Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
All I can say to this is, our logic is our own and not some omnipotent being's. We have our own words, they are useless and meaningless in terms of discussing things on a different level than us. A triangle equalls 180 degrees. 180 is a number created by humans, a triangle equals 180 degrees, but no one but humans say so. Can god make a stone that he himself cannot lift, The answer is (based on christian belief yes) can he lift the unliftable stone(yes but why because he is omnipotent, but if he is omnipotent how come he didnt create a stone that he could not lift, because the word we use as omnipotent is only described in our human terms) Omnipotent is our word not some imense being's. That is confusing but thats why this is a conundrum . And yes I am aware I rambled on for a paragraph but I tried my best to make it meaningful rambling
the word "unliftable" doesn't apply.
That is a problem with you if you try to apply an incorrect term to God.
You could just as easily say-
the answer to question A is both yes and no
therefore God can't know whether the answer to the question is yes or no
therefore God can't be omniscient
therefore God can't exist
You should be able to see the error in the above chain of statements (it happens in statement #2 when a HUMAN incorrectly assumes the answer must be yes or no).
The same problem applies when a statement about paradox is used as a statement about God's omnipotence.
Can God create a rock that he can't lift is not a yes or no question, just as the answer to question A is not.
That is a problem with you if you try to apply an incorrect term to God.
You could just as easily say-
the answer to question A is both yes and no
therefore God can't know whether the answer to the question is yes or no
therefore God can't be omniscient
therefore God can't exist
You should be able to see the error in the above chain of statements (it happens in statement #2 when a HUMAN incorrectly assumes the answer must be yes or no).
The same problem applies when a statement about paradox is used as a statement about God's omnipotence.
Can God create a rock that he can't lift is not a yes or no question, just as the answer to question A is not.
Not only the word "unliftable" but the whole concept is erroneous to use.
Clik on the ling for those atheist who still use this concept, to try disprove a negative.
Godless
Quick Word: Atheists should not ask the heavy rock question about a god or God
Clik on the ling for those atheist who still use this concept, to try disprove a negative.
Godless
nice link !
I'm not saying that God is necessarily outside logic, but our logic has not reached the level of development to which it can be completely trusted to accurately describe all possible reality.
I'll give you that it is the best we have, which is why I believe our responsibility to understand only extends to where our abilities to understand reach their limit.
p.s. thank all of you who are posting (or have posted) in this thread for making me think more about this.
I'll give you that it is the best we have, which is why I believe our responsibility to understand only extends to where our abilities to understand reach their limit.
p.s. thank all of you who are posting (or have posted) in this thread for making me think more about this.
Ummm...It seems like an illusion to me.
Like the logic of this image:
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/CCCCP/moving.gif
Mirror is the best way to defeat your outside logic god.
Like the logic of this image:
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/CCCCP/moving.gif
Mirror is the best way to defeat your outside logic god.
That illusion and these types of questions are the same - you can focus on a certain limited area, like the second smallest circle which touches the small one on the top left, or the black dots, and by this self-limiting, force the movement to stop.
If you focus on a certain limited, defined level of knowledge, you can pretend that ALL of our knowledge and experience fits into a logical framework, but it really doesn't.
The objectivist and the religious fundamentalist share this fault - they have it all figured out.
If you focus on a certain limited, defined level of knowledge, you can pretend that ALL of our knowledge and experience fits into a logical framework, but it really doesn't.
The objectivist and the religious fundamentalist share this fault - they have it all figured out.
wilofthewisp
Registered Member
If I would be a Christian, I'd probably answer the argument as follows: It only means that God in his glory exists outside the boundaries of space and time, and his mind works in a way you couldn't possibly even begin to comprehend. His being compasses all that ever was or will be, spanning time from beginning to end simultaneously. Blah blah blah.
Do you like being offensive to Christian who do look at this board? You may already assume I'm uneducated because I am a strong believer in an omniscient God who allows for free will, but if you need earthly credentials, I have studied philosophy and there are several philosophers who have also solved this "problem," namely Immanuel Kant.
