Rise Of Atheism

[redarmy11]

And if God is infinite..

Taking that He has infinite wisdom..

The above are suppositions that you don't provide any justification for but, to be honest, I found the entire thing unsatisfactory, like I'd walked in halfway through a film. Not the Damascus-like U-turn I was hoping for. I did look through your other posts and the earliest reference to God that I could find was this:

Quick answer: We are God's children. As you can neither punish your child or reward them for not knowing of your rules, so shall God neither punish you for not knowing Him but neither can He reward you for following His rules. You will be no worse off and you will be no better off than before you existed as you are.

Which still doesn't tell me why you went from being an unbeliever to.. whatever you believe now. Am I to take it, then, that there was no dramatic turning-point?

 

[usp8riot]

Yes, I could see how you'd feel that way redarmy11. And yes, a little drama but as I kept theorizing more about God I only found more evidence for me to believe in Him. But I felt myself people wouldn't feel satisfied by that and I wasn't either. I have thesis' I"ve done concerning the theology and maybe a page or two concerning this subject of God and how I logically came to believe He existed. I'm not comfortable with most of it since it's just rough writings and scatterbrained thoughts like the above, since I am pretty much a scatterbrain myself, or can be. Too much on my mind usually. But I believe for the most part, you got to think for yourself also. Have an ounce of belief in a theory that can't be 100% proven or else you will never find Him. Maybe proven to the beholder of the belief in a way but never to another 100%. You can't read my writing and think, 'oh, yes, there He is, I see Him now'. Doesn't work that way. You may get a feeling of, 'perhaps he may be right about God', or something but I don't think I could ever convey it to you like, 'by George, I've got it'.

But anyhow, one argument that helped convince me; Suppose we have a sphere in a 4d space/time continuum representing all that is, the universe, or multiverse, whatever you want to call it, but all that is. Now as I said before, I have no doubt it will be in a spherical form as it is the most efficient shape in a 4d environment of equal pressures/forces on all sides. And this sphere can grow/shrink infinitely, smaller and larger, both inward and outward, just like the expansion of the universe. Now time is at 0 when the sphere started to grow both infinitely larger and smaller. That is the starting point. -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, etc, in both directions. If we have an infinite object growing and shrinking in a dynamic 4d environment, there has to be a starting point. 0 is the starting point. It is where God started. It is the creator/birther of all after it. Just as the universe expands and contracts, there has to be something there that started the initial force. And the igniter of the force is the God of all actions after it, which gave it life/movement. Yeah, may seem kind of lame but I can get in deeper and more elaborate when I'm thinking better but too sleepy now I shouldn't have even went into that. It probably sounds a little scatterbrained. But you apparently missed my other posts redarmy11. May not be going back late enough. I wouldn't waste much time with it though unless you truly do think it will help you believe as it did me.

 

[Cris]

Usp8riot,

I logically came to believe He existed.

Logic needs facts and there are no facts that can turn a god fantasy into reality.

If we have an infinite object growing and shrinking in a dynamic 4d environment, there has to be a starting point.

That is a non sequitur. It could be infinitely cyclic requiring no starting point.

Just as the universe expands and contracts, there has to be something there that started the initial force.

BB theory is currently broken. No one can confirm that the universe is expanding. There is yet no evidence that the universe ever had a beginning.

Consequently you have no logic that can be used to turn a god fantasy into a reality.

 

[yank]

I logically came to believe He existed.

Logics if used in the correct sense disapproves of the existence of a divine power ie. God.

We all know that God possesses infinite power.
So with this infinite power it can create something more powerfal than itself.
If it does so it is no longer the one with maximum power.
And if it can't do so, then it was never the most powerful in the first place!

This simply disapproves of the existence of the Almighty!

 

[phlogistician]

Yank, you really aren't very clever. It would appear you don't understand the simplest of terms.

Firstly, atheism is not a system of belief.

Secondly, your definition of God, does not mean that God could not exist, just not one with the attributes you assign to it. All you have falsified is your own premise.

