'There is no God' - Rational, logical, justifiable?

A

aaqucnaona

This sentence is a lie
Valued Senior Member
Its the definitive statement of strong atheism - there is no God - a rational, logical and justifiable statement?

Personally, agnostic atheism is as far as I can go - I can state that I dont believe in religious deities, that they are unlikely to be real and if something resembling a God exists, we currently dont know anything about it, its nature or its behaviour or even its role in the universe. This is the a logical and rational statement justifiable and demonstrable currently. This is, of course, practical atheism - one doesnt include a God in their considerations, i.e. they opine that there is no God. However, can it be rational to assert that opinion?

Ps. For christians - Seeing how satan wanted man to have knowledge while God wanted man to be suppressed and God then goes on to do horrific deeds throught the rest of the scripture, how can the apologists be sure that Satan didnt succeed in overthrowing the Lord? Because if he did, then God would be made the bad guy and put in hell and the heinious behaviour of 'God' [actually Satan before he overthrew god] would become immensely explicable.
 
Close thread. Proof please. I believe, if your an atheist you as well believe. Jokes on you in a way. Anyways, the best evidence we have either way is humans believing for centuries, people making claims of our unknown universe i.e: angels/gods, God-message. Absence of God is more likely to state he is staying out of the way for our betterment, than he's not there. Remember God is an all powerful being, the original conciousness is what I call him, giving him a greater chance to gather all knowledge in the universe. Once he makes us all perfectly moral through our own reason and action, not his, then we will all live together for an eternity. Simply put, your best he said she said defense would be "well he isn't there," and I counter with "it's all part of the plan." End of discussion. It is up to the one making the claim to prove the negative. I am perfectly fine assuming in God, because I believe, and on top of that, God not being there would be the negative rather than he is.

My question to all is supply evidence to support either side of the argument. If the greatst minds the interweb has to offer can't answer this we are just not looking at this from the right angel.
 
Last edited:
aaqucnaona said:
Its the definitive statement of strong atheism - there is no God - a rational, logical and justifiable statement?

Personally, agnostic atheism is as far as I can go - I can state that I dont believe in religious deities, that they are unlikely to be real and if something resembling a God exists, we currently dont know anything about it, its nature or its behaviour or even its role in the universe. This is the a logical and rational statement justifiable and demonstrable currently. This is, of course, practical atheism - one doesnt include a God in their considerations, i.e. they opine that there is no God. However, can it be rational to assert that opinion?

Ps. For christians - Seeing how satan wanted man to have knowledge while God wanted man to be suppressed and God then goes on to do horrific deeds throught the rest of the scripture, how can the apologists be sure that Satan didnt succeed in overthrowing the Lord? Because if he did, then God would be made the bad guy and put in hell and the heinious behaviour of 'God' [actually Satan before he overthrew god] would become immensely explicable.
Click to expand...

Link to scripture, and what is the verse from?


-Much Thanks.
 
There is no need to prove. Religion is supernatural. None of that
Was proven by experiment.

What would be the point of this proof?
 
Depends what God you're talking about. It is perfectly logical to say there is no Christian, Jewish, or Muslim god. But we cannot discount all possible Gods, that's why I'm an atheist agnostic as well.
 
Composites can only become of the simplest base existent(s) combination.

The base existent(s) can only come from non-existence.

It doesn’t even matter what the base existents are, such as perhaps quarks and electrons, or even spacetime itself, but they must be simple and non-composite.

Beings are composites, and thus they cannot be First; indeed, far from it, way far from it, as in the complete other direction. Look to the far future for higher intelligences.

We actually see the more complicated coming from the lessor, and that it takes quite a while.

So, 'God' is not possible, but an alien is.
 
SciWriter said:
Composites can only become of the simplest base existent(s) combination.

The base existent(s) can only come from non-existence.

It doesn’t even matter what the base existents are, such as perhaps quarks and electrons, or even spacetime itself, but they must be simple and non-composite.

Beings are composites, and thus they cannot be First; indeed, far from it, way far from it, as in the complete other direction. Look to the far future for higher intelligences.

We actually see the more complicated coming from the lessor, and that it takes quite a while.

So, 'God' is not possible, but an alien is.
Click to expand...

Something had to have been first.
 
Tero said:
There is no need to prove. Religion is supernatural. None of that
Was proven by experiment.

What would be the point of this proof?
Click to expand...

God has little to do with religion. Re-post your point. Point of proof? Does not compute.
 
Knowledge91 said:
Not logical. Something had to have been first.
Click to expand...

There is no source for a first something but nothing.

And the first something could not have always been, for then there is no point at which to define its amount and its nature and properties, which again, redundantly, shows that nothing is the only source, so now we have double confirmation, but we don't need it.
 
Then tell me how anything came of nothing, unless we exist inside of nothing? Nothing could not have been first, as nothing does not exist, and if it did it would have properties. If it had properties, and we called it nothing that would be odd, as it has something.
 
Knowledge91 said:
Link to scripture, and what is the verse from?


