Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the existence of "God" possible?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hunterrose, your definition is taking the "god" out of "god."

Your scenario: that perhaps the universe existed filled with energy and no matter, and was then converted into matter by an energy being.

This is not a "god" of which you speak. To say that a being might exist of "pure energy" is not to say that it was a being of pure consciousness. While energy is not matter, it cannot be said to be philosophically "non-material." If the being were "pure consciousness," with NO matter and NO energy, then that would be a GOD. And additionally, it would also be in flagrant violation of the primacy of existence.

An "energy being" would have to be bound by the same laws of physics that we all are. It would not be the creator of reality, merely a powerful being that exists within reality.

As for lifting masses, such a being could only lift a mass that the laws of physics permitted it to lift. If this "energy being" contained more energy than there was in the rest of the universe, then it could theoretically "lift" any or all mass in the universe. But there would still exist a theoretical amount of matter that it could not move.

For example: If it created some or all of the matter in the universe, then theoretically it could create more and more matter, until the rest of the universe became LARGER than itself... at which point it could NOT lift the entirety of the matter in the universe.

The idea that something could lift any mass would HAVE to imply infinite strength, which WOULD contradict identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I don't think it has been shown that:

- "god" couldn't have created physical existence

- nigh-infinite power (ability to lift any quantifiable mass) is contradictory

- every consciousness is bound by scientific laws

It has also not been shown that there are not gremlins on Venus discussing Hegel. Surely you are aware that this lends no credence or credibility to the assertion that gremlins are discussing Hegel on Venus.

In an earlier post I think you agreed that these notions are arbitrary. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the arbitrary deserves to be included in "the possible". That is absolutely not true. The fact that an assertion does not contradict a philosophic axiom does not constitute evidence that it is "possible". At least some supporting evidence is required before a proposition can put in that category.

The notion that one of those gremlins from Venus has traveled to earth by an invisible spaceship and is controlling your thoughts does not contradict any philosophic axioms; yet we would not denote such a thing as "possible" and demand that you prove otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your scenario: that perhaps the universe existed filled with energy and no matter, and was then converted into matter by an energy being.

Nah, I'm saying that the god created even energy (in the e=mc^2 sense.) A scenario in which god (non-matter) was originally the only existent, and the god later created matter, space, gravity, light, and other forms of energy-matter.

If the being were "pure consciousness," with NO matter and NO energy, then that would be a GOD.

Why do you assume I speak of something else?

And additionally, it would also be in flagrant violation of the primacy of existence.

It's granted that consciousness couldn't exist before existence( assuming we mean existence as everything that exists, not necessarily just the physical universe.) But how does primacy of existence make the case the god's consciousness couldn't have been the original existent? How does it make the case that even a god's consciousness can't create physical matter?

Saying it violates primacy of existence (without explaining primacy's derivation) is one thing. Stating how these two things are validated by the axioms is a wholly different matter.

The idea that something could lift any mass would HAVE to imply infinite strength, which WOULD contradict identity.

Given enough time, I can write any number out onto pieces of paper. The fact that I could thus write any number doesn't imply that I can write out an infinite number. I feel it's quite likely that infinite strength would indeed violate identity, but infinite strength isn't a logical conclusion of this god's strength, any more than writing out infinite numbers is a logical conclusion to my ability.

The fact that an assertion does not contradict a philosophic axiom does not constitute evidence that it is "possible".

Agreed, and the fact that an assertion is arbitrary does not constitute a contradiction to a philosophic axiom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's granted that consciousness couldn't exist before existence( assuming we mean existence as everything that exists, not necessarily just the physical universe.) But how does primacy of existence make the case the god's consciousness couldn't have been the original existent? How does it make the case that even a god's consciousness can't create physical matter?

Because a consciousness cannot exist without something to be conscious of? You are proposing a theory of inherent ideas that applies to only God, in effect.

In addition, what does he make the universe out of? Something cannot come from nothing (law of identity, non-A (nonexistence) cannot be made to equal A (existence) without some sort of physical work being done - but, in your proposal, done on what?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, and the fact that an assertion is arbitrary does not constitute a contradiction to a philosophic axiom.