Humans have free will. There can be no arguement in that capacity, so what we are essentially arguing is whether or not God is omniscient, having unlimited knowledge. Since all of you have chosen to put your trust into faulty humans rather than God, humor me and go along with the fact that there is a God for my arguement.
God chooses for us to make our own decisions, just as God allows certain things to happen, seeing ahead as to the effects. I ask this, does knowing what will happen mean that one has orchestrated it? God hears our thoughts, rather you like that or not, and knows what decisions we will make because of how well he knows us, rather than seeing into a crystal ball. Let's say you knew the password to an important computer file. Someone else tries to open the file, and you know that unless they put in the password, they will not access it. It turns out, they cannot access the file, just as you knew they wouldn't since you knew they did not know the password. Does that mean that you willed them to not open it, or somehow interfered with their will to open it?
It's interesting that all of you claim to want logic and reason in your lives, but most of you resort to name-calling and tasteless jokes to "prove" a point, and that disappoints me, someone who tries to look at everything with logic and reason. Lastly, of all that has happened to you, did you choose every last bit of it? Weren't there things that happened that you felt you just fell into, or were just too lucky? Free will does not always play a part in our lives, and if you need earthly evidence once again, read Reeve's "Understanding Motivation and Emotion" or better yet, research Watson and Pavlov.
Do you like being offensive to Christian who do look at this board? You may already assume I'm uneducated because I am a strong believer in an omniscient God who allows for free will, but if you need earthly credentials, I have studied philosophy and there are several philosophers who have also solved this "problem," namely Immanuel Kant.
Humans have free will. There can be no arguement in that capacity, so what we are essentially arguing is whether or not God is omniscient, having unlimited knowledge. Since all of you have chosen to put your trust into faulty humans rather than God, humor me and go along with the fact that there is a God for my arguement.
God chooses for us to make our own decisions, just as God allows certain things to happen, seeing ahead as to the effects. I ask this, does knowing what will happen mean that one has orchestrated it? God hears our thoughts, rather you like that or not, and knows what decisions we will make because of how well he knows us, rather than seeing into a crystal ball. Let's say you knew the password to an important computer file. Someone else tries to open the file, and you know that unless they put in the password, they will not access it. It turns out, they cannot access the file, just as you knew they wouldn't since you knew they did not know the password. Does that mean that you willed them to not open it, or somehow interfered with their will to open it?
It's interesting that all of you claim to want logic and reason in your lives, but most of you resort to name-calling and tasteless jokes to "prove" a point, and that disappoints me, someone who tries to look at everything with logic and reason. Lastly, of all that has happened to you, did you choose every last bit of it? Weren't there things that happened that you felt you just fell into, or were just too lucky? Free will does not always play a part in our lives, and if you need earthly evidence once again, read Reeve's "Understanding Motivation and Emotion" or better yet, research Watson and Pavlov.
Some, not all, make themselves easy target. It only depends how stupid some get, and well some are not stupid at all.
A good aponent never assumes, though many have warped ideas, specially Immanuel Kant. He has solved nothing, the nemesis of Ayn Rand, and she tore him a new asshole in philosophical ideas, and clearly showed the erroneous ways of his philosophy. But tell me something, because you studied philosophy, do you think this makes you omniscient? One is not above another, however there is a proper way to live, and a misquided way to see reality.
Quotes Rand:
*(Kant's argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them. (33).)
The “phenomenal” world, said Kant [this is not a direct quotation from Kant], is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty: man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled “categories” and “forms of perception”) which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant [this is not a direct quotation], that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are “limited,” said Kant [this, again, is not a direct quotation from Kant]; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion . . . but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the “noumenal” world . . . [which] is unknowable; [but] it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”—which means things as they are not perceived by man. (32)
More here
Kant's mistakes.
The above is not from Ayn Rand.
Though, I do sherish the works of the mad-man Immanuel Kant, for truly without his philosophy, we would have no concept of evil, false logic, and able to identify misquided notions.
