Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

Godless:
I don't believe for a minute, that you were a hard core atheist, perhaps a mostly confused theist, who denied for a bit the theological rhetoric.

Believe me, I was. I asked the same questions as you guys and made the same arguments. I didn't believe in God at all and done pretty much what I wanted. I didn't know who God was is why I didn't believe. I was believing that I didn't believe. I wasn't convinced inside because the bible just didn't make sense historically and scientifically in ways but yet, I found Jesus's views very logical. I thought there was something to it that I just didn't have and didn't belong to be a christian. Then I thought it was basically THE religion before I also discovered in my search for God that all of us, Jews, Christians, Muslims are more than likely following the same God. So I felt I was just a child of science, that what I experience, I will believe, that was my only avenue of making sense of anything, and still is. I love it, it is so concrete and there, in the here and now, no falsehood to it. It is the 'in your face' truth, so to speak. It is the avenue to finding out the truth in object interaction. And religion to me is the avenue to finding out the truth in human interaction, how we should treat each other. And is no coincidence, both merge on logic, or the way everyone as a whole sees it. Scientific experiments can't be proven by one study or experiment by one person, it takes many to be subjective. Just as morality is what is appeared just by many people and has been theorized and tested. As I stated in a previous thread, morality is for the good of all, not the individual.
 
"Santa loves me because I am a good boy. Mummy says Santa is always watching, and if I'm a good boy Santa will bring me a bicycle and a XBOX 360 for Christmas."


What about morality for the sake of morality, for the good of your own conscience and for other people, not for some nice little reward at the end of your life?
 
Same as in life. We don't have to be nice to each other if we want. But if we are, we feel better, the person that we could've been mean to feels better, for instance, if I would've replied like a smart mouth, it probably wouldn't make you feel good. The good feeling of doing good is an extra incentive and we surely don't feel like doing good or doing right all the time. Even if we do do good. And if we do good and don't feel like it, for instance, helping someone out for whom eventually keeps taking advantage of your good offerings and won't help himself. Not everything in life will be paid back to you if you have sacrificed a lot so that is the reason for reward in the next life. If you're a kind person and keep helping others all the time and being selfless, then it can take a toll. Doing good is not always fun or advantageous to the body's health. Good deeds involving hard work can take their toll on the body and mental or problem solving can tire you out or stress you out mentally. Suppose a commoner is serving a lazy king and have done many good things for him and served him well. It has taken a toll on the commoners body over the years and he is still sitting in his throne, his body still preserved well and healthy from not being used much. He has many riches but gives very little to the commoner, less than he deserves. When the commoner dies, his king may owe him a debt and as so, the commoner will be rewarded in his afterlife to justify what he has lost in his earthly life and what he has given.
 
Last edited:
usp8riot said:
Not everything in life will be paid back to you if you have sacrificed a lot so that is the reason for reward in the next life.

I think that is the reason you'd LIKE there to be reward in the next life.
I mean look what they did to Jesus! Probably one of the nicest guys ever.

But if there is no reward in the next life, doesn't that make the act so much kinder? So much more generous and wonderful? To help others knowing that you may never be repaid? :)
 
But if there is no reward in the next life, doesn't that make the act so much kinder? So much more generous and wonderful? To help others knowing that you may never be repaid?

Yes, and I'm sure if God were to ask if you wanted a reward for your good doings and you chose to offer your reward to someone who you feel should be blessed with it that didn't have as much reward coming in heaven, such as a family member, then I'm sure he would oblige. And maybe give you still twice the reward you deserve by wanting to bless another's soul with your reward. I am sure you will recieve a reward of some kind, whether He has an immaterial award or it is just blessings to you, you will be paid back. God is just and won't let any good deed go unrewarded. I think once you got to heaven, you would probably be so awed to see God, you would probably think it an insult not to take your reward from Him like your grandma offering you a piece of her homemade blueberry pie she so lovingly made and longingly waited to offer to you. But who knows what the reward would be. If you done good, it may be servants who a debt on earth serving you so as to pay them off. I don't know what heaven is like, so I can't really speak of it but I will say God is just.
 
Thanks for the link Godless,

Ethical systems are based on the worth humans have assigned to life: "good" is that which enhances life, and "evil" is that which threatens it. We do not need a deity to tell us it is wrong to kill, lie or steal. Humans have always had the potential to use their minds to determine what is kind and reasonable.

There is no "universal moral urge" and not all ethical systems agree. Polygamy, human sacrifice, cannibalism (Eucharist), wife beating, self mutilation, war, circumcision, castration and incest are perfectly "moral" actions in certain cultures. Is god confused?

To call god a "nonphysical being" is contradictory. A being must exist as some form of mass in space and time. Values reside within physical brains, so if morality points to "god," then we are it: the god concept is just a projection of human ideals.

