God Disproved

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » God Disproved

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:47 pm
Alright guys, I'm making this post so that I can receive criticism on my philosophical position on God's existence. (It is shortened considerably)
*note that none of this is final, we mustn't set our beliefs in stone. There is much work to be done here, and I have barely scratched the surface.*

I decided to form a philosophical position on God's non-existence because I was tired of disproving holy books.

THE GOD OF PARADOX

Alright. First we must begin with defining God in general. God is supernatural and *most* monotheistic belief systems coin God as being omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, and pretty much all[anything]. However there is a problem with this. For one, a being or entity cannot logically be omnipotent and any other all-encompassing trait. Obviously, this being cannot be all powerful and, at the same time, have the power to *not* do something imperfectly, or not know something, ect. The second problem is that an omniscient being cannot, by the definition of omniscient even *be* omniscient. This entity cannot conceive something so intricate that it cannot understand it. The same applies with an omnipotent being. This being cannot create something so big that it couldn't lift it. (After some research I found that the omnipotent paradox was already thought up) Sad But that is a tired example, with many faults, so lets use a new one, one that cannot be constricted by gravity. God cannot be powerful enough to not exist. Nor can she be powerful enough to defy her own laws. (explained in further detail below)

Although this disproves most gods today, it does not disprove the An entity that is just “GOD”. Since it is impossible for an infallible being to exist, the Greek polytheist view of Gods and goddesses as fallible beings is the only one that can exist so far.

THE INFINITY DILEMMA

The next information deals with an infinite being. It is important to note that when you hear someone saying "...before time" ect. they don't know what they are talking about. We use time based on events (big bang) and we say this is the beginning of time. It is not. Time doesn't need an event to exist, it continues to exist with nothing, and nothing is the only thing that can exist with it.
The only thing is that an infinite being also cannot exist. The only things that can exist infinitely are time, and nothingness. Since existence itself (before the universe, when there was just nothing (no energy at all) is defined in time, and time always existed; there could be no beginning. Theists will say that God is outside of time, but he can’t be, because (like I just wrote) existence is defined by time. Because time is moving infinitely in both directions, for God to have always existed, he could never have gotten around to creating the universe since his existence is in an infinite regression. (he could if his existence was moving in booth directions, but this rules out a "beginning") If his existence is moving regressively, he doesn't exist in the time that has not happened yet. (explained below)


A being could exist in concordance with time, but its existence would have to be moving negatively with time. Perhaps this being's existence could be moving forwards *and* backwards (repeat), at the same rate, but hypothetically, the time that has already passed is defining itself as we speak (type) because it is moving regressively. God can't exist in that hypothetical time that God hasn't reached and time itself hasn't reached, but actually *has* reached because we are past it. God cannot skip through time to ever reach it. It's kind of complicated, so I'll make a diagram.

( = future time (also hypothetical)

0 = God's existence (overlaps time because it is moving with it. The diagram begins at the center and moves outwards in both directions. the zeros represent time god existed already and there is an invisible zero over where we are)

^ = hypothetical time (has already happened but hasn't already happened)

* = us (same rules apply, god exists with us)

…(((((((*0000000000000000000^^^…

The hypothetical time happened already, but it also didn’t happen. We know it already happened, since we are here, but it also is still happening at the infinite rate that time could exist, and is creating itself in.
The *only* logical conclusion is that nothing initiated the universe.
Thus God cannot be infinite and he doesn't yet exist in those infinite carrots.

Here is why this is scientifically accurate with what we know:
*We know that nothingness, and only nothingness can always exist with time
*We know that the universe had no total energy before the big bang
*We know that the universe is flat
*We know that through quantum fluctuations, nothingness can initiate a big bang.

Here is a video you should watch, though not before your response if you can help it:
YouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
(Explains why we know a universe can come from nothing)


The only thing I am having problems with is that I don't really have a concrete definition for God :/
*Is* God supposed to be infinite, is she supposed to be fallible, if not, is she even God? ect.:perplexed:

A RETRIBUTIVE DEITY

The last part is the issue determinism, which rules out any retributive deity.
I could write essays on this, but I don't feel like it so you need to watch two short videos: :p

YouTube - Determinism - God's Flaw (part one)

YouTube - Determinism - God's Flaw (part two)

If you have any other attributes for a deity, please list them so that I can gain a better grasp on what God actually is.

