free will"

The sequenced steps taken in time by which free will operates in time are taken simultaneously, immediately in the eternal. Eternality does not negate the possibility of free will.

5. "How can a creator of free will have free will?"

God did not create free will. Humans are freely willing creatures, but that does not mean that free will was created when humans began to exist. Free will is an aspect of God's nature that has existed eternally. This is part of the Image of God, which humans have.

 

[Godless]

Good answers BT&S. But some points contradict your previous assumptions of god, and some fallcies as well. Let's see how I do; lets try not to take over this thread like we once did

God's actions and God's knowledge arise simultaneously.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this assumption contradicts omnisciece, if an entity be omnisciet it's knowledge is already stablished, nothing new would arise, nothing to be learnt that is already known.

Just because God cannot choose to act imperfectly, does not mean He cannot choose between two perfect acts.

There's no such thing as two perfect acts to an all knowing being. It's one act which ever may be has to be perfect, no choice can be made between two, this would sugest that one act is more perfect than the other. The choice it makes has to be the better of the two.

Free will is the capacity to consciously and deliberately, with awareness, move your will in a given direction (figuratively speaking of course).

This assumption would limit the entity god, by having a free will similar to that of a mere human, this entity is nothing like human this would suggest it's characteristic be nothing like a human; thus it's incapable of free will such as ours, furthermore I recall you mentioned we shouldn't think of "god" as an entity but some sort of spirit what have you; I recall telling you "that what you call god, is called nature on my part". (forgive my memory lapse)

God did not create free will.

Then god did not create humans, nor the universe, nor anything that exists. If this entity be the creator of all, all it created even free will!.

Godless

 

[jayleew]

Na! it was a quick qoogle search. However I've been an atheist longer than some people here have been alive.

I was once a believer, I was once a Christian, Catholic, Babtist. But I saw no evidence of such a being called god, I felt nothing, other than fooling myself to believe such tripe, I got laid more often. Perhaps I should go back And just keep my real opinions to myself. But too bad I'm determined to be honest. For this honesty I've lost good opportunities, good jobs, and I sure as hell can't be a politician!

Godless

Good, that is a step in the right direction.

There is a God and God has proven it to me every time I question his existence. But, if you aren't honest with him and play make believe, it does little good for anyone. Being honest with your true feelings about God's existence, and questioning his existence is healthy part of being real with God and coming to answers, but more answers always equals more questions. Recently, my faith was tried. And God lifted me up in the midst of all my doubts. It wasn't anything anyone said that strengthed my faith, it was God alone who put me in the circumstance to see the answers.

You think you have crossed over and can never go back. That's a lie that I told myself. Instead, you have crossed over into knowledge and logic. So, how can you believe when you have reason and logic?

Who knows how long you have, but if you want, God can prove himself majestically. I guarauntee it, because if he can do it for me, he can for anyone. Amazing.

Good luck with your new brain! I am glad you are honest with it now!

 

[Katazia]

Jay 7 -

You have to remember God has no time, so this matter of knowing before hand doesnt make sence.

But time does exist so for something outside of time it will be easier to see before and after a particular point in time.

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Jayleew –

There is a God and God has proven it to me every time I question his existence.

Has anyone else witnessed your interaction, or is it all in your head?

Being honest with your true feelings about God's existence, and questioning his existence is healthy part of being real with God and coming to answers, but more answers always equals more questions.

With such frequent doubts real honesty would be to admit you don’t know whether God exists or not.

Recently, my faith was tried.

Translation: You experienced a moment of realism.

And God lifted me up in the midst of all my doubts.

Translation: You gave in to familiar comfort feeling of insanity.

It wasn't anything anyone said that strengthed my faith, it was God alone who put me in the circumstance to see the answers.

Translation: Facing reality would be too much for me to handle.

Instead, you have crossed over into knowledge and logic.

Which means you admit to preferring the opposite; ignorance and illogic.

So, how can you believe when you have reason and logic?