Woah I missed that. Thanks AisA.

The fact that the statement is arbitrary means that it is insignificant to any discussion. A discussion can only be a discussion of the facts - things that are, with evidence to back such claims up. Arbitrary claims are neither true nor false - they are merely arbitrary claims, to be dismissed without any comment. Until information in support of such a claim arises, why should I consider it at all?

I certainly can't spend my long life refuting all the possible arbitrary claims against Objectivism that there are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because a consciousness cannot exist without something to be conscious of? You are proposing a theory of inherent ideas that applies to only God, in effect.

Conscious of the god's thoughts? I suppose the god would have to have some inherent ideas and/or values.

In addition, what does he make the universe out of? Something cannot come from nothing (law of identity, non-A (nonexistence) cannot be made to equal A (existence) without some sort of physical work being done - but, in your proposal, done on what?)

Made from the god's thoughts and will? Thoughts are not "nothing." And "physical creation requires physical work" can't be accepted as irrefutable until "god can't create matter" is definitively derived from the axioms.

Why are you so interested in trafficking in the arbitrary?

The contradictory is false without a doubt; the arbitrary is not. I'm not meaning to come across as "prove that I am wrong." That's not my intention. I'm merely stating that I believe god is arbitrary, and not contradictory. If we agreed that god was arbitrary, but not contradictory, then I wouldn't have any argument to make.

The fact that the statement is arbitrary means that it is insignificant to any discussion. A discussion can only be a discussion of the facts - things that are, with evidence to back such claims up. Arbitrary claims are neither true nor false - they are merely arbitrary claims, to be dismissed without any comment. Until information in support of such a claim arises, why should I consider it at all?

Because while you might not do it, many people have said that god contradicts the axioms. I'm not so sure of that, so I am in search of validation of this contradicting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contradictory is false without a doubt; the arbitrary is not.

No, the arbitrary ranks below the false. At least the false has some sort of evidence (even wrong and/or misinterpreted evidence) behind it. The fact that the arbitrary is not "false without a doubt" is misleading (and I think you have been mislead.) Simply, the arbitrary is not significant at all to any discussion.

Why search for a validation of the contradiction? An arbitrary claim is not worth refuting, nor attempting to validate willy-nilly. The fault lies with the people who claim an arbitrary claim "contradicts" any fact of reality - it doesn't, its arbitrary, it has no relationship whatsoever to the facts of reality because none have been established.

Or, in simpler terms: I advise you to stop wasting your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contradictory is false without a doubt; the arbitrary is not.
In one sense, the arbitrary is worse than the false. A false proposition bears a relationship to reality -- it is contradicted by reality. An arbitrary proposition bears no relationship to reality at all. This does not make an arbitrary proposition somehow more valid than a false proposition; it does not meant that the epistemological status of the arbitraty is somehow superior to that of the false. It does not mean that we have to worry that the arbitrary may some day turn out to be true, while the false can be safely dismissed. The arbitrary can be dismissed faster and more thoroughly than any other type of proposition.

I'm not meaning to come across as "prove that I am wrong." That's not my intention. I'm merely stating that I believe god is arbitrary, and not contradictory. If we agreed that god was arbitrary, but not contradictory, then I wouldn't have any argument to make.
I think it is clear that there are many different notions about God, some of which are contradictory. As he is generally viewed by many Christians (for instance), god is indeed exempt from (and therefore capable of contradicting) both the law of identity and the law of causality. Most Christians that I know will tell you that god can, at will, suspend the law of identity and make A be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. He can certainly suspend the law of causality to permit miracles to occur. He can do anything and everything anywhere and everywhere at any time. He can be over there and over here simultaneously.

The fact that some individuals have a less ambitious view of god's capabilities, or the fact that you can formulate notions that move god to the status of the arbitrary, means what, exactly? Why is that important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, in simpler terms: I advise you to stop wasting your time.

Good advice! I think I'll take it!

I've already stated the truth and all the validation necessary. If you think about it enough, Hunterrose, you'll see it too. But I'm not spending any more of my time on doing the thinking for you.