Link

American laws are based on a secular constitution, not the bible. Any scriptures that might support a good law do so only because they have met the test of human values, which long predate the ineffective Ten Commandments.

There is no evidence that theists are more moral than atheists. In fact, the contrary seems to be true, as evidenced by centuries of religious violence. Most atheists are happy, productive, moral people.

Even if this argument is true, it is of little practical value. Devout, bible-believing Christians cannot agree on what the scriptures say about many crucial moral issues. Believers regularly take opposing positions on such matters as capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, birth control, physician-assisted suicide, animal rights, the environment, the separation of church and state, gay rights, and women's rights. It might be concluded from this that there is either a multiplicity of gods handing out conflicting moral advice, or a single god who is hopelessly confused.
 
Last edited:
To call god a "nonphysical being" is contradictory

Of course, I agree. God is physical. Or pertains to the the laws of physics, albeit, ones we also don't know of.

There is no "universal moral urge" and not all ethical systems agree. Polygamy, human sacrifice, cannibalism (Eucharist), wife beating, self mutilation, war, circumcision, castration and incest are perfectly "moral" actions in certain cultures. Is god confused?

God confused? Who is doing these things, aren't humans?

Most atheists are happy, productive, moral people.

Happy, so they're content in all the hate we see going on in the world today? Productive, as in making money. Great, if you think earning money is the secret to life. Moral, yes, jails are just filled with God-fearing people aren't they?

Even if this argument is true, it is of little practical value. Devout, bible-believing Christians cannot agree on what the scriptures say about many crucial moral issues. Believers regularly take opposing positions on such matters as capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, birth control, physician-assisted suicide, animal rights, the environment, the separation of church and state, gay rights, and women's rights. It might be concluded from this that there is either a multiplicity of gods handing out conflicting moral advice, or a single god who is hopelessly confused.

That is a sub-society confused, not God. Generally, anything which does more harm than good is wrong.
 
The truth on the correct way to live. Our existance is to do God's will, that is the purpose.

Oh! really?

The purpose of Mohammed's god "allah" was to seduce a nine year girl take her as a wife, and kill everyone who disagrees with his take on Islamic religion & Allah.

The purpose of early Christian church was very much similar, where Christianity was "forced" to the people to convert, or be burned as heretics.

God's purpose it seems throughtout world religions is to have conflict of interest in to what the hell is god's fucking purpose!. :rolleyes:

See what I mean? is that the statement you made is so freaking vaque, that god's purpose seems to be what ever the hell one with political, religious power dictates.

There's no morality out of religion, but exactly the opposite, it's not moral to promise eternal bliss in an after life, when such a fucking thing is not known to exist, it's called a manipulative advantage to those in power to make people believe such bs. This way they can dictate to you exactly what your conduct should be according to their means of what is ethical.

Is it ethical to manipulate by deceit? Is it ethical to live of fear, because they dictate that one ends up in a hell, because on does not believe their rhetoric? Is it ethical that they tell ya to "love" this invisible entity out of fear, and that if you dont you will burn for eternity? Common' dood. See that's why I claim that you were just a confused theist, who really never put much thought into the atheistic argument. It's not moral to live by deceit, manipulation, and cohersive agression of eternal damnation after death. Now is it?

Godless
 
God is physical

I think Uncle made a mistake and meant to say:

To call god a "physical being" is contradictory. A being must exist as some form of mass in space and time.

Basically with the debates that BeyonTime&Space and I have had through WindowsMensenger "a good friend btw" It's that god is not a physical being, but a spirit. BT&S is a devout Catholic, smart guy and a good debating partner, we both respect one another in our opinions, and often chat on WM. I think he just got bored with sciforums and hasn't visited in while.

But god is not physical, otherwise it be dead by now :D

Godless
 
More importantly, (IMO)...

The term "physical" applies to that which lies within space-time as material.

If "god" created space-time, then "god" exists indepently of space-time and thus doesn't require space-time to exist. If it doesn't require space-time to exist, it doesn't require an attribute like "physical" to exist.

Therefore, god is not physical. I think issues such as this necessitated the term "metaphysical", no?


Further, I think it's basically impossible for something of space-time to remotely relate to something that is independent of space-time. As such, our lack of familiarity renders all argument moot because comprehension is impossible unless we can relate to the object of it.

This renders any attempt to discuss such an entity pure speculation.

But if you are faithful you shouldn't care. If you care about proof, you're not faithful.
 
Sometimes it saddens me to think that if all we atheists put our heads together and stopped arguing with "believers" - we could pool our time, logic, and energy, and find a cure for cancer.