A GOD OF ANOTHER REALM

Perhaps this being is outside of our realm and she can affect our laws but in our realm but our laws do not apply to her. So this means all of this reasoning is for naught right?

There is a flaw with this system. We literally cannot use any of our words to describe her realm. If that deity cannot be disproved with the concepts of our realm, (time ect.) then nothing from our lexicon could be used to even explain that deity. If I couldn't disprove that her realm needed to be created and that she couldn't have been the cause, then nothing in her realm is logical. No logic can be applied and the only thing she can begat in her realm would be completely inconceivable and illogical itself. So, what's wrong with that? All that means is that we just can't understand her, right? Well, the thing is, we can't even use the term illogic to describe her realm. That creates quite a quagmire. She can't be illogical and she can't be logical, at the same time!. Because we can't use those terms. Our absolute and definitive words cannot be used on concordance either. So now try it with the terms existence and nonexistence.

This covers the popular position that "god's ways are not our ways" and that our logic can't be used on her.

But, the other option is that this deity is logical . . . (what ever else follows doesn't matter) Time does not permit a logical being.

Science doesn't need to tell us much to disprove a God. That is where philosophy comes in. Of course you can't empirically disprove, with publicly verifiable, evidence that God doesn't exist (hard scientific) but with principles of logic and a bit of knowledge about concepts of time, a deity can be disproved. When people hold the position that God cannot be disproved they are thinking scientifically. It is like saying scientifically disprove that there isn't an invisible undetectable clown on my head! As of now, you can't do that based on what the definition of clown is. If the definition of clown was:
an invisible and undetectable being that was eternal and infinite, we could have a chance at disproving it.

CRITICISM
 
pondfish
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:53 pm
@Theologikos,
God exist or God not exist is not the correct question or answer.

The mere concept of Disproving GOD or proving GOD is wrong.

You create assumption and destroy it.

Humans likes to play games with his mind so he can kill time. That is the end result.

He will kill time irespective of his beliefs. But atleast he will not aware of time is running past as he immersed in useless babble about his creation GOD concept.

Quit it fools.

Ask the right question. Never agree or disagree.
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:00 pm
@Theologikos,
After a few centuries of trying to prove or disprove god or even to agree on what possible attribures a god might have, I think it unlikely that such efforts will succeed. If you want to present any particular notion or concept or god and try to prove or disprove or at least discuss that you might have something to talk about.
Can god be both omnipotent and omniscient in any way humans could conceive?
Is time really independent of the world and events, can anything be eternal or stand outside of time.
I have proved or disproved "god" is just too nebulous to even merit much comment. Except no you have not to both claims.
god is the rational,ordering and creative principle of the universe: prove or disprove that.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:35 pm
@prothero,
Firstly, thank you for your criticism. I was wrestling with those concepts myself when formulating this. God really doesn't have a concrete definition. Some people say that God is within us, God is within nature, ect. And obviously there are many other interpretations of God(s). The point with the impossibility of an infinite God, or existence before the universe, is that If God isn't infinite, he must be created. And if he is created, he can't be God. The pantheist Gods are created by our existence, so they aren't really Gods at all. I guess I picked the most prominent conceptions about a deity and and what makes up a deity, and tried to disprove those. I really wanted people to give me more interpretations of God so that I could edit my post and disprove those as well.


prothero;143329 wrote:
Can god be both omnipotent and omniscient in any way humans could conceive?
Is time really independent of the world and events, can anything be eternal or stand outside of time.
I have proved or disproved "god" is just too nebulous to even merit much comment. Except no you have not to both claims.
god is the rational,ordering and creative principle of the universe: prove or disprove that.


I don't fully understand that first question. We created the definitions of omnipotence and omniscience, so I don't understand how they aren't set in stone. :perplexed:

In regard to your second question, No. Nothing can stand out of time. Literally (nothing), so if time existed always, which it is impossible for it to *not* have existed. Nothing can transcend it. This is why the universe *must* have started from nothing.

"god is the rational,ordering and creative principle of the universe: prove or disprove that." Okay, since nothingness existed before God, God could not have spontaneously generated. She needs a cause. If order existed before the universe, there was no need for a deity. If you are just saying that God is just a principle, (which can exist with nothingness and time) then She is nothing more than a law of nature or an Idea. THAT is very interesting, I am going to need some time to ponder that.