Because any belief would then have a factual basis, unlike yours which is baseless.

Kat

 

[Godless]

Hey Jaylee!

There is a God and God has proven it to me every time I question his existence.

In my field of study I find this to be delusional.

You think you have crossed over and can never go back.

Go back to being delusional? No thanks. There was never a "crossing over" it was more of a realization. Blame it on education, blame it on reason. Reason killed god, logic made him imposible.

Good, that is a step in the right direction.

Thanks I've never been so honest until I became an atheist. I made a right step in the right direction, not by questioning the existence of this entity, but by realizing that I don't need a crutch to walk a straight path. I can walk on my own, my own volition, and my own set of values. Not that of an ancient religious rhetoric, of which the value it preaches, are the most broken.

Godless

 

[jayleew]

Jayleew –

Has anyone else witnessed your interaction, or is it all in your head?

I have had only one "interaction" with God (which a reasonable man might say that I am experiencing halucinations), the rest of the evidence for me is from my experience of living life, and witnessing the unlikely occur in accordance to a focused direction, usually unexpectedly. That is the evidence that matters. I'd rather see God's handiwork lifting me up, than to see God's face, eyeing from above.

Hypothetical question:
If there was only one god and it was the Christian's god, who hid himself from all but those who sought him, could this god prove his existence in the same manner among a diverse-minded people and still remain anonymous from the reasonable skeptics?

With such frequent doubts real honesty would be to admit you don’t know whether God exists or not.

Yes. If I were to dismiss the experiences as coincidences as just that. That would be fine for awhile...and it was. I was agnostic during that time. But, there comes a point when there are so many that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.

Translation: You experienced a moment of realism.

Maybe. Or, maybe God hid himself from a sinner who stopped asking for a sign.

Translation: You gave in to familiar comfort feeling of insanity.

No comfort was involved. Realizing God brings humility, which is not particularly comfortable...that is why many are still lost in their own sins. It's easier to keep doing those drugs then to face the problem.

Which means you admit to preferring the opposite; ignorance and illogic.

Yes, it is illogical for anyone to believe in God without seeing for themselves. You say I am illogical, and from your point of view, I agree with you. At the same time, I have evidence that would be illogical to discount as coincidence.

 

[jayleew]

Go back to being delusional? No thanks. There was never a "crossing over" it was more of a realization. Blame it on education, blame it on reason. Reason killed god, logic made him imposible.

Good point. And it is the same reason and logic that you can realize God with.

Thanks I've never been so honest until I became an atheist. I made a right step in the right direction, not by questioning the existence of this entity, but by realizing that I don't need a crutch to walk a straight path. I can walk on my own, my own volition, and my own set of values. Not that of an ancient religious rhetoric, of which the value it preaches, are the most broken.

Well, I have to respect you for your position. Myself, I strive for a perfect path. The most moral path. Sure, I'm a hypocrite at times...who isn't...and we all pay a price for our sins, regardless of if they are forgiven or not. That is why I need a savior, because a perfect life is impossible on our own volition.

 

[Godless]

Good point. And it is the same reason and logic that you can realize God with.

wrong! It is with "reason" that I became atheist. It's with logic that I killed him/her/it.

An Atheist Manifesto

Myself, I strive for a perfect path. The most moral path.

There's no such thing. Morality is subjective, morals are what drove me away from organised religion. Read your Christian history. What is moral about massacre of thousands of innocent people who denied your god? There's no morality in christianity. It's quite the opposite, and history has proven that.

That is why I need a savior, because a perfect life is impossible on our own volition.

I don't dwel in the posibility of a perfect life, I know that's just a fantacy made up to fool the masses of what organised religion can accomplish. It has been 2500 years and basically all we've seen from organised religion is wars, crusades, inquisitions, zealots like Kores, Rev Jim Johnes, Osama bin Ladden, Bush, Catholic preast who seduce children..Damn boy can't you see that there's no morality to your god or it's religion?