I mean, out of a world with 6.5 billion people, there has to be a good few hundred million of us right?
 
really? sweet!

well I was thinking, when the children of "believers" get cancer, they could come to the doctor/hospital (as they always do), expecting the heathens/infidels to cure their children, and they could make them sign a form renouncing their faith and admitting its bullshit, before commencing treatment.

Would that be fun?

"I hereby accept science as the most likely method to finding the truth and healing the sick. I hereby acknowledge that my "god" has failed to prevent my child contracting a terminal illness and has failed to healed him/her, and this is due to my "god" being pretend/a delusional belief/an imaginary friend (please circle one).
I accept that if I sign this form I renounce my faith as bullshit and treatment will commence which offers the best hope for my child's recovery.

"Please tick all of the following boxes:
_ Mary could not have given birth to jesus and still have been a virgin, (unless she received IVF treatment).

_ Muhammed had sex with his 9 year old wife Aisha.

_ Cutting children's genitals is wrong.

_ The planet earth, is round - not flat."

Too harsh?
 
redarmy11 said:
1.1 billion and rising. But would finding a cure for cancer be anywhere near as much fun?

curing diseases is not nearly as profitable as "treating" them. *sigh*

such is the way.
 
Huwy said:
really? sweet!

well I was thinking, when the children of "believers" get cancer, they could come to the doctor/hospital (as they always do), expecting the heathens/infidels to cure their children, and they could make them sign a form renouncing their faith and admitting its bullshit, before commencing treatment.

Would that be fun?

"I hereby accept science as the most likely method to finding the truth and healing the sick. I hereby acknowledge that my "god" has failed to prevent my child contracting a terminal illness and has failed to healed him/her, and this is due to my "god" being pretend/a delusional belief/an imaginary friend (please circle one).
I accept that if I sign this form I renounce my faith as bullshit and treatment will commence which offers the best hope for my child's recovery.

"Please tick all of the following boxes:
_ Mary could not have given birth to jesus and still have been a virgin, (unless she received IVF treatment).

_ Muhammed had sex with his 9 year old wife Aisha.

_ Cutting children's genitals is wrong.

_ The planet earth, is round - not flat."

Too harsh?

LOL! Hilarious. Let's do it today..
 
Godless:
See what I mean? is that the statement you made is so freaking vaque, that god's purpose seems to be what ever the hell one with political, religious power dictates.

Yes, I see your viewpoints, I've been there and understand why and how you think it. I believe nothing involving man is 100% perfect. Even the prophets' messages. Once man receives the message, it is automatically going to be tainted somewhat. When someone speaks out of anger, sadness, excitement, that message can be tainted. Only when the person speaks and is at total peace, totally rested, totally awake, yet totally calm, etc can the message be portrayed more correctly. And with different misinterpretations through the ages, it's sure enough going to lead to misunderstandings. Life isn't as simple as, 'that story is messed up, so there's nothing to it'. Everyone makes mistakes, even children of God.

Godless:
Is it ethical to manipulate by deceit?

Again, do I have to stress it every time, this is my beliefs when we're talking of the things we don't know like the makeup of God. When it comes to morality and such, which is why we have religion and subsequently a religion forum, then I believe the truth can be found by man.

Godless:
Is it ethical to live of fear, because they dictate that one ends up in a hell, because on does not believe their rhetoric?

Let me state first, if you read my other posts, I don't believe God sends anyone to hell for not knowing his rules. You didn't know of Him, therefore you can't be punished for not following His rules. No, I'm not a believer in hellfire preaching. I believe it stirs, or can stir up hate against the church from the more rebellious people as I was. And my view of hell also differs from the typical Christian's. I view hell a lot more lightly than most. Even you among us who debate my viewpoints, I don't see anything wrong with it so how much would my God not see anything wrong with it? You in turn are serving God whether you think it or not. By testing my faith, giving me an opportunity to test it and grow, then you are helping me. You are the test givers. Even evil or antagonistic doings can be turned around and made good. But life of evil and good is not black and white so there's a lot more I could describe about it than that. But even the devil serves God by giving us an opportunity to be tested. He is like the drill sergeant pushing us and testing us to our limits. Even though it seems cruel, the devil helps you grow. He is the tester. But for your average person, that is probably not a healthy view of him, as a good doer by doing evil. He should be stayed away from. Take no more test than you are ready to take or else you will surely fail. And the devil is not a being as I see it, he/it is just merely the things that test you in life and evil is merely the wrong choice in life, the wrong answer to the question.

Godless:
But god is not physical, otherwise it be dead by now

God can't die. But whatever you want to call it, God has rules for Himself just as we do. He is the creator of the laws of physics and even the physics and laws that we don't know, and He abides by them. Just as His creation abides by the laws of physics.

wesmorris:
If "god" created space-time, then "god" exists indepently of space-time and thus doesn't require space-time to exist. If it doesn't require space-time to exist, it doesn't require an attribute like "physical" to exist.