And I quote: Neo-Tech
click
An entity who's existence is questionable, makes no decisions. Does not allow for nothing, and can't see anything. First premise. is proof of such an entiy in order to assume, that it has an "identity, that it has to abide by the laws of physics, and that it has a will and a purpose" NONE of those traits have been shown to exist by any theist, throughout all the ages.
Godless
Hello to everyone. I am new to this sciforums, but this discussion always interests me, so here I am.
Cris is right. Logic dictates that an all-knowing infinite God can not exist, because otherwise we do not have free will.
Tven if God does not exist, if the universe is deterministic, we still have no free will, because the path of each particle has been set up from the beginning of the universe.
The very nature of our existence is also illogical. Normally, we shouldn't exist...nothing should actually exist. That the universe exists is an unexplainable thing, just like God.
Christians do not bother using logic because the use of logic may shake their foundations. This discussion is 36 pages long, most of it filled with absolutely meaningless, illogical but highly emotional talk. I am not offending Christians, because I respect each man's opinions, but at the same time, I can not look the other way when illogical things are said.
No one can say that "we do not know the ways of God" and "God is omniscient" at the same time. It is a contradiction in terms. How do they know what God is, if we do not know what God is?
If God is eternal, then concepts like 'creation', 'before' and 'after' have no meaning for God. These concepts imply the existence of a space-time continuum. And if God is inside some form of spacetime, then God is not infinite, since the spacetime God exists in is greater than God. The action of God deciding to make this universe implies a previous state were God had not decided to make this universe. But the concept of 'before' and 'after' in the godly space-time continuum is illogical, as I have shown above, even if God is the space-time continuum itself.
And assuming for a moment that the above is incorrect, why God chose to create people at time X and not at time X-1? and since God is eternal, what is the actual significance of the universe existing for some billion years, when this time period is infinitely small compared to God's duration?
There is also the problem of God interacting with this universe. If God can interact with this universe, then some part of God consists of particles that are of the same type as the ones of the universe. If God does not have at least one such particle, then it would be impossible for God to affect this universe. Since we know that the amount of matter/energy is constant in the universe, it means that God's particles are always part of this universe...so If God is outside of the universe, then God is outside of his particles, and he has no way to use those particles. Therefore God can not interact with this universe, which is a contradiction.
Then we have the problem of having people that never got to know Christianity; people that lived before Jesus in far away lands. According to the Christian dogma, all the people that ever lived are going to be judged on 2nd coming. But how are the ancient people that never got to know Christianity going to be judged? we have actually double standards here.
Then we also have the problem of people dying early in their lives (babies, children etc). These people never got to live a complete life, and never faced with challenges like the ones grownups do. How are these people going to be judged on 2nd coming? again, here we have double standards.
And then we have the problem of the average human lifetime being too small to be a serious criterion for entrance into heaven. Think about it a little: we live 80 years on average, and then we are going to be judged for that, for eternity. Not only we do not get a second chance, but the duration of our lifes is too small to be used as a criterion for living eternally in heaven or in hell.
And finally we have the problem of anthopocentrism. It seems that there is quite a big amount of entities above humans: saints, angels, archangels, prophets, Mary, Jesus and God. And angels are organized, according to scriptures, like an army: there are generals, commanders, lieutenants, ensigns, petit officers and soldiers. But why all these spirits exist? what is there purpose, beyond playing with humans? it seems that all these things exist in order to play with man. We are at the center of their interests. Don't they have anything else to do?
I do not expect a logical answer from a Christian...they simply do not want to use their brain, due to their emotions. Most probably they fear that their lifes will be empty and meaningless without God. It is not that they do not know how to apply logic, because they do in most parts of their lives. But in this area, they are blinded.
Of course similar logic to the above can be applied for all religions, not only Christianity.
Cris is right. Logic dictates that an all-knowing infinite God can not exist, because otherwise we do not have free will.
Tven if God does not exist, if the universe is deterministic, we still have no free will, because the path of each particle has been set up from the beginning of the universe.