In the mean time, thank you again for your thoughtful reply. Smile

EDIT: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:11 PM

I have thought about it, and if god is just laws of nature, then she is not supernatural, and merely logical and explainable. She is entirely understandable. If we are going to go by this reasoning that God is merely laws of nature, I think that greatly depreciates the value of God. For example it's like those people who say evil is just the absence of God's love in your heart. The problem is that evil can now be anything from taking out the trash to murder. If you do not have Athena's love in your heart, you are evil. It's the same here, we could just say that God is a rock. Where does it end? What is the unifying criteria? :listening:
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 09:49 pm
@Theologikos,
[QUOTE=Theologikos;143339] I don't fully understand that first question. We created the definitions of omnipotence and omniscience, so I don't understand how they aren't set in stone. [/QUOTE]It is difficult to explain the degree of suffering, pain and natural and moral evil in the world with an omnipotent god. It is difficult to account for free will or the freedom of creatures with an omnipotent god. It is difficult for a god to be omniscient (knowledge of the future) and claim man has moral responsibility and free will. Could an omnipotent god change the future or the past and still be omniscient? There are all sorts of theological problems and logical problems associated with these concepts. They are not Biblical and they come from the Greek worldview about the eternal changeless perfection of the heavens which we now know does not correspond to (is not truth) about the universe. Changing worldviews require changing concepts of god and divine action.


[QUOTE=Theologikos;143339] In regards to your second question, No. Nothing can stand out of time. Literally (nothing), so if time existed always, which it is impossible for it to *not* have existed. Nothing can transcend it. This is why the universe *must* have started from nothing. [/QUOTE] There are lots of previous threads on the nature of time in the forum you might look at a few of them. My basic position is time is change or process. No change, no time. Time is not independent of space; and space is not independent of the matter/mind which occupies it. So your position about time existing independent of the world and change in the world is one I do not share. There is no meaning to time independent of the universe and there is no meaning to time before the big bang, the creation of the universe. God is frequently said to be "eternal" to stand outside of time but this notion likewise has no meaning in my worldview. The world is contained within God (immanence) but god is more than the world (transcendent).


[QUOTE=Theologikos;143339] "god is the rational,ordering and creative principle of the universe: prove or disprove that." Okay, since nothingness existed before God, God could not have spontaneously generated. She needs a cause. If order existed before the universe, there was no need for a deity. If you are just saying that God is just a principle, (which can exist with nothingness and time) then She is nothing more than a law of nature or an Idea. THAT is very interesting, I am going to need some time to ponder that.. [/QUOTE]God is generally held to be the first cause (that which has no previous cause), the prime mover, the great architect, the ground of all being, the essence of existence. "that in which you live and move and have being". God is not a person, but a spirit, in my particular view God creates through nature and through natural law. Creation is an ongoing process not a completed act. The world is engaged in a continuous process of creative advance. The divine goal is creativity and the divine action (ultimate reality) is process. I do not tell you this to convert you but just to make you aware of alternative views of gods nature and gods action in the world. Alternatives to supernatural theism or orthodox Chrisitianity.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 10:26 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;143318 wrote:
If you have any other attributes for a deity, please list them so that I can gain a better grasp on what God actually is.
I think the issue has two parts, first is the question of whether or not gods are relevant. If gods are relevant for human beings, then they must, in some sense, be causally interactive with humans. And if they're not relevant, then the question of their existence is unimportant. So, if the question is worth discussing, then I hold that gods should be assumed to be relevant.
Part two; for something to be a relevant god, I think the following three characteristics are required:
1) a god is in control of, but distinct from, at least one natural phenomenon
2) a god must demonstrate goal directed behaviour
3) a god must be controllable or influenceable by, at least some, human beings.
If the above is correct, two arguments follow:
1) condition 3 (above) allows us to test any hypothesis, that moots a god, by prayer or other rituals. As this experiment has been conducted by millions of people over a period of several thousand years, we already have enough data to conclude that there are no relevant gods.
2) should a reliable procedure be discovered, for exploiting gods, then gods will fall within the category of natural objects studied by scientists. Thus, in order to retain divine status, gods must remain outside the set of things that can be described and understood, in short, gods are irreducibly imaginary. It follows from this that it is impossible to both be a god and to meet condition 3, therefore, there are no gods.