 

[Sarkus]

Logics if used in the correct sense disapproves of the existence of a divine power ie. God.

We all know that God possesses infinite power.
So with this infinite power it can create something more powerfal than itself.
If it does so it is no longer the one with maximum power.
And if it can't do so, then it was never the most powerful in the first place!

This simply disapproves of the existence of the Almighty!

1. There are flaws in your logic;
2. You are merely attempting to disprove ONE God - the one with "infinite power".

With regard to your "logic":
- We do NOT all know that God possesses infinite power. This is an assumption that thus limits your analysis to Gods having this particular trait.
- If something has infinite power - nothing can have more power - by definition. This is by definition. You could certainly have another thing with infinite power. I suggest you review the term "infinite".
- "Infinite" does not mean or equate to "maximum". 1/3 expressed as a decimal is "infinitely" long - and yet 2/3 is twice as large - and 1 is 3 times as large. Furthermore - if you have an infinite number of balls and put every other one into a separate pile - how many are there in each pile? The answer is that both piles have an infinite number. So how many were in the original pile?

Your "logic" is flawed throughout due to incorrect usage and understanding of terms, as well as confusing all Gods with "the most powerful being".

It is true that some concepts of God appear to give rise to paradoxes.
But then if your God is also "outside of logic" then these are hardly of concern - and in fact logic itself can then not be used to assess the concept.


The concept of God is not an illogical conclusion.
The conclusion that "God did it" is also not illogical.
It is merely a conclusion that lacks evidence, and is at best unhelpful in progressing knowledge.

Belief in God, in fact for anything where there is no evidence, IS illogical.

 

[yank]

Secondly, your definition of God, does not mean that God could not exist, just not one with the attributes you assign to it. All you have falsified is your own premise.

Then tell me how could it exist?
Give me one good reason how logic can prove the existence of God if you appear to be so very clever which you don't really seem to be!

 

[yank]

- We do NOT all know that God possesses infinite power. This is an assumption that thus limits your analysis to Gods having this particular trait.

Then why is God referred to as the Almighty which literally means possessing all power? And even if reffering to God as the Almighty is just an assumption then maybe even a force such as God is an assumption.

- If something has infinite power - nothing can have more power - by definition. This is by definition. You could certainly have another thing with infinite power. I suggest you review the term "infinite".

"Infinite" is endless and there is NO end to it... so it goes on & on. And something greater cannot exist if there is an end. But according to definition "infinity" has no end. Hence something greater than infinity can be assumed.

- "Infinite" does not mean or equate to "maximum". 1/3 expressed as a decimal is "infinitely" long - and yet 2/3 is twice as large - and 1 is 3 times as large. Furthermore - if you have an infinite number of balls and put every other one into a separate pile - how many are there in each pile? The answer is that both piles have an infinite number. So how many were in the original pile?

Agreed.

Your "logic" is flawed throughout due to incorrect usage and understanding of terms, as well as confusing all Gods with "the most powerful being".

So you mean that there is not one but many Gods? And you suggest that God isn't the most powerful being? Perhaps there's someone more powerful than God itself?

It is true that some concepts of God appear to give rise to paradoxes.
But then if your God is also "outside of logic" then these are hardly of concern - and in fact logic itself can then not be used to assess the concept.

Its very simple to say that God exists outside the system of logics just to get away with your belief system.

The concept of God is not an illogical conclusion.
The conclusion that "God did it" is also not illogical.
It is merely a conclusion that lacks evidence, and is at best unhelpful in progressing knowledge.

Directing all unanswered questions towards God is indeed irrational & illogical.
The concept of God is thus indeed illogical.

Belief in God, in fact for anything where there is no evidence, IS illogical.

Belief in the system that the sky is below & the ground is above is indeed illogical!

 

[Jan Ardena]

you sir are a lier, as that is an impossiblity, unless you had a blow to the head that is.

Why do you accuse him/her of lieing, or delusional?

Jan.