-Much Thanks.
Click to expand...

Really now? Did you miss the sermons as a child or didnt read bible stories for kids? This is common christian doctrine, not some esoteric detail unknown to the public.
 
Knowledge91 said:
Then tell me how anything came of nothing, unless we exist inside of nothing? Nothing could not have been first, as nothing does not exist, and if it did it would have properties. If it had properties, and we called it nothing that would be odd, as it has something.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is odd, but nothing does have properties, similar to a perfect crystal or absolute zero.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Its the definitive statement of strong atheism - there is no God - a rational, logical and justifiable statement?
Click to expand...

"There is no God" is a proposition, a statement that's presumably true or false. The word 'rational' and 'logical' apply to arguments, to chains of reasoning. So in order to decide whether or not an argument concluding that 'there is no God' is a rational and/or a logical argument, we would need to have more information about how the conclusion was reached.

One you didn't mention was 'meaningful'. Is 'there is no God' even a meaningful statement? That probably would depend on whether 'God exists' is a meaningful statement, since your statement of strong atheism seems to just be the logical negation of the fundamental statement of theistic belief: not(God exists).

Two problems arise there, namely that we haven't defined what we mean by 'God' and by 'exist'.

The meaning of the word 'God' is all over the map, ranging from various mythological figures like Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu, to abstract philosophical functions like first-cause, teleological-goal or ground-of-being. It's entirely possible that some statements about some interpretations of the word 'God' are more justifiable than similar statements made about other interpretations.

And the meaning of the word 'exist' is a little mysterious in this context as well. We all know what it means for objects like tables and chairs to exist. But God is said to exist in a totally different, non-physical way. But apparently it's supposed to be a much more robust kind of existence than that enjoyed by fictional characters in literature. Even atheists would typically agree that God exists in the same way that Sherlock Holmes exists.

Personally, agnostic atheism is as far as I can go
Click to expand...

I'll say the same thing too.

I'm a strong-atheist about the traditional deities of religious myth. In other words, I flat-out believe that Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu don't exist. That's a probabilistic denial, though in my opinion it's a fairly strong one. But it isn't an apodictic logically-necessary conclusion. It's still logically possible that I'm wrong and that Christianity (or whatever it might be) is true.

But having said that, I'm an agnostic about the philosophical functions. I don't know how or why the universe exists. I don't know if it has any goal or function. I don't know what the ultimate fundamental level of being is. All that stuff is way above my pay-grade and I don't expect that I'll ever know.

What I am strongly convinced about though, is that humanity's traditional theistic religious mythologies don't bring me a whole lot closer to answering those kind of big philosophical questions.
 
Last edited:
Knowledge91 said:
Then tell me how anything came of nothing, unless we exist inside of nothing? Nothing could not have been first, as nothing does not exist, and if it did it would have properties. If it had properties, and we called it nothing that would be odd, as it has something.
Click to expand...

Either the basic stuff existed always or it was made from nothing.

If always, then the stuff is of a set amount.

Stuff cannot have always been, since there would have been no point at which its total amount could have been specified, nor its form and makeup; therefore, this forces the other option, that of a distribution of nothing—a zero-sum balance of opposites—as confirmed in nature. Plus, there is nothing to make anything of, literally. Double confirmation, plus a third one, that seen in nature.

Since all from nothing must be so, we now know that a state of the lack of anything must be unstable, and that anything goes, since the state is lawless, and so various arrangements of basic stuff may occur, some of which can form workable universes.

For sure, only a no-thing can make the basic thing(s), since, for certain, there is no other source. No way around it. So, we have to deal with this, but it goes well.

Did a lack of anything (no-thing) remain as such? Again, for sure, we know that it didn’t, for there is some-thing, as sum-things. So, that’s out, with no doubt.

What rules, restrictions, limitations, etc., would apply to no-thing? None, for the lack-of-anything state would have no laws at all.

This means that any-thing goes, for no-thing, and when anything goes, something workable can come out of it. This is what is meant by ‘possibility’, and one can see that it must be the default position.

There are no past-eternals beyond nothing. All supposed past-eternities of things end with nothing. Eternities, and infinities, by definition and in actuality, can never complete.
 
No Fine Tuning (in the way it is thought to be)

1. If there can be one universe there can be another.

2. We actually see that the universe is even greatly accelerating.

3. Thus, what fueled the universe is the fuel that keeps on giving.

4. So, again, other universes are possible from this fuel, which is that of nothing dividing and creating.

5. Therefore there will be a universe in which the amount of dark energy is right enough for galaxies to form.

6. So then there will be suns and planets there (as here), some of which are in the right ballpark for life.

7. We can only find ourselves in a universe that has the right properties. In other universes there is no one around to remark about about how ‘remarkable’ it is.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Really now? Did you miss the sermons as a child or didnt read bible stories for kids? This is common christian doctrine, not some esoteric detail unknown to the public.
Click to expand...

I cried a lot in church, and usually saw through the bologna. What's it from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top