Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
In one way you are right, but i'm curious. As the subject of your proof is God, from the biblical perspective, how is it you have failed to add to the claim of omniscience, spirit, as in pure. And his command over material nature.
Surely this aspect play a part in his being omniscient?
If you deny these aspects, then, is your enquiry really an honest one?
Jan.
I am saying that eternal relationships of contingency can over-ride the mechanism of cause and effect. IOW if the time factor (ie "cause and effect" factor) is accepted as an eternal potency that is contingent on god, there is no problems in logically understanding how god can be beyond issues of cause and effect (and is in fact controlling them).
God is logically consistent, but it often requires the proper foundation of knowledge to see that consistency. For instance if your foundational premise is that the laws of physics are the ultimate authority for determining reality, the logic that follows will be deeply dyed by this value-based claim.
God is not real if you don't think ideas are part of reality.
God is real if you think ideas are part of reality.
God is a powerful idea. 'believing it' offers intellectual or emotional utility in most minds. The idea is also a very verstatile personal and/or social tool. This may help to explain its persistence and virtual ubiquity.
I think assigning it the properties of an entity is simply the reflection of self into the idea. It's the normal manner in which humans have the capacity to relate to something, and as such - is completely rational. The 'truth' of any assertion cannot be physically evaluated and is as such IMO - irrelevant to all but the holder of the belief.
God is real if you think ideas are part of reality.
God is a powerful idea. 'believing it' offers intellectual or emotional utility in most minds. The idea is also a very verstatile personal and/or social tool. This may help to explain its persistence and virtual ubiquity.
I think assigning it the properties of an entity is simply the reflection of self into the idea. It's the normal manner in which humans have the capacity to relate to something, and as such - is completely rational. The 'truth' of any assertion cannot be physically evaluated and is as such IMO - irrelevant to all but the holder of the belief.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that you say that, if ideas are part of reality, God exists. I think this is rather moot though.
The idea of God can exist, but that doesn't say anything about existence of the object God.
If I picture my car in my head, that idea exists separate from the actual car.
The existence of the object god is moot unless you believe in the object god, in which case it is moot unless you believe that those who don't believe should believe or else, which I should have said for the unbelievers too but was too slow witted.
I mean the non believer doesn't accept so then no problem, doesn't accept - game over unless you change status to 'considering acceptance' or 'you can't accept because it's stupid'.
If 'considering acceptance' or whatever, then what are the specific criteria for transition? If a physical test can be devised and passed, then ok - transition. Well the idea is I believe - necessarily untestable in that fashion. So a non-believer either really doesn't believe and therefore doesn't have to bother pondering the question or is stuck in a pergatory awaiting that which I personally construe is impossible, but hey knock yourselves out.
I mean the believer accepts so then no problem, accepts unless maybe crisis of faith, changing status to "considering non-belief' or 'you can't not believe you heathen'. A believer test the idea through faith, an intellectual and emotional grappliing with the idea I'd guess. Seems in some ways like a form of self-discipline. Blah blah blah.
So a believer believes, and a non-believer doesn't. Weird.
The in-betweens wait it out in purgatory for the impossible eh? Expecting physical proof of something I see as clearly untestable, but of course maybe I'm retarded.
I mean the non believer doesn't accept so then no problem, doesn't accept - game over unless you change status to 'considering acceptance' or 'you can't accept because it's stupid'.
If 'considering acceptance' or whatever, then what are the specific criteria for transition? If a physical test can be devised and passed, then ok - transition. Well the idea is I believe - necessarily untestable in that fashion. So a non-believer either really doesn't believe and therefore doesn't have to bother pondering the question or is stuck in a pergatory awaiting that which I personally construe is impossible, but hey knock yourselves out.
I mean the believer accepts so then no problem, accepts unless maybe crisis of faith, changing status to "considering non-belief' or 'you can't not believe you heathen'. A believer test the idea through faith, an intellectual and emotional grappliing with the idea I'd guess. Seems in some ways like a form of self-discipline. Blah blah blah.
So a believer believes, and a non-believer doesn't. Weird.
The in-betweens wait it out in purgatory for the impossible eh? Expecting physical proof of something I see as clearly untestable, but of course maybe I'm retarded.
Last edited:
Well you're wrong then, well played. Hehe. Think about it man, for chrissake. Intellectual and emotional utility is everything about the issue.
God is an idea. If ideas are part of reality, then god is part of reality. God is real, game over.
The existence of the object god cannot really be tested except through faith. Which renders the scenario I described in the preceding post regarding moot stuff.
Sure, but you can go wreck a car. You can't put your hands on god. It's an idea that has a basis in ideas. It's the meta-daddy.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The existence of God is still moot if he doesn't objectively exist, whether you believe in him or not.
I don't know what you mean with that.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
As an idea, not as an actual entity. Anything you can imagine can be real as an idea. Making up an object in your head doesn't mean the object exists.
It cannot be tested period. Faith is no evidence.