 

[phlogistician]

Then tell me how could it exist?
Give me one good reason how logic can prove the existence of God if you appear to be so very clever which you don't really seem to be!

God could exist with different attributes. You really aren't that bright, are you?

It's simple, when you start with a premise, you precede it with 'IF'.

So, IF premise 'A' is correct, then 'B' is the logical conclusion. IF something prevents 'B' from being true, then you question the correctness of your premise, not jump to a conclusion!

Noob.

 

[Sarkus]

Then why is God referred to as the Almighty which literally means possessing all power? And even if reffering to God as the Almighty is just an assumption then maybe even a force such as God is an assumption.

I am merely pointing out flaws in your supposed logical dissection of "God". And you need to be fairly specific about which God you refer to - as not all definitions / understandings are the same.
If you mean the Christian God then say so.

So you mean that there is not one but many Gods? And you suggest that God isn't the most powerful being? Perhaps there's someone more powerful than God itself?

I'm not saying there is or there isn't. But not all definitions / understanding of God is the same.
And perhaps there is someone more powerful than God.
Perhaps not.

Its very simple to say that God exists outside the system of logics just to get away with your belief system.

Firstly - it is not MY belief system.
Secondly, if you assume that God is "Almighty" then surely he can do what he wants - which means exist outside of the logic he restricts our Universe with.

If you want to discuss the logic (or lack of) of such a God then you have to be prepared for ALL that that entails - not just cherrypick the bits that suit you.

Directing all unanswered questions towards God is indeed irrational & illogical.

The concept of God is thus indeed illogical.

No - it is entirely logical - it is just meaningless.

If we start with the assumption that God can do ANYTHING - then to say "God did it" is entirely logical. "God can do ANYTHING - therefore he did this".
If you can't see this then you really should not be debating this subject.

The only illogical part is to actually have a belief in this God - when there is no evidence to support it.

Belief in the system that the sky is below & the ground is above is indeed illogical!

Why?
If you were held upside down - where would the sky be? Where would the ground be?


Belief is only irrational and illogical when it is not supported by any evidence.
If you do have evidence then "belief" is just a matter of a personal weighing up of probability.

 

[geeser]

Why do you accuse him/her of lieing, or delusional?

Jan.

how sarkus so succinctly put it. quote: " Most would argue that you could not have consciously been an atheist and then turn to become a theist.
At best you just didn't know which God you believed in, and were probably apathetic to religion, especially the structured religions.
But an apathetic theist is a long way from being an atheist."
so he/she was either, mistaken or lying, if he admits he/she was mistaken, then I will apologise for calling him/her a lier, but I doubt he/she will, the religious never do. therefore, unless you've had a bad cranial accident, or are on mind altering drugs, and as cris puts it quote: "Consequently you have no logic that can be used to turn a god fantasy into a reality."
it is an impossibility, he/she must be lying.

 

[yank]

God could exist with different attributes. You really aren't that bright, are you?

It's simple, when you start with a premise, you precede it with 'IF'.

So, IF premise 'A' is correct, then 'B' is the logical conclusion. IF something prevents 'B' from being true, then you question the correctness of your premise, not jump to a conclusion!

Noob.

But, God could also not exist. And are you so dumb?

Also inspite of 'B' being true you just can't handle the fact because it goes against your belief.

And I think I requested you earlier to stop bashing this thread. I request you again - I would only like to hear from genuine fellow-members for my thirst of knowledge.

Goodbye old timer... LOL

 

[yank]

I am merely pointing out flaws in your supposed logical dissection of "God". And you need to be fairly specific about which God you refer to - as not all definitions / understandings are the same.
If you mean the Christian God then say so.

I don't really think that there's a difference between any God. They all are referred to as Almighty in their respective languages.

I'm not saying there is or there isn't. But not all definitions / understanding of God is the same.
And perhaps there is someone more powerful than God.
Perhaps not.

If there is a possibility of someone more powerful than God, then there can a possibility of someone even more superior. This chain could go on & on until the position of God is obliterated.