But, shouldn't this thread be in the philosophy of religion forum?
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 10:40 pm
@prothero,
prothero;143372 wrote:
It is difficult to explain the degree of suffering, pain and natural and moral evil in the world with an omnipotent god. It is difficult to account for free will or the freedom of creatures with an omnipotent god. It is difficult for a god to be omniscient (knowledge of the future) and claim man has moral responsibility and free will. Could an omnipotent god change the future or the past and still be omniscient? There are all sorts of theological problems and logical problems associated with these concepts. They are not Biblical and they come from the Greek worldview about the eternal changeless perfection of the heavens which we now know does not correspond to (is not truth) about the universe. Changing worldviews require changing concepts of god and divine action.


I totally agree. This is exactly why I wondered why most monotheists believe that their God is omniscient or omnipotent. They should scratch those Ideas completely, and have their god be more like the Greek ones. They are the only ones that make logical sense. They have their faults, they aren't perfect, but they are immortal and they live in an alternate reality. Which in my opinion, makes complete sense.

prothero;143373 wrote:
There are lots of previous threads on the nature of time in the forum you might look at a few of them. My basic position is time is change or process. No change, no time. Time is not independent of space; and space is not independent of the matter/mind which occupies it. So your position about time existing independent of the world and change in the world is one I do not share.


I will. but I think that we *do* have the same concept of time. Nothingness
is defined by action. Our body's mass is comprised by 90% of nothingness. Nothingness is particles, on a quantum level, popping in and out of existence. So time must move both regressively and progressively because nothingness could not have been nonexistent (that is worded weirdly :/ ) . If we were to say that God is separate from time, and created time, then by what you said, she/he/it couldn't exist. If there is no time, which exists only when something exists (by what you're saying), how could god do anything? The moment, she started doing something, time would automatically begin existing, separate from her creation. She couldn't have created anything outside of time because for her to do so, time would have to exist (by definition). If the event of creation and time acted simultaneously, then, in that moment, and only that moment did god begin existing. If that is so, and God began at point, that time began, there was still nothingness before then. Nothingness existed before God and before time. (this is saying that nothingness is not active and thus not creating time itself) But that is the problem, the very essence of nothingness does create time. (as shown in first video)

In addition, even if you didn't need time for something to exist, you need time for something to change state. The states are nonexistence to existence, So for a creator to create anything, she would need to create time first and foremost. But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed. If time existed without needing to be created, then whatever may have created anything else is not and cannot be the basic reason for everything.
*source for last claim*
YouTube - Disproving a Creator (God)

Again, thank you for your reply.

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 12:55 AM ----------

ughaibu;143380 wrote:
I think the issue has two parts, first is the question of whether or not gods are relevant. If gods are relevant for human beings, then they must, in some sense, be causally interactive with humans. And if they're not relevant, then the question of their existence is unimportant. So, if the question is worth discussing, then I hold that gods should be assumed to be relevant.
Part two; for something to be a relevant god, I think the following three characteristics are required:
1) a god is in control of, but distinct from, at least one natural phenomenon
2) a god must demonstrate goal directed behaviour
3) a god must be controllable or influenceable by, at least some, human beings.
If the above is correct, two arguments follow:
1) condition 3 (above) allows us to test any hypothesis, that moots a god, by prayer or other rituals. As this experiment has been conducted by millions of people over a period of several thousand years, we already have enough data to conclude that there are no relevant gods.
2) should a reliable procedure be discovered, for exploiting gods, then gods will fall within the category of natural objects studied by scientists. Thus, in order to retain divine status, gods must remain outside the set of things that can be described and understood, in short, gods are irreducibly imaginary. It follows from this that it is impossible to both be a god and to meet condition 3, therefore, there are no gods.

But, shouldn't this thread be in the philosophy of religion forum?


You are right, but this does not disprove a deist's stance on God. They hold that God just created the universe and then didn't involve herself in anything else. One could argue that that is relevant to everything we do since we wouldn't exist without that deity. :/

Also, I'm new here (as of today) so I wasn't exactly sure where to put my question. Surprised

Thank you for your reply. Smile
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:49 am
@Theologikos,
Many people have tried to define god, all have failed miserably.
Why would god fit in your box ?
Wouldn't that make you god?
 
ikurwa89
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 02:31 am
@wayne,
It's impossible to offically "disprove" God because God is non-mathematical concept. Proofs are only carried out in pure mathematics from a set of axioms.