The very nature of our existence is also illogical. Normally, we shouldn't exist...nothing should actually exist. That the universe exists is an unexplainable thing, just like God.
Christians do not bother using logic because the use of logic may shake their foundations. This discussion is 36 pages long, most of it filled with absolutely meaningless, illogical but highly emotional talk. I am not offending Christians, because I respect each man's opinions, but at the same time, I can not look the other way when illogical things are said.
No one can say that "we do not know the ways of God" and "God is omniscient" at the same time. It is a contradiction in terms. How do they know what God is, if we do not know what God is?
If God is eternal, then concepts like 'creation', 'before' and 'after' have no meaning for God. These concepts imply the existence of a space-time continuum. And if God is inside some form of spacetime, then God is not infinite, since the spacetime God exists in is greater than God. The action of God deciding to make this universe implies a previous state were God had not decided to make this universe. But the concept of 'before' and 'after' in the godly space-time continuum is illogical, as I have shown above, even if God is the space-time continuum itself.
And assuming for a moment that the above is incorrect, why God chose to create people at time X and not at time X-1? and since God is eternal, what is the actual significance of the universe existing for some billion years, when this time period is infinitely small compared to God's duration?
There is also the problem of God interacting with this universe. If God can interact with this universe, then some part of God consists of particles that are of the same type as the ones of the universe. If God does not have at least one such particle, then it would be impossible for God to affect this universe. Since we know that the amount of matter/energy is constant in the universe, it means that God's particles are always part of this universe...so If God is outside of the universe, then God is outside of his particles, and he has no way to use those particles. Therefore God can not interact with this universe, which is a contradiction.
Then we have the problem of having people that never got to know Christianity; people that lived before Jesus in far away lands. According to the Christian dogma, all the people that ever lived are going to be judged on 2nd coming. But how are the ancient people that never got to know Christianity going to be judged? we have actually double standards here.
Then we also have the problem of people dying early in their lives (babies, children etc). These people never got to live a complete life, and never faced with challenges like the ones grownups do. How are these people going to be judged on 2nd coming? again, here we have double standards.
And then we have the problem of the average human lifetime being too small to be a serious criterion for entrance into heaven. Think about it a little: we live 80 years on average, and then we are going to be judged for that, for eternity. Not only we do not get a second chance, but the duration of our lifes is too small to be used as a criterion for living eternally in heaven or in hell.
And finally we have the problem of anthopocentrism. It seems that there is quite a big amount of entities above humans: saints, angels, archangels, prophets, Mary, Jesus and God. And angels are organized, according to scriptures, like an army: there are generals, commanders, lieutenants, ensigns, petit officers and soldiers. But why all these spirits exist? what is there purpose, beyond playing with humans? it seems that all these things exist in order to play with man. We are at the center of their interests. Don't they have anything else to do?
I do not expect a logical answer from a Christian...they simply do not want to use their brain, due to their emotions. Most probably they fear that their lifes will be empty and meaningless without God. It is not that they do not know how to apply logic, because they do in most parts of their lives. But in this area, they are blinded.
Of course similar logic to the above can be applied for all religions, not only Christianity.
Intelligent post axilmar.
axilmar said:
*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums! You wrote a very thoughtful post. I hope the religionists will read it. Unfortunately, they will not understand or agree with it, but who cares? I hope you continue to find this forum interesting and will continue to be a member.
~ Medicine*Woman
AXILMAR,
Humans describe God the best they can with their language, perceptions, and finite understanding.
You say the universe is illogical, if this is true, you are correct in saying you can't turn aside when you see things that aren't logical, because illogical things surround us like an atmosphere.
The description of God as illogical depends on maintaining that our level of understanding, as humans, is the only level that exists, and if we can't understand it, it can't exist. This is quite comforting to believe, but it is patently untrue, and proven so by the way our logic and knowledge has changed over the millenia of human existence.
Also, 1/2 of your post is attacking beliefs that many christians don't hold. Can we all get past that soon?