Godless

 

[Katazia]

Jayleew –

But, there comes a point when there are so many that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.

And there lies, perhaps the real crux of the entire religious nightmare. What you claim as a major factor for your belief is a fundamental fallacy in logic. It is the idea that something must be true because so many others believe it. The oft quoted example of the flat Earth should give you some insight to the utter stupidity of your position. Or put another way; you believe because someone else believes and they believe because you believe. It is perfectly circular with no sign of truth at any aspect. In other words you admit to being little different to a mindless sheep.

Kat

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Good answers BT&S. But some points contradict your previous assumptions of god, and some fallcies as well. Let's see how I do; lets try not to take over this thread like we once did

Oh, I don't know... taking over the last thread was fun.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this assumption contradicts omnisciece, if an entity be omnisciet it's knowledge is already stablished, nothing new would arise, nothing to be learnt that is already known.

I will correct you. You are right, an omniscient entity's knowledge would already be established. "Arise" is a semantic that I'm limited by. They (God's actions and God's knowledge) "arise" from all eternity simultaneously. That is, both God's actions and God's knowledge have always been. As an eternal being, God's actions don't take place in a sequenced order, neither individually nor as a set. This is the nature of the holistic.

There's no such thing as two perfect acts to an all knowing being. It's one act which ever may be has to be perfect, no choice can be made between two, this would sugest that one act is more perfect than the other. The choice it makes has to be the better of the two.

I suppose this kind of depends on your definition of perfection. I do believe the Vexen link provided a good definition of perfection: completeness, wholeness, totality, fullness. Therefore, any action which is itself complete, can be said to be perfect. However, because actions necessarily arise from entities with natures, the action must also be complete with respect to the nature of the being performing it. Hence, any action, which is itself complete, with respect to the nature of God, would be perfect. In this sense alone would I agree that there can only be one action, GIVEN that God is the only conscious, freely-willing entity in existence. However, God is not, and thus there is interaction between God and these other conscious entities, which means that there may arise many actions that are perfect with respect to the nature of God, and with respect to the context of the engaged entity. However, of course, God's actions arise from eternity, and God is said to be pure act, which means that ALL of God's actions are performed form eternity, including that actions which are interactions with the temporal. At any rate, concerning God's action and free will, what you quoted was not my full answer to the question.

This assumption would limit the entity god, by having a free will similar to that of a mere human, this entity is nothing like human this would suggest it's characteristic be nothing like a human; thus it's incapable of free will such as ours...

Actually, God does not have a quality similar to humans (free will), but rather, humans have a quality similar to God. Will is a principle. Will is effect, which is also cause. Free will can be effect and cause, but can also be simply cause. God's free will is Cause only. For example, there is cosmic will (bear in mind that this is merely a term I made up to convey a specific idea(, but that will is not free, no choices are made, there is merely mechanical cause and effect relationships taking place. There is also limited free will. This is the kind of free will that humans have. It is not perfectly free, I don't think I need to demonstrate that. This means it can merely be effect and effective (causal), like cosmic will. However, because it is free, it also means that it can be also solely causal. That is, it can act according to its own deciding. Only an intelligent entity can do this. Only an intelligent entity can have free will. Furthermore, intelligence can only exist in a freely-willing entity. God's free will is perfect, unlimited. That is, God's will is causal only. It is not affected, and it does not act as a result of effect. Of course, this is how God is First Cause. God is purely holistic, with pure free will. The universe is purely sequential, with non-free will. Humans (and any intelligent creatures) are a blend of the two, partly holistic, partly sequential, with imperfect free will.

Then god did not create humans, nor the universe, nor anything that exists. If this entity be the creator of all, all it created even free will!.

See answer above. Free will is an intrinsic part of God's nature. Humans were created, and imbued with free will. However, God did not create free will when He created humans. If anything could be said, it would be that God created human free will, which is different than God's free will, being imperfect, rather than perfect. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree with this.