Maybe I'm not getting what you mean, but that was exactly my point. Unless you mean to say that God doesn't objectively exist.
for one who thinks that god is ultimately just an idea ("the idea that god is an idea"), I guess this makes sense
irrelevant reasoning
my response looks too late after thousands of responses, but anyway...
yes God has knowledge of everything, past or future events. and just for that you think we should not have free will. i see no relation between two, whatsoever.
if you are interested in cosmology and possible 10 or 11 dimensions we know of (at least therotically) we can suggest that there may be more.
and what is future, by definition, anyway. it only applies to us, humans. you live in 4 dimensional life, and you draw your conclusion disregarding the rest of the dimensions?
for the sake of the argument, lets say you watch a football ame live, and you taped it. and watched it again. obviously you know the score, and every move of each player.
so does it mean players dont have free will?
just because God knows whats gonna happen at the end, doesnt mean you dont have free will, you know that well, my friend
you can argue that why God creates us when he knows that we will go to hell, but you cant argue that we dont have free will.
do you feel compelled for doing what you do?
there are many dimensions and, without looking at the issue from that perspective, you cant find the answer
my response looks too late after thousands of responses, but anyway...
yes God has knowledge of everything, past or future events. and just for that you think we should not have free will. i see no relation between two, whatsoever.
if you are interested in cosmology and possible 10 or 11 dimensions we know of (at least therotically) we can suggest that there may be more.
and what is future, by definition, anyway. it only applies to us, humans. you live in 4 dimensional life, and you draw your conclusion disregarding the rest of the dimensions?
for the sake of the argument, lets say you watch a football ame live, and you taped it. and watched it again. obviously you know the score, and every move of each player.
so does it mean players dont have free will?
just because God knows whats gonna happen at the end, doesnt mean you dont have free will, you know that well, my friend
you can argue that why God creates us when he knows that we will go to hell, but you cant argue that we dont have free will.
do you feel compelled for doing what you do?
there are many dimensions and, without looking at the issue from that perspective, you cant find the answer
Azizbey,
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.
That is what we mean by omniscience, yes.
Then you don’t understand the issue yet.
Dimensions are a mathematical concept with no limits. Don’t be fooled into thinking that such concepts could map to a reality. But it is irrelevant here.
If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different.
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.
Lg,
After numerous re-reads I think that you have not answered the question. Can an effect precede a cause? Whether a god can control time or not does not overcome the necessary fixed relationship that a cause must precede its effect. Would you agree?
I agree that for many fact-based logical deductions or inductions special knowledge would be needed, but my point was for the generic deductive case and to refute the notion that a god can be “outside” of logic.
I was hoping for an explanation that would clarify your point rather than a re-statement in increased ambiguity and further confusing phraseology.
After numerous re-reads I think that you have not answered the question. Can an effect precede a cause? Whether a god can control time or not does not overcome the necessary fixed relationship that a cause must precede its effect. Would you agree?
That is a diversion from the context and the topic. The issue is that a god cannot create a paradox. For example either a light is on or off, it cannot be both on and off concurrently; and the countless similar binary mutually exclusive scenarios.
I agree that for many fact-based logical deductions or inductions special knowledge would be needed, but my point was for the generic deductive case and to refute the notion that a god can be “outside” of logic.
Cris
Let me ask you - is there any logical reason why there cannot be a an issue that the nature of cause and effect is contingent on (it would have to obviously be an eternal one)? ..... sure you can say, "I have no experience of it", but that is an issue of experiential knowledge and not logic
there is this statement discerning the position of god - highlighted the bits that are most relevant
The basic gist is that a major distinction between us and god is that all of our (experiential) knowledge is re-presented to us. That is why we are apt to make mistakes (IOW our senses can easily deceive us, despite the most meticulous empirical precautions). God has scope not only for direct knowledge (meaning knowledge not subject to the fallibilities of empiricism) but also controlling how that knowledge is directed to others (hence the bit about even the greatest personalities in the universe being bewildered).
So to get back to your issue of logic, no god is not beyond the scope of logic, but he is way beyond your (or anyone elses) scope for knowledge. This means your standards of god's illogic (like existing outside of the medium of cause and effect because you don't know how anything can exist beyond it) are not valid.
No I don't agree
Let me ask you - is there any logical reason why there cannot be a an issue that the nature of cause and effect is contingent on (it would have to obviously be an eternal one)? ..... sure you can say, "I have no experience of it", but that is an issue of experiential knowledge and not logic
there is this statement discerning the position of god - highlighted the bits that are most relevant
The basic gist is that a major distinction between us and god is that all of our (experiential) knowledge is re-presented to us. That is why we are apt to make mistakes (IOW our senses can easily deceive us, despite the most meticulous empirical precautions). God has scope not only for direct knowledge (meaning knowledge not subject to the fallibilities of empiricism) but also controlling how that knowledge is directed to others (hence the bit about even the greatest personalities in the universe being bewildered).
So to get back to your issue of logic, no god is not beyond the scope of logic, but he is way beyond your (or anyone elses) scope for knowledge. This means your standards of god's illogic (like existing outside of the medium of cause and effect because you don't know how anything can exist beyond it) are not valid.
well, to say "just an idea" doesn't really do the notion of god justice, as in many ways it's a very special idea, mostly because of its power. i don't think that god is ultimately just an idea, but I feel I have authority to discuss the idea, whereas the object, if it is part of physical reality... seems far beyond my scope. So much so that I wouldn't venture to speak of it, as I could only fall far short of the mark. I personally - can't even detect it and readily conceed it far beyond the possibilities of my own comprehension. as such to me the object is irrelevant, but the idea is quite real and relevant to a lot of stuff.
Last edited:
i completely understand the issue, much to your surprise
mathematical concepts can be well adapted here as well
your answer exists in another dimension , not in this miserable life
i ask again, did you feel like some force forced you to respond to my post?
you did it willingly
what a contradiction you have.
first you claim you dont have a free will because time concept (as we know it) dont apply to God, and then you write me an answer with your free will.
how pathetic does it get?