You can only produce logical deductive arguments for/against God.
But then again, your arguments is as good as your premises.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 04:02 am
@Theologikos,
My question has always been, if god was real why be so hidden about it but then wage a beings entire existence off being hidden? It is so absurd but the argument I hear from theists is that god would ruin free will if he revealed himself. But that is funny in itself.

If a theist is so convinced that there is a god, and that they would never question such an existence then aren't they by their own argument suggesting their own free will is now compromised because of their belief?

They don't even realize their own argument defeats itself. The only reason they come up with this weak argument is to protect the fact that a god does not exist. Because how would my free will be compromised if god all of a sudden revealed himself to me? It wouldn't. Because I would still have the option to decide weather or not I wanted to follow or submit to it. I could decide to ignore it all the same. So my free will would not be compromised in the least. A hidden god to play a game of hide and go seek at the gamble of eternity of suffering is just not logical and never will be.
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 04:08 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;144464 wrote:
My question has always been, if god was real why be so hidden about it but then wage a beings entire existence off being hidden? It is so absurd but the argument I hear from theists is that god would ruin free will if he revealed himself. But that is funny in itself.

If a theist is so convinced that there is a god, and that they would never question such an existence then aren't they by their own argument suggesting their own free will is now compromised because of their belief?

They don't even realize their own argument defeats itself. The only reason they come up with this weak argument is to protect the fact that a god does not exist. Because how would my free will be compromised if god all of a sudden revealed himself to me? It wouldn't. Because I would still have the option to decide weather or not I wanted to follow or submit to it. I could decide to ignore it all the same. So my free will would not be compromised in the least. A hidden god to play a game of hide and go seek at the gamble of eternity of suffering is just not logical and never will be.



Free will has its basis in the act of faith
personaly, I don't believe in the eternity of suffering business, thats religion.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 04:14 am
@wayne,
wayne;144465 wrote:
Free will has its basis in the act of faith


So what? Faith is only necessary because you can't be certain. It would be much better to be certain than to guess. Wouldn't it? Just like my car analogy. Should I torture you with it again?

You are about to cross the street, so you look both ways before crossing it. However; all the cars are invisible but real, you just can't hear them or see them moving. The question becomes, when is it a good time to cross the street? You can never determine it, but instead would just have to guess. That is what faith is, it is a guess. So you could step off the curb make it a few feet and either keep taking steps or you could be plowed down by the invisible car.

Faith is the patch project for a problem of existence. Faith is not the solution it is a temporary fix until truth is revealed or discovered. A god can never be discovered or known because the basis for their existence can never be known. Only dead people know the truth, and I'm wagering all the money ever in existence that once you are dead, you don't even know that you are dead. I'm ready to cash in on that bet too.
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 04:22 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;144468 wrote:
So what? Faith is only necessary because you can't be certain. It would be much better to be certain than to guess. Wouldn't it? Just like my car analogy. Should I torture you with it again?

You are about to cross the street, so you look both ways before crossing it. However; all the cars are invisible but real, you just can't hear them or see them moving. The question becomes, when is it a good time to cross the street? You can never determine it, but instead would just have to guess. That is what faith is, it is a guess. So you could step off the curb make it a few feet and either keep taking steps or you could be plowed down by the invisible car.

Faith is the patch project for a problem of existence. Faith is not the solution it is a temporary fix until truth is revealed or discovered. A god can never be discovered or known because the basis for their existence can never be known. Only dead people know the truth, and I'm wagering all the money ever in existence that once you are dead, you don't even know that you are dead. I'm ready to cash in on that bet too.


We have faith in lots of things ,we have faith that the light will come on when we flip the switch. Faith is to trust in our own belief. We make decisions every day about many things. God belief is just one of those choices we make. I'm not one of those people who thinks either choice is any more right than the other. It's a personal choice, there is no proof either way, we weigh the evidence and make our own choices. If you are willing to wager you must have faith in your belief, no?
 
pondfish
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 05:11 am
@Theologikos,
You all are bonafide idiots.