...furthermore I recall you mentioned we shouldn't think of "god" as an entity but some sort of spirit what have you; I recall telling you "that what you call god, is called nature on my part". (forgive my memory lapse)

I wouldn't think of God as a "being" as such (technically). God is furthermore, not a spirit, as such (ahh technicalities). However, when speaking of God it is easier to understand him as such. Just as in mathematics, it is easier to treat a very large number as infinity, merely for the sake of simplicity. However, just as in mathematics, it should be understood that we're not talking about a being, as such. Beings are created things, but more simply, beings are things. God is neither created, nor a thing, and thus not a being.

Existence, Identity and Consciousness are axioms of speech, which allow us to know with certainty that those three things are true. That is, all sentences acknowledge the fact that: A) Things exist (both statically and actively). B) Things have identity (specifically, specially and naturally). C) There is a consciousness that knows, understands, refers to those existing specifics. I say there are more than merely three axioms. Truth is an axiom, for example. Another axiom is intelligence. However, let's move on.

"I AM" is the name given to God for the exact reason that it contains specifically and ONLY those axioms. In saying "I AM" God declares (or, at the very least, as you would believe, humans declare this to be true of God) that He is existence (becuase He does not specify a particular way that He exists), He is identity (because He does not specify a particular form that He exists as), He is conscious (if not consciousness), and that He is truth (because the sentence itself is expected to be true, because it is the most basic truth that can be spoken by any conscious entity, and because it is the ultimate truth of reality in its simplest form, purely axiomatic).

The universe can be said to be existence (tentatively), can be said to have identity (but not to be identity), as a universal identity (containing all identities... again... tentatively), but cannot be said to be consciousness, cannot be said to be conscious, but can only be said to contain conscious entities. In this way, the universe itself cannot be said to be axiomatic. So, the point being made here is that what you call "nature" I do not call God. There is a distinguishment to be made, a subtle one, but an important one. Both God and the universe may be said to contain all principles of reality (tentatively), but only God can be said to BE all principles of reality.

 

[Godless]

Oh, I don't know... taking over the last thread was fun.

Yes indeed it was fun debating without the insults of difference of opinions. Though I do sometimes get overheated at plainly ingnorant discussions like the one on the "Masterbation is for loosers" thread. Oh! well and the fact that it's mostly allowable here to use ad-hominems and personal attacks on opinions makes it fun to build character and strengthen one's stance.

But then we find characters such as you who intellegently enough discuss in a good manner and one can see that your not a blithering idiot. That I enjoy.

So here goes my rebutal;

They (God's actions and God's knowledge) "arise" from all eternity simultaneously. That is, both God's actions and God's knowledge have always been.

Thus to me this means predetermined acts. i.e. if god's knowledge & actions have always been known to him, then the future is predetermined. So is it's will, and our will have been known to "god" from begining of time, thus to postulate an omniscient being contradicts free will, when this entity has full knowledge of what will occur from begining of time, then it can't change it's mind because to do so would render god not omniscient. With perfect knowledge means to me that it's consciousness had its mind set from begining of time thus the paradox Chris talks about. If omniscient being exists, no free will.

As an eternal being, God's actions don't take place in a sequenced order, neither individually nor as a set. This is the nature of the holistic.

This sounds like non-sequirtus to me, by reading it this entity can be at all times at the same time, and change it's mind accordingly to each situation in any frame of time. That's not logical, and it's certainly not a emperical observation of the nature of existence that a beign, which it's existence is questionable in the first place can do these outrageous feats. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary emperical proof (borrowing from Carl Sagan)

Only an intelligent entity can do this. Only an intelligent entity can have free will. Furthermore, intelligence can only exist in a freely-willing entity.

The only entity with consciousness known to man to do this is man himself.