Also, your idea that energy and particles must be of the same type as another energy or particle to affect it seems faulty. Destroy half of the moon with atomic energy and see if the gravitational effect on the earth remains constant. Perhaps God's energy exists in the universe without affecting it in ways we can detect. What is God's energy? Who knows? By agreeing with cris, you join the group of people, who I consider fundamentalists - those who have decided that their perceptions are the only possibility for reality - an idea which i find completely illogical.
Humans describe God the best they can with their language, perceptions, and finite understanding.
You say the universe is illogical, if this is true, you are correct in saying you can't turn aside when you see things that aren't logical, because illogical things surround us like an atmosphere.
The description of God as illogical depends on maintaining that our level of understanding, as humans, is the only level that exists, and if we can't understand it, it can't exist. This is quite comforting to believe, but it is patently untrue, and proven so by the way our logic and knowledge has changed over the millenia of human existence.
Also, 1/2 of your post is attacking beliefs that many christians don't hold. Can we all get past that soon?
Also, your idea that energy and particles must be of the same type as another energy or particle to affect it seems faulty. Destroy half of the moon with atomic energy and see if the gravitational effect on the earth remains constant. Perhaps God's energy exists in the universe without affecting it in ways we can detect. What is God's energy? Who knows? By agreeing with cris, you join the group of people, who I consider fundamentalists - those who have decided that their perceptions are the only possibility for reality - an idea which i find completely illogical.
axilmar said:
Everyone has heard of "Christ", even though they may not call it with the same name. Christ is, like he says, life itself. "I am life, truth and the way." But people don't understand what he was talking about...
In their next life.
Their purpose is the same as ours. The purpose is to become "God" -- to become what we are in reality.
cole grey said:
Love.
axilmar, have you read every one of those 36 pages in full? If so you either didn't understand it, disregarded it, or forgot to include it in your list of Christian arguments. I'm guessing you simply didn't read this whole thread. That's fine, I didn't either. Let's get one thing straight though. You say you don't offend Christians. Well guess what, you've just offended me by stereotyping me as an illogical unthinker for the mere fact that I'm religious.
I'm glad you value intelligence and reason so highly, I do too. In fact, I would have thought I made that clear by now here at sciforums. I thank Godless for the times he's recognized it, but I'm a bit mad that he said nothing in the defense those who are religious and intelligent. Likewise to all of the subsequent posters that did the same.
Particularly M*W, who says she was once Catholic, but clearly ignores the fact that Catholocism holds doctrines like "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason), which upholds reason and logic as a foundation of thought. I abhore public Christian schools, but private ones are good. The one I attended taught both morality and ethics, ethics being the foundation of good action based on reason, not attached to any religion. I was taught the classic classes, not taught within the religious context, mathematics, history, physics, chemistry was offered but I didn't take it (for which I'm now kicking myself), languages (Latin, Greek and Polish), English Lit and Grammar, plus a range of electives, none of which pertained to religion. Intelligent Design was a subject presented in Philosophy, not science. Biblical studies included both the history and geography of Palestine. Areas of contention, including archaeological ones, were given mention (as far as the knowledge of the different professors extended), both sides. I admit bias at times, but that is to be expected with any debated issue, I would expect the opposite bias from an atheist professor (and have experienced this as true during my studies in university).
The kicker is that the school I attended was operated by and the classes taught by Fraciscan friars. Already I can hear the minds of many scimembers who are reading this shouting "child molestation." I can tell you with full certainty that such a suggestion would be utterly false. Matter of factly, the only hint of that kind of behaviour that I was aware of came from a man who was not a friar, but a diocesan priest who came to teach English Literature, a man very much disliked by most of the faculty, staff and students of that school, as he eventually had the school shut down (for reasons that weren't entirely clear to us students). I can tell you, as having spent a good deal of time under his guidance in literature, that he is the kind of man that people like M*W hate. He was devious, a liar, and very much disagreed with the way the friars ran the school and the content of their lectures. The friars, however, had good standing with Catholic officials in Rome, I can attest to this via personal experience.