Firstly - it is not MY belief system.
Secondly, if you assume that God is "Almighty" then surely he can do what he wants - which means exist outside of the logic he restricts our Universe with.

If you want to discuss the logic (or lack of) of such a God then you have to be prepared for ALL that that entails - not just cherrypick the bits that suit you.

Unlimited power doesn't mean he can exist out of the logic system. Its synonymous to having unlimited fuel won't make your automobile fly.

No - it is entirely logical - it is just meaningless.

If we start with the assumption that God can do ANYTHING - then to say "God did it" is entirely logical. "God can do ANYTHING - therefore he did this".
If you can't see this then you really should not be debating this subject.

The only illogical part is to actually have a belief in this God - when there is no evidence to support it.

How can logical & meaningless co-exist?

And please refrain from personal comments such as "you really should not be debating this subject", we all are here to learn from each other & not to thrash others like that phlogistician.

Why?
If you were held upside down - where would the sky be? Where would the ground be?

I liked the answer.

Belief is only irrational and illogical when it is not supported by any evidence. If you do have evidence then "belief" is just a matter of a personal weighing up of probability.

Indeed, so how does the possibility of God exist without the existence of any evidence?

 

[Sarkus]

But, God could also not exist. And are you so dumb?

Also inspite of 'B' being true you just can't handle the fact because it goes against your belief.

And I think I requested you earlier to stop bashing this thread. I request you again - I would only like to hear from genuine fellow-members for my thirst of knowledge.

Goodbye old timer... LOL

You seem to be confused between a dismantling of your logic / analysis / argument and an opposing view.

At no point has Phlogistician stated that he believes God exists or not, or whether he thinks God is a logical conclusion or not.
At no point has he done anything other than detail the flaws in your argument, both in terms of logical construct and content.

If you don't want to listen - that is you perrogative - but then don't claim to have a thirst for knowledge when you reject what is given.

 

[yank]

You seem to be confused between a dismantling of your logic / analysis / argument and an opposing view.

Just because you have no answer to my questions?

At no point has Phlogistician stated that he believes God exists or not, or whether he thinks God is a logical conclusion or not.
At no point has he done anything other than detail the flaws in your argument, both in terms of logical construct and content.

When did I say the same?
Its good that I get pointers to the flaws in my argument.
If he could only do it in a not-so impolite manner.

If you don't want to listen - that is you perrogative - but then don't claim to have a thirst for knowledge when you reject what is given.

And its "prerogative"... Go get a dictionary & then start arguing & blaming.

 

[phlogistician]

But, God could also not exist. And are you so dumb?

Jesus, this is hard work. All you have done is a lame proof that an entity with the attributes you describe cannot exist. To be honest, I think your premise is incorrect, and then the implications derived from that, but whatever, all you have done, is invalidate your premise, not 'God'. Are you really that arrogant that you think your few sentences are a full and complete description of 'God'?

I would only like to hear from genuine fellow-members for my thirst of knowledge.

Go read a book on logic if you have a thirst for knowledge. This is a discussion forum, not a school. I'm not here to teach you, you must come equipped for the debate, and so far all you have shown is lack of understanding of the very basics. Did you look up the definition of 'atheist' yet? Do you understand that atheism is NOT a belief system?

 

[yank]

here are a few I've found, they might help.
http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2006/03/atheism_is_the.html
http://www.canicula.com/wp/?p=125
http://www.car-forums.com/s8/t20774.html
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/living/religion/14121950.htm
http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=128005
http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=11793&
you will notice that a lot refer to the non-religious, non-religious does not necessarily mean atheist, atheism is not simple non-religious.
there are some who say they are atheist that dont really understand what an atheist is, (these are usually the religious, trying to make a point, or agnostics, or deists).

there are no god/gods, all it would take is one single instance of the thing for it to exist, where is that one thing.

atheist from the greek atheos a (without) and theos (god).
Atheism is "without belief in god." Therefore, an atheist would have "no belief."atheism, is not a belief, just the opposite, atheism is the natural way of things, the religious have just diversified in to fantasy.
dictionary.con defines it as
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
however two points here, it's not a belief, so there cannot be any disbelief, and there cannot be be any denial, for to deny something you must first believe it exists. I believe that atheism, is an indifference to the issue of God's existence, dictionary.com's second statement is closer
encarta defines it as, unbelief in God or deities.
most dictionaries get it wrong, because they were originally written and printed by theists.