(Not trying to be insulting here, but I have other things I must do.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the arbitrary is not "false without a doubt" is misleading (and I think you have been mislead.) Simply, the arbitrary is not significant at all to any discussion.

I don't know what assumption of yours is misleading you, but the arbitrary is, as I stated, not false.

This topic was created to question whether "god" was contradictory, NOT whether "god" was arbitrary. To continue to state that "god" is arbitrary is meaningless and seems faux-naïf.

Or, in simpler terms: I advise you to stop wasting your time.

In one sense, the arbitrary is worse than the false. A false proposition bears a relationship to reality -- it is contradicted by reality. An arbitrary proposition bears no relationship to reality at all. This does not make an arbitrary proposition somehow more valid than a false proposition; it does not meant that the epistemological status of the arbitraty is somehow superior to that of the false. It does not mean that we have to worry that the arbitrary may some day turn out to be true, while the false can be safely dismissed. The arbitrary can be dismissed faster and more thoroughly than any other type of proposition.

I agree with much of what you're saying, but "arbitrary" is being used two senses.

Omnipotence, for example, is arbitrary in the sense that we have no evidence of any being possessing omnipotence. But omnipotence is not arbitrary in the sense of bearing no relationship to reality. If omniscience bore no relationship to metaphysical reality, the boulder example wouldn't be possible and its demonstration that omniscience bears a false relationship wouldn't be valid. "Having no contextual evidence" is not necessarily the same as "having no relationship to metaphysical reality."

If a person did prove god's existence in some future time, could we then say that he had wasted his time on what had not been metaphysically arbitrary, or that his metaphysical fact was irrelevant?

If the necessary nature of "god" can be defined, and that nature shown to be contradictory then "god" itself is contradictory - and not arbitrary.

Whatever the result of this topic, I do appreciate that at least you aren't being condescending, AisA.

Not trying to be insulting here, but I have other things I must do.

Don't make shortcut statements, and imply their validations are self-evident.

You are evading my points; you should thus at least have the decency to not claim that "god" is contradictory, or that anyone who is still a theist after being exposed to your beliefs must be an evader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what assumption of yours is misleading you, but the arbitrary is, as I stated, not false.

This topic was created to question whether "god" was contradictory, NOT whether "god" was arbitrary. To continue to state that "god" is arbitrary is meaningless and seems faux-naïf.

So, God isn't worth discussing (is arbitrary,) so lets discuss the concept?

I'm not getting the point here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what you're saying, but "arbitrary" is being used two senses.

Omnipotence, for example, is arbitrary in the sense that we have no evidence of any being possessing omnipotence. But omnipotence is not arbitrary in the sense of bearing no relationship to reality. If omniscience bore no relationship to metaphysical reality, the boulder example wouldn't be possible and its demonstration that omniscience bears a false relationship wouldn't be valid. "Having no contextual evidence" is not necessarily the same as "having no relationship to metaphysical reality."

We must distinguish between a concept and a proposition. I am not saying that the concept "omnipotence" is arbitrary and has no relationship to reality. Concepts, as such, are neither true, false or arbitrary. For instance, if I walk into a room and simply say, "table", you cannot evaluate that statement as true, false or arbitrary; I have made no claim for anyone to evaluate.

However, we can say that a proposition (a claim to knowledge) for which no evidence exists one way or the other, literally bears no relationship to reality. There are, after all, only two possible relationships between a proposition and reality. Either the proposition is true, and therefore corresponds to reality, or it is false, and thus does not correspond to reality. When there is no evidence supporting a proposition, i.e. no evidence showing that it corresponds to reality, and no evidence against it, i.e. no evidence showing it does not correspond to reality, then it simply has no relationship to reality at all.

Such unsupported assertions, such as the claim that "the soul survives the death of the body", cannot be evaluated rationally; there is no way to say whether the facts of reality support such a notion or contradict it. There is nothing to do with such a claim except dismiss it.

As Peikoff notes in OPAR on page 166, some arbitrary claims, such as the claim that god exists and is omnipotent, can be brought into an cognitive context and analyzed on the basis of whether or not such a claim necessarily contradicts known facts. But there is never any obligation to do this. An arbitrary claim need not be refuted; it need not be addressed at all.