The point is, we're not all blundering idiots. One friar, who taught me mathematics and some small amount of computer programming, had priorly been a computer hacker and a police officer, in that order. Leaving the issue of the morality of computer hacking aside, it takes quite a bit of logic to understand and make use of the inner workings of a computer in new and creative ways. He taught Advanced Algebra and Physics quite intelligently.
A great deal of us use our intelligence quite willingly and happily. Catholocism, and others, argue that reason is part of the beauty of the human being. God created humans with intelligent brains, it would be a slap in the face to God to ignore that.
*sigh*, I really hate stereotyping. I for one try to deal with everyone I meet on an individual basis.
I'm glad you value intelligence and reason so highly, I do too. In fact, I would have thought I made that clear by now here at sciforums. I thank Godless for the times he's recognized it, but I'm a bit mad that he said nothing in the defense those who are religious and intelligent. Likewise to all of the subsequent posters that did the same.
Particularly M*W, who says she was once Catholic, but clearly ignores the fact that Catholocism holds doctrines like "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason), which upholds reason and logic as a foundation of thought. I abhore public Christian schools, but private ones are good. The one I attended taught both morality and ethics, ethics being the foundation of good action based on reason, not attached to any religion. I was taught the classic classes, not taught within the religious context, mathematics, history, physics, chemistry was offered but I didn't take it (for which I'm now kicking myself), languages (Latin, Greek and Polish), English Lit and Grammar, plus a range of electives, none of which pertained to religion. Intelligent Design was a subject presented in Philosophy, not science. Biblical studies included both the history and geography of Palestine. Areas of contention, including archaeological ones, were given mention (as far as the knowledge of the different professors extended), both sides. I admit bias at times, but that is to be expected with any debated issue, I would expect the opposite bias from an atheist professor (and have experienced this as true during my studies in university).
The kicker is that the school I attended was operated by and the classes taught by Fraciscan friars. Already I can hear the minds of many scimembers who are reading this shouting "child molestation." I can tell you with full certainty that such a suggestion would be utterly false. Matter of factly, the only hint of that kind of behaviour that I was aware of came from a man who was not a friar, but a diocesan priest who came to teach English Literature, a man very much disliked by most of the faculty, staff and students of that school, as he eventually had the school shut down (for reasons that weren't entirely clear to us students). I can tell you, as having spent a good deal of time under his guidance in literature, that he is the kind of man that people like M*W hate. He was devious, a liar, and very much disagreed with the way the friars ran the school and the content of their lectures. The friars, however, had good standing with Catholic officials in Rome, I can attest to this via personal experience.
The point is, we're not all blundering idiots. One friar, who taught me mathematics and some small amount of computer programming, had priorly been a computer hacker and a police officer, in that order. Leaving the issue of the morality of computer hacking aside, it takes quite a bit of logic to understand and make use of the inner workings of a computer in new and creative ways. He taught Advanced Algebra and Physics quite intelligently.
A great deal of us use our intelligence quite willingly and happily. Catholocism, and others, argue that reason is part of the beauty of the human being. God created humans with intelligent brains, it would be a slap in the face to God to ignore that.
*sigh*, I really hate stereotyping. I for one try to deal with everyone I meet on an individual basis.
Cole:
God is a word with no meaning. Thus the word, and the entity that theists believe in is undiscribable, an entity void of identity, void of human conception, and unknowable. No emperical proof of such an entity exists, and the whole concept of belief in this entity is based on faith. The assumption that others before you believed in this entity and wrote about it 2.1/2 milliniums years ago, does not make it fact that this entity exists.
And since we have had it easy, without church power, to render free choice, and ideas to flurish, other than to eradicate and vilify non-believers by force, is the cause of our epistemological progress, otherwise if theistic belief was the law of the land, we still be in the midle ages. Proven by history itself.