You can't prove or disprove something that do not exist. You can only prove or disprove something that exist.:detective:
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 05:13 am
@pondfish,
pondfish;144491 wrote:
You all are bonafide idiots.

You can't prove or disprove something that do not exist. You can only prove or disprove something that exist.:detective:


What does not exist?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 09:33 am
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;143318 wrote:

a being or entity cannot logically be omnipotent and any other all-encompassing trait.
- we already have sattelite telephone which can cover 100% of the world's surface, that is from a medival perspective a godlike power, to being able to communicate with a person in a random local on the surface of the world, instantly.

- we can send pictures, music, videos, programs ..etc trhough the internet, that is also a godlike power.

- we can send intercontinental missils to destroy cities.

- we have sattelites to spy the world, just look up google earth

Above mentioned examples imo are the definition for omnipotence. If we have it, why shouldn't god have it?



Obviously, this being cannot be all powerful and, at the same time, have the power to *not* do something imperfectly, or not know something, ect. I see USA as an immense powerful nation, yet they'r not perfect in the gulf war the greatest cause of allied casualties was to friendly fire. The have the most powerful arsenal of weaponry, most powerful intelligence service, most powerful space agentcy ..etc.

Maybe God doesn't care about all irrelevant information, after all we ate of the forbidden fruit and can think for ourselfs, and he let us take care of buisness so he doesn't have to babysit us whiney humans all the time.


The second problem is that an omniscient being cannot, by the definition of omniscient even *be* omniscient. This entity cannot conceive something so intricate that it cannot understand it - which definition contradicts godly omnisient?

- sounds like you are sorely ignorent about savants, less super savants.


nor can this being create something so big that it couldn't lift it A mere mortal man can create structures thousands of times greater than himself, sky scrapers and huge boats. Mortal man uses machinery to aid him, why shouldn't God rely on tools and machinery himself? Why would he do the dirty work himself? Why not just having his angels do it?

Although this disproves most gods today, it does not disprove the An entity that is just "GOD". Since it is impossible for an infallible being to exist, the Greek polytheist view of Gods and goddesses as fallible beings is the only one that can exist so far.


The next information deals with an infinite being. It is important to note that when you hear someone saying "...before time" ect. they don't know what they are talking about. We use time based on events (big bang) and we say this is the beginning of time. It is not. Time doesn't need an event to exist, it continues to exist with nothing, and nothing is the only thing that can exist with it.
- uhmm, yes, here we can sorta agree.

The only thing is that an infinite being also cannot exist. The only things that can exist infinitely are time, ideas and nothingness.
- ..and stupidity!

- don't think time in itself exist, just because someone said it does, doesn't mean it have to exist, Einstein couldn't prove existance of gravity.
Imo time is just a messurement just as speed.

- if an idea can exist infinitivly, then everything else can. Ideas can be changed, forgotten or erased.

-----------

I will stop wasting my own time commenting more of this.

I'm amazed how people can define someting scarecely defineable when they hardly can define the existance of their next door neighbour, don't know anything about quantum physics ..don't know how to make a computer chip ..have no knowledge of make a marrige last till death do them part.

If you are so smart and brilliant, then tell me what is the similarities of:
- ablation shield
- cavitation
- ultrasound cleaner
- can 22 celcius hot water water turn to ice, at living room temperature?

- when does rubber ties for cars have greater traction when having no pattern in the rubber? And why?
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:51 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;144440 wrote:
It's impossible to offically "disprove" God because God is non-mathematical concept. Proofs are only carried out in pure mathematics from a set of axioms.

You can only produce logical deductive arguments for/against God.
But then again, your arguments is as good as your premises.


I know, I know but I am trying to widen the scopes a bit. There has to be some kind of underlying principle to God, or at least to most Gods. :/

Right now they are cornered into having a God that doesn't work with our logic. Our isn't in our logical realm. But I think this creates quite a dilemma as well, and I plan on addressing it as soon as it is fully critiqued. Smile

---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 12:54 PM ----------

pondfish;144491 wrote:
You all are bonafide idiots.