The christian god, an entity with no identity of itself can't possibly posses intelegence. This is a contradiction to the law of identity. This entity has not shown itself to exist, it's mere existence has to be accepted as a matter of faith, and faith alone on the rhetoric of ancient nomads who created this god in the first place to give hope to its people that they were the chosen ones of this god. Their ingnorance was not to question this rhetoric, but accept without knowledge if the elders claims held water. Thus through traditional values bestowed upon its people the god concept has survived in humanity for better or worst.

That is, God's will is causal only. It is not affected, and it does not act as a result of effect. Of course, this is how God is First Cause.

The first cause argument has been shown many times to be fallacious.
I'll let the Infidels to rebutal this one for me here.

Moving on;

The universe is purely sequential, with non-free will.

I don't think that the universe is sequential, thus no begining. But an eternally existent phenomena. Big Bang never happened

A new theory has arised agaist the big bang, and this being the modern guy that I am, is more acceptable to me, than a point of origin to the universe. The big bang theory is an acceptable theory of theist, thus giving them further reason that an entity caused the universe to happen. The church has historically been wrong to accept theories it formally knows nothing about, nor study further and accept without emperical evidence. Thus the flat earth, was shown to be wrong, and the infamous geocentric vs heliocentric theory of which the church believed the earth to be the center of universe, and the sun revolve around us. Today we know different.

Existence, Identity and Consciousness are axioms of speech, which allow us to know with certainty that those three things are true. That is, all sentences acknowledge the fact that: A) Things exist (both statically and actively). B) Things have identity (specifically, specially and naturally). C) There is a consciousness that knows, understands, refers to those existing specifics. I say there are more than merely three axioms. Truth is an axiom, for example. Another axiom is intelligence. However, let's move on.

I agree that existence, identity & consciousness are axioms. Truth is subjective thus not an axiom, intelligence is not an axiom but a study of epistemology, intelligence is sought out, learnt, gathered, but not an axiom to the true meaning of the word.

An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.

click

"I AM" is the name given to God for the exact reason that it contains specifically and ONLY those axioms. In saying "I AM" God declares (or, at the very least, as you would believe, humans declare this to be true of God) that He is existence (becuase He does not specify a particular way that He exists), He is identity (because He does not specify a particular form that He exists as), He is conscious (if not consciousness), and that He is truth (because the sentence itself is expected to be true, because it is the most basic truth that can be spoken by any conscious entity, and because it is the ultimate truth of reality in its simplest form, purely axiomatic).

The bible was writen by primitive men, their mentality was undergoing a mental evolution, thus the mind was becoming self aware. "I Am" is a formal way of saying I exist as an idividual. Moses I think was not only delusional but also schizophrenic, thus it was only his imagination were he heard the voice say. I am it was his self consciousness that he heard. The little voice inside everyone's head. You know by now I refer to Dr. Julian Jaynes theory of origins of consciousness.

I'll finish this latter, as I've got to brush up on some details to my next post. Ok!.

Godless

 

[TW Scott]

wrong! It is with "reason" that I became atheist. It's with logic that I killed him/her/it.

An Atheist Manifesto

Okay here is logic for you. If there is no God why is the no Major civilization that doesn't beleive in gods? And using the line about explaining the unexplainable and societal control do not work. If there was no God there would have been one civilization that did not believe in gods.

There's no such thing. Morality is subjective, morals are what drove me away from organised religion. Read your Christian history. What is moral about massacre of thousands of innocent people who denied your god? There's no morality in christianity. It's quite the opposite, and history has proven that.

don't dwel in the posibility of a perfect life, I know that's just a fantacy made up to fool the masses of what organised religion can accomplish. It has been 2500 years and basically all we've seen from organised religion is wars, crusades, inquisitions, zealots like Kores, Rev Jim Johnes, Osama bin Ladden, Bush, Catholic preast who seduce children..Damn boy can't you see that there's no morality to your god or it's religion?


Godless[/QUOTE]

Classic Strawman, people waged wars, they may have used a perverted view on religious beliefs, but it was still people. according to your observations I would have to believe all Atheists are child molesting murderers because I have heard of a few who were. See how ridiculous that sounds.