If a person did prove god's existence in some future time, could we then say that he had wasted his time on what had not been metaphysically arbitrary, or that his metaphysical fact was irrelevant?
If an arbitrary claim turns out to be true, it would mean that the original claimant (the one submitting the initial, unsupported assertion) either withheld supporting evidence or simply made a lucky guess.

If the necessary nature of "god" can be defined, and that nature shown to be contradictory then "god" itself is contradictory - and not arbitrary.
Why would you consider this significant? Everything that we cannot prove to be false does not automatically become possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When there is no evidence supporting a proposition, i.e. no evidence showing that it corresponds to reality, and no evidence against it, i.e. no evidence showing it does not correspond to reality, then it simply has no relationship to reality at all.

If evidence is presented that "god exists" is false, the proposition can't be said to be arbitrary until the evidence has been analyzed.

Everything that we cannot prove to be false does not automatically become possible.

You've said that twice. I appreciate your help, but I realize that :glare:

Okay, okay, I get the point. "God" doesn't contradict the axioms, "god exists" is arbitrary in a sense, and there's no point wasting time if we aren't interested. The question on "god" is irrelevant to you all, and the questions on my motives and understanding are irrelevant to me. On this forum, the answers to the original question should be left as they are.

:homestar:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, okay, I get the point. "God" doesn't contradict the axioms, "god exists" is arbitrary in a sense, and there's no point wasting time if we aren't interested. The question on "god" is irrelevant to you all, and the questions on my motives and understanding are irrelevant to me. On this forum, the answers to the original question should be left as they are.

But you don't "get the point." Every notion of God that you've provided has either been proven to be contradictory to reality, or it has been proven to be ungodlike.

Your further arguing only proves that you are not here to learn, but to waste our time and promote anti-Objectivist ideas, such as agnosticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your further arguing only proves that you are not here to learn, but to waste our time and promote anti-Objectivist ideas, such as agnosticism.

I feel the need to interject at this point, as I don't believe that one is necessarily a non-Objectivist because one claims to subscribe to agnosticism. This person is probably just applying too broad a definition for agnosticism, not realizing that true agnosticism does not permit the application of reason and logic because it assumes that ultimate knowledge is unattainable. Even if such knowledge is unavailable to the human race as it presently exists, to assume that this knowledge can never be attained is simply ludicrous.

Given my understanding of atheism, I think the same mistake can be made in this case. While a more rational doctrine than any theism I am aware of, atheism seems to fall short by denying any claim of supreme knowledge and assuming that our current level of awareness is enough to determine that there is no god. Because of this, I choose not to label myself an agnostic or an atheist.

Much of the argument on this thread seems to be dependent on a particular definition of god. This is taken from Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: 1god

Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3 : a person or thing of supreme value

4 : a powerful ruler

An Objectivist would pretty much be able to dismiss 1 and 2 right off the bat (though, oddly enough, the Cristian Science definition kind of sounds like a potential for "God" under Objectivist philosophy). Number 4 is vague enough to describe any number of people, even perhaps every person on the planet, and under number 3, there should be a god according to the totality of our knowledge, even if we could not agree on what it was. Therefore, I don't believe it is possible for God to exist, but that god or gods can and do.

Personally, I like ds1973's response from "Atheism, The name bugs me": "Truth is my god and reason the means of attaining it.... "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is the case for all deductive objective epistemology, (not Objectivist epistemology, i'm talking about the specific process of knowledge acquisition), reality is based on a sort of "hypothesis->empirical/logical validation->theory" process. With God, the hypothesis is there, but the empirical/logical backing is not there. This leads to a theory ("God exists") without any legitimacy, as it's not been truly thought out or tested. Whether or not God does in fact exist is peripheral if we can't explain him.

If there truly was an all ruling deity who demanded your respect and love, would he want you to abandon that which you consider a virtue and simply believe in him based on faith, or do you think that he would want you to try to gather all the information you could in order to not believe in him, but to know him? Any God I would ever consider worthy of worship would wait until I simply knew he existed, even if it never happened, rather than ask me to renounce my morality.