No, not necessarily. We can create something here on earth obviously. And we do not exist independently of it. It can be manipulated by us, commanded by us, etc. God is pretty much the same boat with us. He exists with us. One with us. We are a part of God, and so is the universe. It all makes up part of God, it is His creation. I can see how and why you think that. The way I see it, you're partly right. He is our father, we are from Him, but separate. We are like the 1/2 of His 1. He is like a number in the system, the ultimate number, non-deducable, and we are as a fraction of it. But are part of the same numbering system, so to speak.

wesmorris:
Further, I think it's basically impossible for something of space-time to remotely relate to something that is independent of space-time. As such, our lack of familiarity renders all argument moot because comprehension is impossible unless we can relate to the object of it.

This renders any attempt to discuss such an entity pure speculation.

But if you are faithful you shouldn't care. If you care about proof, you're not faithful.

Yes, of course, we are speculating here on the makeup of God. But yes, I am faithful but I do care because there's people just like I was interested in the makeup of God. If I knew, it would fill my own curiosity and others'. It doesn't matter how faithful you are, you always have curiosity. I have no doubts but always want to drill further into why this and why that, it never ends. Infinite discovery can be the mother of curiosity and temporary satisfaction here on earth to us but it can also drive the mind crazy as mine is/was sometimes. 'Why this, and how does this influence the why, and why is that so?'. Seems to never stop. At the risk of sounding like a lunatic, infinity drives me crazy sometimes. It is neverending, no peace at the end, no feeling of conquering and reaching a goal with the satisfaction of completing it. To see no end to something can drive someone mad. So I am glad we don't live infinitely. We would have to be stupid to put up with that. Just as the problem with pi, we see it as virtually infinite. While a fool would keep on solving the problem and wasting His time, the wise/smart man realizes when to stop and doesn't get sunctioned into the problem, he can see he is just wasting his time on an infinite problem. A wise man looks far ahead before jumping into what he is about to do. And a wise man is also one troubled with curiosity as we here are. The foolish do not wander of these things. They either don't have the capacity to look farther ahead or just don't care. Just as an animal has no ability to see far ahead in it's limited thinking, so don't the less intelligent of us not see as far ahead as the intelligent. But the less intelligent also have a gift of freedom from the constant questions going on in the heads of the intelligent or curious. We are all put here with equal opportunity. One man's so-called gift can be both a blessing and a curse and so can his disability or disadvantage, everyone is equal. I will just stop there. I could rather go on since too little of someone's opinion can be very misunderstood without the full of it but I could write a book if I let myself.

Huwy:
Sometimes it saddens me to think that if all we atheists put our heads together and stopped arguing with "believers" - we could pool our time, logic, and energy, and find a cure for cancer.

So why find a cure for cancer? So you can live longer? Why do you want to live longer? So you can carry out your non-existant entity's beliefs? You're not thinking far enough ahead. So what about when you cure cancer and nothing can kill man, you are immortal, what then? What is the purpose? Where is the end? The goal? That would drive me crazy. What is life without a purpose?
 
wesmorris said:
More importantly, (IMO)...

The term "physical" applies to that which lies within space-time as material.

If "god" created space-time, then "god" exists indepently of space-time and thus doesn't require space-time to exist. If it doesn't require space-time to exist, it doesn't require an attribute like "physical" to exist.

Therefore, god is not physical. I think issues such as this necessitated the term "metaphysical", no?

As a theist, I like your logic and agree WM.

wesmorris said:
Further, I think it's basically impossible for something of space-time to remotely relate to something that is independent of space-time. As such, our lack of familiarity renders all argument moot because comprehension is impossible unless we can relate to the object of it.

I agree mostly, except, as Karl Barth pointed out, though we cannot analyse God, there is no reason that God cannot choose to reveal knowledge to us, or be in relation to us.

wesmorris said:
This renders any attempt to discuss such an entity pure speculation.

But if you are faithful you shouldn't care. If you care about proof, you're not faithful.

Nicely put. God is known in relationship through faith - there is no proof. You may have done the seemingly impossible by having both theists and atheists agree with you (at least mostly)!
 
wesmorris said:
Further, I think it's basically impossible for something of space-time to remotely relate to something that is independent of space-time. As such, our lack of familiarity renders all argument moot because comprehension is impossible unless we can relate to the object of it.

This renders any attempt to discuss such an entity pure speculation.

But if you are faithful you shouldn't care. If you care about proof, you're not faithful.

Hence, we are left with the question as to where theists came up with the idea of gods if not entirely from their imagination?
 
Back
Top