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)
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)
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.