I think that's the best way to leave it. You can't say there isn't a God without a concrete hypothesis of what exactly God is. To say "I don't believe in anything that doesn't exist," doesn't necessary discount God if he does in fact exist. To say "I believe in God because I just do," is similarly flawed for reasons you are all already familiar with. I think that approaching God the same way as anything else is the best way to go. Let me warn you that this isn't at all reflective of the way I view existence...

But here's the hypothesis :glare: :

God must exist within the laws that govern the rest of the universe. If this is true, then God cannot be "everywhere," unless God is the universe, because some spaces are occupied with other things that are not God. A particle can not be God, because a particle is already defined, and we're simply creating additional variables; God doesn't simplify anything (a terrible summary of Occam's Razor). Thus, God can not be matter, because matter is already matter. If God is matter, than it is simply an entity that is to be observed. If God is not matter, than it can not be energy either, unless we are wrong about the nature of energy. This is because our current understanding is that energy is a form of matter. However, there is another possibility. Between particles there is, apparantly, nothingness, or empty space. This is a startling idea, because what is empty space? Could God occupy this empty space? We can't necessarily say that he does not, so now we have a place for God to exist physically, according to this hypothetical attempt at Godly explanation.

The next aspect to having a God that would be worthy of any consideration would be sentience. Because our hypothesis only has room for God to exist in the empty space, and since the general idea of God as presented by the majority of people nowadays claims no central location for God's existence, God can not really have a brain. Thus he must be sentient in a way other than the way that we are. This is no big surprise, because he existed before DNA paved the path towards our form of sentience, so he very well may have another mode of thought. But what is thought? Apart from the acquisition of knowledge and all that makes us intelligent, thought itself is, on the basic level, the ability to observe change. Think about it. So basically we need God to be able to observe change, and if he occupies all of this empty space, then we have a system where everything's moving around within God, and that's a pretty good start. At least now God's in a position to observe change if it has the capacity, but we still don't know where this capacity is coming from. Thus we have an incomplete hypothesis.

If anyone wants to further my attempt, using nothing but logic, to explain God, I think it would be fun. At least we'd be accomplishing more than religion ever has! :homestar:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't make shortcut statements, and imply their validations are self-evident.

You are evading my points; you should thus at least have the decency to not claim that "god" is contradictory, or that anyone who is still a theist after being exposed to your beliefs must be an evader.

Quite to the contrary: YOU are the one who is evading MY points. "God" IS QUITE OBVIOUSLY contradictory and YOU are clearly evading on a MASSIVE SCALE here. It's gotten to the point where your statements are SO nonsensical that I don't see any further point of swatting them down.

In short, I've had enough of you.

Also what are "my beliefs?" Hunterrose, are you an Objectivist? What are you in favor of and why? Do you believe in "god?"

Okay, okay, I get the point. "God" doesn't contradict the axioms

False. "God" DOES contradict the axioms. The arbitrary natue of your claims only serves to make you wrong twice. Once in envisioning something impossible and twice in envisioning something arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, God can not be matter, because matter is already matter ... Between particles there is, apparantly, nothingness, or empty space. This is a startling idea, because what is empty space? Could God occupy this empty space? We can't necessarily say that he does not, so now we have a place for God to exist physically, according to this hypothetical attempt at Godly explanation.

You seem to be defining God as non-matter and matter. How can non-matter exist "physically" in "empty space"?

You have not provided any logic here. You've provided a fantasy that contradicts reality.

More importantly, you have a confused view of empty space. Empty space is not the same as nothingness, in the way you seem to mean it. Empty space is not literally empty. That would be impossible. For, nothing is nothing. It's zero. It does not have space or dimensions. It does not even exist. Neither God, nor anything else, can "occupy" it.

Just as our earthly atmosphere is filled with invisible gases, "empty" space is also filled with something that we can't see with the unaided eye. And only future scientific inquiry will tell us what that substance is that fills space. Your magical, contradictory fantasy of God does not even qualify as a theory to explain this mystery of physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the need to interject at this point, as I don't believe that one is necessarily a non-Objectivist because one claims to subscribe to agnosticism.