Religion has also given us comfort in times of great upheaval and peril. Religion makes the common people better. It gives them the answers science can not. Belief in a supreme being is a common thread that ties all our cultures together. It may not be the same being, but the idea is the same. People have known for millenia that there has to be something else beyond what our feeble minds can comprehend. What's so hard to understand about that.

 

[Godless]

Okay here is logic for you. If there is no God why is the no Major civilization that doesn't beleive in gods?

Study anthropology this will give you the answer you seek. Ingnorance of the unknown created the idea of gods. The god did it factor. I can't explain it therefore god did it!. There has been throughout human history hundreds of gods which explains the evolutionary steps to self realization. God's take an anthropormophic atributes ascribed by humans to something they have no evidence for. Furthermore this fallacious argument of the many believing in fary tale don't make them right. The earth was found not to be flat as the many believed, and not the center of the universe as so many believed as well. thus the many dont make it so.

Nuf logic for ya?

Classic Strawman, people waged wars, they may have used a perverted view on religious beliefs, but it was still people.

Correct advocates of a non-existent entity to manipulate the masses to commit atrocities. This is not strawman but fact!. Read your history.

Talk about pervertion, read your own freaking bible as well. Start here

Religion has also given us comfort in times of great upheaval and peril.

False hopes.

Religion makes the common people better.

Go to your county jail, and ask how many there believe in god!

Belief in a supreme being is a common thread that ties all our cultures together.

Nonsese our cultures are at each other's throat there's no commonality in their beliefs and the zealots actually murder, promote wars, and even rape children. Catholic preasts. What a shame you still believe in this rhetorical bull shit!.

People have known for millenia that there has to be something else beyond what our feeble minds can comprehend.

The only one here to have shown a feeble mind is YOU! :bugeye:

Godless

 

[Jenyar]

Study anthropology this will give you the answer you seek. Ingnorance of the unknown created the idea of gods. The god did it factor. I can't explain it therefore god did it! There has been throughout human history hundreds of gods which explains the evolutionary steps to self realization. God's take an anthropormophic atributes ascribed by humans to something they have no evidence for. Furthermore this fallacious argument of the many believing in fary tale don't make them right. The earth was found not to be flat as the many believed, and not the center of the universe as so many believed as well. thus the many dont make it so.

Nuf logic for ya?

And modern man just happens to be "enlightened"? If all cultures developed gods to explain away what they couldn't, how do you explain human progress? Or do you think it's only unbelievers who enquired further?

Here's a theory I did find in anthropology. Civilizations that believed in an intelligent Creator could imagine an ordered universe - one that made sense even though the sense wasn't immediately apparent - as opposed to a random chaotic universe that operates on chance. That prompted them to look for the underlying sense and structure, to find out what God did and try to understand discrepancies like suffering and death. Cultures whose gods resembled nature and refelcted every human quality (i.e. only the immediately apparent) could not fathom that there would be more than there seemed to be, and didn't "civilize" correspondingly. These cultures might have developed great skills and craft (the god of wine blessed the good winemaker etc.), but no deep science, no unified theories.

 

[Godless]

Here's a theory I did find in anthropology. Civilizations that believed in an intelligent Creator could imagine an ordered universe

Well this is a rationalization; If you would have searched further you would know that today, we know that our universe is not an ordered existence but a chaotic existence. click

That prompted them to look for the underlying sense and structure, to find out what God did and try to understand discrepancies like suffering and death. Cultures whose gods resembled nature and refelcted every human quality (i.e. only the immediately apparent) could not fathom that there would be more than there seemed to be, and didn't "civilize" correspondingly.

Like Christianity who opposed reason, and history proves us through the "Dark Ages" when church had complete political power, and human advancement became almost at a hult. Read your godamn history! man...

how do you explain human progress

Read and learn

Dark Ages

Glad to be of service read a little will ya.

Godless