The ocean tides would be smaller, that's about it. The Earth's gravitational pull would not be effected whatsoever, it is the earth that's holding the moon were it is at. BTW there is another moon that orbits the earth. click
Atheists are not fundamentalist, we don't adhire to any kind of dogma, in the scriptures, or in reality, we question, we seek, we don't accept by ancient authority the scriptures writen by nomads, and uncivilized degenerates such as the islamists. We question every new scientific discovery, we test hypothesis, some of us have even come to the conclusion that there's no absolute truth. But there is a number of secularist fundamentalists though they don't have the bad rap as religious fundamentalists. Who think have all the answers, but we are not to question them, we are only to accept on their say so, and authority. What is illogical however is to accept without proof, or evidence, in entities that one does not perceive. i.e gods, ghosts, leprechans, devils, unicorns, soul.
C7:
Which one? click
It's called death for a reason! There's no life after death, this is only wishfull thinking, which orinated from ancient Egypt of which the slaves HmmHebrews adopted as their own..
Excuse me? Is this not the reason why Lucifer was kicked out of heaven supposedly?
Godless
God is a word with no meaning. Thus the word, and the entity that theists believe in is undiscribable, an entity void of identity, void of human conception, and unknowable. No emperical proof of such an entity exists, and the whole concept of belief in this entity is based on faith. The assumption that others before you believed in this entity and wrote about it 2.1/2 milliniums years ago, does not make it fact that this entity exists.
And since we have had it easy, without church power, to render free choice, and ideas to flurish, other than to eradicate and vilify non-believers by force, is the cause of our epistemological progress, otherwise if theistic belief was the law of the land, we still be in the midle ages. Proven by history itself.
The ocean tides would be smaller, that's about it. The Earth's gravitational pull would not be effected whatsoever, it is the earth that's holding the moon were it is at. BTW there is another moon that orbits the earth. click
Atheists are not fundamentalist, we don't adhire to any kind of dogma, in the scriptures, or in reality, we question, we seek, we don't accept by ancient authority the scriptures writen by nomads, and uncivilized degenerates such as the islamists. We question every new scientific discovery, we test hypothesis, some of us have even come to the conclusion that there's no absolute truth. But there is a number of secularist fundamentalists though they don't have the bad rap as religious fundamentalists. Who think have all the answers, but we are not to question them, we are only to accept on their say so, and authority. What is illogical however is to accept without proof, or evidence, in entities that one does not perceive. i.e gods, ghosts, leprechans, devils, unicorns, soul.
C7:
Which one? click
It's called death for a reason! There's no life after death, this is only wishfull thinking, which orinated from ancient Egypt of which the slaves HmmHebrews adopted as their own..
Excuse me? Is this not the reason why Lucifer was kicked out of heaven supposedly?
Godless
The word has no meaning to you. That is ok. There is a lot of meaning in the word though - it has resonance in the minds of many, many people, therefore it has meaning. It has different meanings to different people, just like the word "love", among many other words which are similarly ambiguous. That does not make it meaningless. Also, having the limits of a concept not clearly defined does not make a concept meaningless.Godless said:
Please retract the above.
The limits are unknown now, that is all we can be sure of. The same can be said for our various scientific descriptions of our physical reality.Godless said:
That is why religious people shouldn't be so judgemental. I'm glad you agree with me on these points.godless said:
You missed my point. My point was that our ideas have changed throughout history, and are therefore proven to be reliable only up to a point. Yes, neither of us would like to have any of the various, very human centered, churches dominating the earth today.Godless said:
You missed my point. I could have said blow up half the earth and watch the moon fly into the sun, or whatever. My point was that there would be an effect, one type of force changing the strength of another type of force, in a way which we can see. Perhaps there are other types of transfers going on that we can't detect yet.godless said:
I didn't say all athiests are fundies, only those you desribe above who think they have all the answers on the subject. You say God is a meaningless term, and the possibility doesn't exist for God to be real, you are saying that you know, and negate the subject entirely - you are enlisting in that camp by yourself, I am not forcing you into it.Godless said:
We are free to believe or not believe. Certain things can be accepted as evidence of how spiritual matters work, or not accepted. There is no proof. There is no proof of a lot of stuff in life, get used to it.Godless said: