Why God doesn't exist

God is myth and I would rather keep the subject to using Scientific theorys and facts to defeat such a myth.

This is how I beat the machine they call God. A grain of truth in a fable about able.

I was using scientific theories to defeat such a myth. Not the same one, but such a myth.

The machine myth died in early 20th century physics. It is a useful metaphor in many contexts, but a very poor one when you are talking about everything, as you are here.

Last, I cannot see how your post here is a response to mine. And the least you could have done, after catching on that it was clear I was not raising issues about evolution, was to acknowledge you were incorrect.

I must go back to ignoring you. I'll end up grinding my teeth in my sleep otherwise.
 
Agreed. Time is the same thing as change. It isn't an "entity," it's just a concept.
Time = change
Time is just a concept.
Is change just a concept?

What are these entities you are referring to, also.

It's our measure of change.
Isn't 'measure' a concept.

If a deity is changing, time exists. If time exists, we have a problem: no deity can exist for an infinite amount of time prior to creating the universe.
Why? Could you link us to some scientific research that shows this.
Which means:

1. God isn't eternal.
2. God didn't create the universe.
3. There is no God.

If you think God can somehow "work around" these problems from "outside" the system, then you think God can resolve paradoxes (which she can't).
Or they simply seem like paradoxes given current knowledge. Once it would have seemed a paradox to say the universe is everything and yet finite. Or that there is nothing outside the universe but it is finite. Or to say that Time began, which is what many, but not all physicists now say. Or to say that something is both a particle and a wave. These once seemed exclusive categories. Now they don't.


I.E., you believe God could draw a two dimensional object which simultaneously qualifies as a square and a circle.
Utterly irrelevent.
 
Note how, in order to deny the "existence" of a thing which has an "existence" in terms of human perception, the denier has to invent reasons why they imagine that existence to be false.

But there is only the assumption that imagining the existence/non-existence is meaningful. You can imagine this about all kind of things, it doesn't mean what you imagine is real; therefore you can't deny the "existence" unless you imagine your denial is true. You "believe in" your ability to imagine "factual denial", when there is no such thing in this case - there is nothing to deny factually except the fact of an idea existing.

I mean. what other possibility is there?

Well, there is the possibility that your imagination has little to do with existence; so that the existence of God, or a God, has little to do with your ability to imagine that existence, or non-existence.
 
Those who believe in God did not prove that there is Gos and those who do not believe in God did not prove that there is no God . Science does not support the believers or the unbelievers . Evolution and Big Bang theories do not prove the existence or the non existence of God .
 
Note how, in order to deny the "existence" of a thing which has an "existence" in terms of human perception, the denier has to invent reasons why they imagine that existence to be false.

But there is only the assumption that imagining the existence/non-existence is meaningful. You can imagine this about all kind of things, it doesn't mean what you imagine is real; therefore you can't deny the "existence" unless you imagine your denial is true. I mean. what other possibility is there?

Well, there is the possibility that your imagination has little to do with existence; so that the existence of God, or a God, has little to do with your ability to imagine that existence, or non-existence.

In somes ways this is what I was getting at but working inside the history of science, where certain things (paradoxes) seemed unimaginable and then later turned out to be correct.

So sitting around saying that one can deduce impossibilities may be more convincing than it seems.

The positive feedback is based on one's own satisfaction. IOW all internal, precisely the complaint aimed at theists.
 
No, only God can prove the existence of God.
All that humans with imagination can do is imagine (or directly experience) this.

There's no "theory of God" except for all the religious, doctrinal, etc theories; but they all say in essence that they can't describe God, that God isn't words on paper.

Since human imagination is "words on paper", imagination therefore cannot be connected to any "concept" since God, or the truth of existence if you will, is not dependent on your imagination; rather it's the other way around.
 
No, only God can prove the existence of God.
All that humans with imagination can do is imagine (or directly experience) this.

There's no "theory of God" except for all the religious, doctrinal, etc theories; but they all say in essence that they can't describe God, that God isn't words on paper.

Since human imagination is "words on paper", imagination therefore cannot be connected to any "concept" since God, or the truth of existence if you will, is not dependent on your imagination; rather it's the other way around.

Your 'No' makes no sense. I never said anything about who or what could prove the existence of God.

As a side issue: My imagination is certainly not limited to words on paper.
 
Whoop.
I will need to do better than double posting. Since someone has "imagined" I was replying to their post. The humdrum of it is that I was responding to the previous poster and to most of the posts up to this page.

I thought about the OP like this: "God", then the phrase: "Why God".

Now right there, I bump into a question. The remainder "doesn't exist" is subjunctive to the subject. This is prefixed or preceded with the word "why".
So there are two things being considered, the first is inquisitive or propositional, then the synthesis "why God" must be the conjugate term, for which the subjunctive applies.

So "why not God", the complement, is also a subjunctive implied by simple logic.

Why/why not, implies a thesis. So let's hear it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by earth
Dr. Walker's point is in reality there is no such thing as outside or beyond time. That premise of existing beyond time is just a figment of one’s imagination.



Agreed. Time is the same thing as change. It isn't an "entity," it's just a concept. It's our measure of change.

If a deity is changing, time exists. If time exists, we have a problem: no deity can exist for an infinite amount of time prior to creating the universe. Which means:

1. God isn't eternal.
2. God didn't create the universe.
3. There is no God.

If you think God can somehow "work around" these problems from "outside" the system, then you think God can resolve paradoxes (which she can't). I.E., you believe God could draw a two dimensional object which simultaneously qualifies as a square and a circle.

Good luck with that.


Generation after generation people ponder the possible existence of God. The brainer one's like Dr. Walker get the right answer.

Mary Edwards Walker

Mary Edwards Walker (November 26, 1832 – February 21, 1919) was an American feminist, abolitionist, prohibitionist, alleged spy, prisoner of war, surgeon, and the only woman to receive the Medal of Honor.

Born November 26, 1832 - Oswego, New York
Died February 21, 1919 (aged 86)
Nationality: American
Occupation: Surgeon
Employer: United States Army
Known: for Receiving the Medal of Honor
during the American Civil War
1st Female U.S. Army Surgeon
Feminism
Prohibitionist
Abolitionist
Spouse(s): Albert Miller

Mary Walker was born in the Town of Oswego, New York, in 1832, the daughter of Alvah (father) and Vesta (mother) Walker. She was the youngest of five daughters and had one younger brother. Walker worked on her family farm as a child. She did not wear women's clothing during farm labor, because she considered them too restricting. Her elementary education consisted of going to the local school where her mother taught. As a young woman, she taught at the school to earn enough money to pay her way through Syracuse Medical College, where she graduated as a medical doctor in 1855 as the only woman in her class. She married a fellow medical school student, Albert Miller, and they set up a joint practice in Rome, New York. The practice did not flourish, as female physicians were generally not trusted or respected at that time.

At the beginning of the American Civil War, she volunteered for the Union Army as a civilian. At first, she was only allowed to practice as a nurse, as the Army had no female surgeons. During this period, she served at the First Battle of Bull Run (Manassas), July 21, 1861 and at the Patent Office Hospital in Washington, D.C. She also worked as an unpaid field surgeon near the Union front lines, including the Battle of Fredericksburg and in Chattanooga after the Battle of Chickamauga. Finally, she was awarded a commission as a "Contract Acting Assistant Surgeon (civilian)" by the Army of the Cumberland in September 1863, becoming the first-ever female U.S. Army Surgeon.
Walker was later appointed assistant surgeon of the 52nd Ohio Infantry. During this service, she frequently crossed battle lines, treating civilians. On April 10, 1864 she was captured by Confederate troops and arrested as a spy. She was sent to Richmond and remained there until August 12, 1864 when she was released as part of a prisoner exchange. She went on to serve during the Battle of Atlanta and later as supervisor of a female prison in Louisville, Kentucky, and head of an orphanage in Tennessee.

Late career
After the war, she became a writer and lecturer, supporting such issues as health care, temperance, women's rights and dress reform for women. She wrote two books that discussed women's rights and dress. She participated for several years with other leaders in the Women's Suffrage Movement, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The initial stance of the movement, taking Dr. Walker's lead, was to say that women already had the right to vote, and Congress need only enact enabling legislation. After a number of fruitless years working at this, the movement took the new tack of working for a Constitutional amendment. This was diametrically opposed to Mary Walker's position, and she fell out of favor with the movement. She continued to attend conventions of the suffrage movement and distribute her own brand of literature, but was virtually ignored by the rest of the movement. Her penchant for wearing male-style clothing, including a top hat, only exacerbated the situation.
Her death in 1919 came one year before the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guaranteed women the right to vote.

Medal of Honor
After the war, Walker was recommended for the Medal of Honor by generals William Tecumseh Sherman and George Henry Thomas. On November 11, 1865, President Andrew Johnson signed a bill to present her the medal, specifically for her services at the First Battle of Bull Run (Manassas).
In 1917, the U.S. Congress, after revising the standards for award of the medal so that it could only be given to those who had been involved in "actual combat with an enemy", revoked more than 900 previously-awarded medals, including that of Dr. Mary Edwards Walker and William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody. Although ordered to return the medal, she refused to do so and continued to wear it until her death.
President Jimmy Carter restored her medal posthumously in 1977.

Attribution and citation
Rank and organization: Contract Acting Assistant Surgeon (civilian), U. S. Army. Places and dates: Battle of Bull Run, July 21, 1861; Patent Office Hospital, Washington, D.C., October 1861; Chattanooga, Tenn., following Battle of Chickamauga, September 1863; Prisoner of War, April 10, 1864-August 12, 1864, Richmond, Va.; Battle of Atlanta, September 1864. Entered service at: Louisville, Ky. Born: 26 November 1832, Oswego County, N.Y.

Citation:
Whereas it appears from official reports that Dr. Mary E. Walker, a graduate of medicine, "has rendered valuable service to the Government, and her efforts have been earnest and untiring in a variety of ways," and that she was assigned to duty and served as an assistant surgeon in charge of female prisoners at Louisville, Ky., upon the recommendation of Major-Generals Sherman and Thomas, and faithfully served as contract surgeon in the service of the United States, and has devoted herself with much patriotic zeal to the sick and wounded soldiers, both in the field and hospitals, to the detriment of her own health, and has also endured hardships as a prisoner of war four months in a Southern prison while acting as contract surgeon; and Whereas by reason of her not being a commissioned officer in the military service, a brevet or honorary rank cannot, under existing laws, be conferred upon her; and Whereas in the opinion of the President an honorable recognition of her services and sufferings should be made:
It is ordered, That a testimonial thereof shall be hereby made and given to the said Dr. Mary E. Walker, and that the usual medal of honor for meritorious services be given her.

Mary Walker, CA 1870
She often wore men's clothes
and was arrested for impersonating
a man several times.

In World War II, a Liberty ship, the SS Mary Walker, was named for her.
In 1982, the U.S. Postal Service issued at 20 cent stamp in her honor.
The medical facilities at SUNY Oswego are named in her honor. On the same grounds a plaque explains her importance in the Oswego community.
There is a United States Army Reserve center named for her in Walker, Michigan.
The Whitman-Walker Clinic in Washington, D.C. is named in honor of Dr. Walker and the poet Walt Whitman who was a nurse in D.C. during the Civil War.
 
Last edited:
1) A pattern of material can be copied. In fact this may be possible not too long in the future. Let's say they offer you the option of using a 'transporter'. You step in here on earth and a computer using nanotechnology records your 'material' down to the spin on the quanta. They across the galaxy another machine recreates your pattern exactly. The pattern will be exactly the same. The material here on earth is dissipated (given all the legal and other problems doubles would create)

You steppin in that machine?
Ah - the old mass-murder of Star Trek argument. ;) No - I won't be stepping in the machine.

Build into the materialist concept the idea that a pattern (as I outlined above), once switched off, is lost forever, and that each pattern/body is a different/separate person, you can build up a reasonable model materialistic model.


2) The pattern is radically changed. The mass increases radically. Interconnections between neurons radically change, even in later life, we are finding: the brain is much more plastic (iow the pattern can change) than once thought. Hormone levels change radically, not just within cycles, but altogether. Patterns of behavior change.

Are you sort of you, since you are sort of the same pattern, but not really?
As said, there is possibly a core pattern that just does not change. I am not advocating this as truth - but as a hypothesis that a materialist can accept. Everything you say that changes can be seen as changes in the non-core part - i.e. the part that might affect "personality" but not "self".

3) I copy the various programs on your computer. Take this home on zip drives to my computer. Now my computer has the same programs and I even copied the files you had in Word and elsewhere. I have the same make and year of computer as you. Is my computer your computer now?
No - each pattern/material combination is unique.
With the computer analogy you merely have a clone... not the same computer. Afterall, your computer could crash when mine doesn't... etc.

4) just realized I am being too generous. Let's take your computer. First, slowly over time, I replace all the hardware. I do this with some parts that are the same and with some parts that are not quite the same. In the end none of the original metal, plastic, etc. is the same. I also get new updated copies of the software. This still shares much of the same attributes as the original. Word, for example, is very similar to the original Word I had, though now it can do more things. Other programs I copy to disk, then erase from the computer and then upload them again.

So we have all new matter and some changes in software. Everything else in the software is a copy. I think this is a fair parallel.
The analogy breaks down due to the need to switch off the machine to replace parts (e.g. the CPU).
If in your analogy you somehow managed to keep the computer "running" (i.e. switched on at all times and operating) but replaced all the components, then the part analogous to "self" would be the CPU... that which keeps the same while all the "personality" changes.

If the Motherboard/CPU isn't changed but everything else is, one could say that the self is the same but the personality has changed.
If you switch the PC off and change the CPU/Motherboard then one could argue that this changes the core of the machine... changes the "self"... and it is fundamentally a new machine.
It is also quite clear from this analogy that each CPU/Mobo would be a separate "self".

But it really depends on what is defined as "self" - and I'm not sure anyone has adequately defined it yet.


Again, I'm not advocating my idea as truth, or even necessarily as something I personally hold, but as something that a materialist might accept that could explain "self" etc.
 
Dr. Walker's point is in reality there is no such thing as outside or beyond time. That premise of existing beyond time is just a figment of one’s imagination.
How does she claim to know? If she is saying God cannot exist because she cannot conceive of anything beyond space/time, her argument seems rather lame.

There might be many spacial or temporal dimensions beyond our limited perceptions. String theory, M-theory, brane theory etc. all suppose the possible existence of multiple dimensions. Is she saying these are impossible?
 
swivel said:
Agreed. Time is the same thing as change. It isn't an "entity," it's just a concept. It's our measure of change.

Everything is 'just a concept' - it's how we understand the world. Time is also more complicated than just a universal measure of change. Relativity speaks of two events occurring simultaneously from one vantage point, and at different times when seen from another (e.g. one moving near the speed of light). Time and space are interconnected dimensions of the reality in which we exist. However, that does not exclude others, nor higher dimensions of e.g. time in which a deity may exist.

swivel said:
If a deity is changing, time exists. If time exists, we have a problem: no deity can exist for an infinite amount of time prior to creating the universe.

Which means:

1. God isn't eternal.
2. God didn't create the universe.
3. There is no God.
Why? You may have problems imagining infinite time, but that's just your limitation. There are infinite numbers, why not time? There is the problem that our time came only into existence with the universe - however, who knows the nature of reality beyond our universe?

I think therefore premise1, and premise2 are both possibly false, and your conclusion does not follow.

swivel said:
If you think God can somehow "work around" these problems from "outside" the system, then you think God can resolve paradoxes (which she can't). I.E., you believe God could draw a two dimensional object which simultaneously qualifies as a square and a circle.

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose I have a bookshelf of detailed biographies. In each book there is a complete lifetime represented. However, I am in a "library-reality" outside of any book, and can dip in to any book at will. Therefore I can experience any time in someone's life at will - I can even edit their story if I wish. How would the characters in each book view me?

It has nothing to do with square circles.
 
Everything is 'just a concept' - it's how we understand the world. Time is also more complicated than just a universal measure of change. Relativity speaks of two events occurring simultaneously from one vantage point, and at different times when seen from another (e.g. one moving near the speed of light). Time and space are interconnected dimensions of the reality in which we exist. However, that does not exclude others, nor higher dimensions of e.g. time in which a deity may exist.

Then, by your logic, anything that can be conjured from the imagination might exist in another dimension. Perhaps there exists a Middle Earth, too? :rolleyes:


Why? You may have problems imagining infinite time, but that's just your limitation. There are infinite numbers, why not time? There is the problem that our time came only into existence with the universe - however, who knows the nature of reality beyond our universe?

It's very easy to determine the nature of reality beyond our universe, it's exactly equal to the magnitude of ignorance multiplied by the amount of gibberish conjured from the imaginative of any deluded individual.
 
As we seem to have a penchant for such things, God is man's first real fictional superhero.

He is the original caped crusader, ridding the world of evil and saving us from ourselves. Only in this vein does He exist, a comic book character created from the minds of men.
actually there is a teleological argument that uses the same premises to assert god's existence.

Namely the fact that the narrative of god (or the super-person) keeps cropping up in our culture because we are inherently connected to him and have no scope to eradicate it (no matter how many richard dawkins coffee mugs get sold)
 
So "why not God", the complement, is also a subjunctive implied by simple logic.

Why/why not, implies a thesis. So let's hear it.

I'm working on the thread subject as stated "Why God doesn't exist".
"Why not God" is your baby. This thread is in the process of answering your question "Why not God".
 
Last edited:
In 1980, the landmark series Cosmos premiered on public television. Since then, it is estimated that more than a billion people around the planet have seen it. Cosmos chronicles the evolution of the planet and efforts to find our place in the universe. Each of the 13 episodes focuses on a specific aspect of the nature of life, consciousness, the universe and time. Topics include the origin of life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere), the nature of consciousness, and the birth and death of stars. When it first aired, the series catapulted creator and host Carl Sagan to the status of pop culture icon and opened countless minds to the power of science and the possibility of life on other worlds.

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can culminate in the emergence of new species.

Evolutionary biology is a sub-field of biology concerned with the origin of species from a common descent and descent of species, as well as their change, multiplication and diversity over time. Evolutionary biology is an interdisciplinary field because it includes scientists from a wide range of both field and lab oriented disciplines.

Anthropology (first use in English: 1593) is the study of human beings, everywhere and throughout time.

Archaeology is the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, features, biofacts, and landscapes.

Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life, including organisms' evolution and interactions with each other and their environments (their paleoecology).

Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. The totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record.

People don’t want their lives fixed. Nobody wants their problems solved. Their dramas. Their distractions. Their stories resolved. Their messes cleaned up. Because what would they have left? Just the big scary unknown. - Chuck Palahniuk

Why hasn‘t science detected a God?

Well, the reasoning given is God exists beyond time. Let’s turn to Dr. Walker’s reasoning when speaking to the issue about God existing beyond time.

It’s been suggested that God exists beyond time. However, if God changes in any way; for example, has a thought, then the elapse of time (old-thought to new-thought) can be distinguished from the absence of time (old-thought to new-thought), so any change, no matter how insignificant or what form it takes, inevitably results in time. Consequently, if God exists beyond time, then he would be reduced to an impotent statue, unable to create the earth, let alone think.

There is no such thing as beyond or outside time.

Science has developed tools to use, yet from believers we get excuse.
God can’t exist beyond time and claim to be real. Time exists in reality. - earth

Reality is factuality not beliefs or faith or perspectives.

scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true
Considering all the observations made by science, never a God.
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to the Science Channel’s video webpage. Select/click the "video" button in the orange menu bar at the top and select 100 greatest discoveries. Notice these discoveries were made by science without God’s supernatural divination.
 
Last edited:
Namely the fact that the narrative of god (or the super-person) keeps cropping up in our culture because we are inherently connected to him and have no scope to eradicate it

Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound....Look! Up in the sky...it's a bird, it's a plane, it's God.

Yes, it's God - strange visitor from another realm who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. God - who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands, and who, disguised as Lightgigantic, mild mannered philosopher for a great internet science forum, fights the never ending battle for Truth, Justice and the Delusional Way.

Kind of fits. I used to think theism was akin to the Brothers Grimm but not now. It's really comic book stuff.

Oh!....The universe is his phone booth.
 
Back
Top