We are all born atheists til our parents or priest abuse us with the religious mind virus
atheism is individual, there is a commonality amongst atheist, but each has his own opinion, however atheism has a basic tenet. it's just a way of life, there are no clubs, no churches, atheism is what you are, before religion has taken hold, nobody who has been atheist from birth or rediscovered it/cleared his head, would go back to being religious not without the use of drugs or brain damage.

Thanks a lot for the links.
Really helpful.

To the Mods: Please lock this topic to avoid further newbie bashing by phlogistician & sarkus!

 

[Sarkus]

I don't really think that there's a difference between any God. They all are referred to as Almighty in their respective languages.

Then that is your mistake.
I suggest you read more and don't make such sweeping generalisations.

If there is a possibility of someone more powerful than God, then there can a possibility of someone even more superior.

Correct.

This chain could go on & on until the position of God is obliterated.

Obliterated? How?
But yes, the chain could go on & on.

Unlimited power doesn't mean he can exist out of the logic system. Its synonymous to having unlimited fuel won't make your automobile fly.

Ok - then you are now starting to limit the type of God that you are referring to.
And please, do show me how you can possibly know that God, if one exists, resides exclusively inside of logic.

How can logical & meaningless co-exist?

Meaningless in the context of advancing our understanding of the nature of things.

Indeed, so how does the possibility of God exist without the existence of any evidence?

Without evidence to the contrary, all things could exist.
So God is a possibility.
As are an infinite other things for which there is no evidence at all. None of them can be disproven unless they are logically inconsistent within what we accept as the logic of this universe. But then they could exist OUTSIDE of our universe, where anything could hold true.

To believe any of those things actually do exist, as people do with God, is illogical.


For example - there could be a planet, somewhere in the Universe, where the land-masses have formed to spell the name SARKUS, and on this planet live 1 billion people, all worshipping a God that they have called SARKUS.

Do you agree that it is a possibility, however remote?
Is it illogical? No.

Do I believe it? No - of course not - as there is no evidence.
It would be illogical to have the belief.

Do not confuse the possibility of something occurring with the actual thing occurring.

 

[yank]

Jesus, this is hard work. All you have done is a lame proof that an entity with the attributes you describe cannot exist. To be honest, I think your premise is incorrect, and then the implications derived from that, but whatever, all you have done, is invalidate your premise, not 'God'. Are you really that arrogant that you think your few sentences are a full and complete description of 'God'?

If there is a possibilty that God does exist, then there even exists a possibility that God doesn't exist.
You don't seem to be able to digest the former - and you call me arrogant.
Why don't you take the effort to give your own complete description of God instead of introducing the words "lame", "arrogant" into this thread?
Think productive & not destructive!

Go read a book on logic if you have a thirst for knowledge. This is a discussion forum, not a school. I'm not here to teach you, you must come equipped for the debate, and so far all you have shown is lack of understanding of the very basics. Did you look up the definition of 'atheist' yet? Do you understand that atheism is NOT a belief system?

Yes, I indeed have a thirst for more knowledge. And debating helps me to improve my knowledge. Whoever has asked you to teach me? I pity the ones you teach. And for your kind information, I am well equipped with the very basics of my understanding. Looks like you need to look into yourself and your fundamentals which are very weak indeed. You are so insecure that you have to resort to abusing newbies on this forum.

Wow, I'm talking to a person who sees ghosts at night & has an abduction experience... LOL

And YES, I understand that atheism is not a belief system.. Thank you!