You can't prove or disprove something that do not exist. You can only prove or disprove something that exist.:detective:


Not if that thing that did not exist claimed that it magically made grass grow, and was the only reason grass grew.
 
pondfish
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:42 am
@Theologikos,
Belief. You can't prove or disprove a belief. Belief of anything including GOD.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:44 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;144601 wrote:
Theologikos;143318 wrote:

a being or entity cannot logically be omnipotent and any other all-encompassing trait.
- we already have sattelite telephone which can cover 100% of the world's surface, that is from a medival perspective a godlike power, to being able to communicate with a person in a random local on the surface of the world, instantly.
- we can send pictures, music, videos, programs ..etc trhough the internet, that is also a godlike power.
- we can send intercontinental missils to destroy cities.
- we have sattelites to spy the world, just look up google earth
Above mentioned examples imo are the definition for omnipotence. If we have it, why shouldn't god have it?
Obviously, this being cannot be all powerful and, at the same time, have the power to *not* do something imperfectly, or not know something, ect. I see USA as an immense powerful nation, yet they'r not perfect in the gulf war the greatest cause of allied casualties was to friendly fire. The have the most powerful arsenal of weaponry, most powerful intelligence service, most powerful space agentcy ..etc.
Maybe God doesn't care about all irrelevant information, after all we ate of the forbidden fruit and can think for ourselfs, and he let us take care of buisness so he doesn't have to babysit us whiney humans all the time.
The second problem is that an omniscient being cannot, by the definition of omniscient even *be* omniscient. This entity cannot conceive something so intricate that it cannot understand it - which definition contradicts godly omnisient?
- sounds like you are sorely ignorent about savants, less super savants.
nor can this being create something so big that it couldn't lift it A mere mortal man can create structures thousands of times greater than himself, sky scrapers and huge boats. Mortal man uses machinery to aid him, why shouldn't God rely on tools and machinery himself? Why would he do the dirty work himself? Why not just having his angels do it?
Although this disproves most gods today, it does not disprove the An entity that is just “GOD”. Since it is impossible for an infallible being to exist, the Greek polytheist view of Gods and goddesses as fallible beings is the only one that can exist so far.


The next information deals with an infinite being. It is important to note that when you hear someone saying "...before time" ect. they don't know what they are talking about. We use time based on events (big bang) and we say this is the beginning of time. It is not. Time doesn't need an event to exist, it continues to exist with nothing, and nothing is the only thing that can exist with it.
- uhmm, yes, here we can sorta agree.

The only thing is that an infinite being also cannot exist. The only things that can exist infinitely are time, ideas and nothingness.
- ..and stupidity! Laughing
- don't think time in itself exist, just because someone said it does, doesn't mean it have to exist, Einstein couldn't prove existance of gravity.
Imo time is just a messurement just as speed.
- if an idea can exist infinitivly, then everything else can. Ideas can be changed, forgotten or erased.


Firstly Hex, I really appreciate you taking the time to criticize my points instead of just agreeing. That is what I need, someone smart who will see things that I don't.

Hex, I think you're reaching a bit when you liken technological advances to God. Those are natural, ordered explainable and understandable concepts that have grown exponentially with human advancement. They are also extremely limited. We cannot reach to the very limits of space, we can't even leave our galaxy. We have much advancement to do, but it can only get underway if we as a race forget our useless and unimportant squabbles on this Earth and move on to greater horizons to ensure our existence for more than a million years.

Concerning the omnipotent paragraph. I need to edit my syntax a bit. I accidentally merged an example of an omnipotent paradox with an omniscient/omnipotent example
omniscient (thoughts. . . complex)
omnipotent (lift rock) [I know this paradox has issues and I plan to address them in my next edit]

And you make a very good point about the angels. But, do we really have enough information about them? From what I know, they are messengers, but they also can wreak havoc. Maybe god has helpers? I'm not sure If I should include something on this or not. :/

In regard to the infinite bit. I need to edit out ideas. Sure potential ideas exist eternally, but for an idea to exist it must be held by a sentient being (human, god, ect). sorry about the confusion.

Concerning your time remark, I assumed that time could have a starting point ant that nothingness isn't active. (it's in my reply to someone and it is accompanied by a video. You don't have to watch the vid.)

Again, I really appreciate your time and your criticism. It was very useful.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:46 am
@Krumple,
Quote:


---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 12:19 PM ----------

(...all there is is BEING, no emptiness, nowhere...)
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » God Disproved
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 04:13:40