You're wrong. An Objectivist is necessarily an atheist, because he upholds reality and reason. He denies any kind of supernaturalism and contradiction. And since God is supernatural and/or contradictory to reality, you cannot believe that God is possible and honestly call yourself an Objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, smartie pants, if ether, which you refer to as the substance that fills "empty space" is real (a topic hotly debated in the scientific community) then is it comprised of divisible quanta? In other words, is there a singular undivisible unit of ether? And between these units, is there empty space? Why doesn't ether produce friction? In fact, why doesn't ether seem to possess any mechanical properties we associate with other substances? The reason I can talk about "nonmatter," is that "matter" is simply a form of energy, which does not follow the same rules as matter. Energy is measured in quanta called photons, and photons have the ability to travel en vacuo (through "empty space"), despite their very wavelike properties. This corroborates the idea of ether's existence, because waves, as we understand them, must be an affectation of particles, and can not travel through "emptiness." The problem with ether is that it does not appear to be made out of matter. This is because matter is assembled from subatomic particles, which have observable traits, and ether does not. Ether can not absorb photons of any wavelength, it can not displace, it is not compactable; it has no mass. Therefore, something we don't understand is going on between these subatomic particles. All I was saying is that "God" could hypothetically be what physically fills these gaps. I don't hold this to be true. Don't talk down to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ether, which you refer to as the substance that fills "empty space" is real (a topic hotly debated in the scientific community) then is it comprised of divisible quanta? In other words, is there a singular undivisible unit of ether?

First of all, I did not refer to the substance that fills "empty" space as "ether." I did not give it a name. And I did not attempt to describe it in detail. I don't know what it is. All I can say for certain is that something must exist there, because the existence of nothingness is contradictory to the law of identity.

I did say that God cannot be what fills space, because God also contradicts the law of identity.

The problem with ether is that it does not appear to be made out of matter. This is because matter is assembled from subatomic particles, which have observable traits, and ether does not.

That is not the definition of matter of which I'm aware. Look it up in a good dictionary.

If your definition were true, then subatomic particles themselves could not be matter, because they are not "assembled" from other subatomic particles.

If I knew what filled space, I wouldn't reveal that amazing knowledge in a post here. I'd publish a paper on it. But I think that such a discovery might include a new form of matter. Throughout history scientists have discovered different types of matter that were previously undetected, yet suspected. I wouldn't be surprised if another is discovered that explains much of the mystery of "empty" space. My earlier point, however, was simply that the existence of God is impossible and thus cannot be what fills space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I remember discovered the full epistemological reasoning for the answer to this question being an interesting exercise. So, I ask, can God exist?

Felipe:

This was written a few months ago to the WhyIslam.org Forum, but may be of interest to your readers.

If There Were a God.

The Muslim's make much of Allah, as the one and only God. The Jew's have Jehovah, the God of Abraham, the God of the Ancients. Then comes Jesus and Christianity with their True God. These religion's, and most others, agree on there being but One God, and, given His unique position it seems logical that they all are right on that one point. There can be only one God, in that more than one would confuse the issue, no end.

So, what must be the attributes of this one God? First, He must be Omnipotent and, so, be able to create the Universe and all that there is out of nothing. Second, He must be Omniscient, knowing all that there is to know. Third, He must be Eternal and be aware of all that ever was, and all that is, and all that ever will be. (Time does not exist for Him.) Fourth, He must be Infinite, hovering over all that we can see in the Heavens, to infinity in whatever direction we choose to gaze. Fifth, He must have always existed, being exempt from having had to be created (of necessity, the one exception). Finally, He must have been terribly lonely and quite desperate to have brought into being such a motley assembly of creatures that Man has turned out to be.

For what reason would God have created Man and then set him one against another? A quick review might start with the spread of Islam, in the Centuries following the Prophet Mohammed, from Spain to the Philippines, by bloody conquest, with the cry being "Kill the Infidel". Then there was the "Kill for Christ" cry of the Crusades, again a period of bloody conquest, an activity accompanying the thousand year Dark Ages, when Christianity was in charge. This was followed, despite the so-called "Enlightenment", by a series of more secular Wars, such as our Wars against England, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War's I and II, the Korean War, the obscenity of the Viet Nam War, and, now, our grotesque War against Iraq and the Terrorists.

One might be forgiven for asking, "Why would an all-knowing God have created Man with such a penchant for murder?" He obviously knew, as He was putting together the Plan for Man, that these creatures would immediately become engaged in killing one another, culminating with the current irrationality of a Muslim World of one billion souls being given the responsibility, via the Jihad of the Prophet, of killing the remaining nine billion residents of Earth, unless they embrace Islam! Something's amiss.

There is another thing common to all religions---they are, without exception, the product of an exercise of Faith in the Unknowable. Thus they are, of necessity, built on the ideas of their originators, with the various Rules and Regulations being written down by a succession of Priests, each supposedly in response to instructions received during a personal visit by God, or, at least, by a Prophet of His. Unavoidably, however, there were Rules put into the various Holy Books that were more calculated by the priests to enhance their power over their followers than to express the Will of God; Rules that an Almighty God would seemingly not need, nor be too interested in.

No self-respecting God would possibly have created the mess we see around us. To impute to Him such an Effect is to bring Him down to the level of man, and to insult the very concept of God. Could it be that we are all the unwitting victims of a collective hoax, started by the witch doctors of pre-history and continued through the ages by the various priests that followed, as a pretty good scam? The logic of this answer is pretty obvious. Only those programmed from birth could be sufficiently gullible to accept such fantasies, most without so much as a raised eyebrow, and to even give their lives for it.

James B. Wright May, 2004

(Fixed quote block - softwareNerd)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God exists---in the mind of each believer. God is a believer's capacity for wishful thinking when he implicitly regards it as having power over existence and calls it God. A fairy is a believer's capacity for wishful thinking when he implicitly regards it as having power over a limited aspect of existence and calls it a fairy.

Discussion or debate about gods and/or fairies based on accepting the believer's assertion that the figments of his imagination exist anywhere else but in his own mind is not only a waste of a rational man's time, but grants the believer a level of seriousness he does not deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God exists---in the mind of each believer. God is a believer's capacity for wishful thinking when he implicitly regards it as having power over existence and calls it God. A fairy is a believer's capacity for wishful thinking when he implicitly regards it as having power over a limited aspect of existence and calls it a fairy.

Discussion or debate about gods and/or fairies based on accepting the believer's assertion that the figments of his imagination exist anywhere else but in his own mind is not only a waste of a rational man's time, but grants the believer a level of seriousness he does not deserve.

This is the most well spoken debunk of God I have ever had the pleasure of reading. It is my sincere desire that the discussion end with this post. Why argue the exsistence of an unknowable, undefinable and unprovable entity in a place of logic and reason? If anything is true and accepted about religeon as a whole, it is that it flaunts it's lack thereof. The subject of religeon has been driven into the ground for centuries; many have written arguments for and against. The material is avaliable to you all to read and decide what you will and will not accept. Regurgitating facts and opinions will not enlighten you; flaunting the fact that you have memorized this information will not gain you any respect; and ultimately, wether or not you choose to believe something so preposterous is your own decision.

There is no greater force guiding my hand in this post; these are my own words spoken from my own mind. I don't claim to speak from my heart, liver, or some sort of divine intervention no more than any of you would claim that elephants live on Pluto.

The reason many refuse to accept that there is any conclusive way to disprove god is because part of the belief in god is the belief that something can exsist without being able to be logically or reasonably shown to do so. For example, I could state that elephants did in fact live on Pluto and then proceed to debunk your arguments by stating, "Well, have you been? How do you know these elephants cannot exsist in the vaccum of space?" However, in order to accept that statement as rational one would also have to accept similarly illogical statements. "How do you know that your nose is on your face?" You ca prove your nose exists and that is is on your face because it is observed to be on your face. Only observeable phenomena exsist in a logical and rational universe. To accept otherwise is to accept that you live in a chaotic world of the unknown, where reality is based on individual perception instead of one defining truth.

You cannot say that a child's fear of the boogeyman is ridiculous if you consider a man's fear of an unknowable being rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...