How can god not exist?

Understanding is a three edged sword.

 

Not repression transmutation.

 

How can God not exist?

The proof for God's existence is simple.....

BACON...:drool5:

There must be a God if bacon exists.

 

how can a god not exist? exactly the same way that it can. the existence or non-existence of one or more gods, changes absolutely nothing in the observable universe.

something big, friendly and invisible, that gives great hugs, can be felt to exist.
this is a completely non-physical form of experiencing.

its existence may have absolutely nothing else to do with anything.

to imagine we know anything about it, even to call it a god, to go on to invent all these things religions pretend to know, to claim it is at war with anything, that there is anything for it to be at war with,
all of that, is something people came up with to tell a story.

non-physical existence can neither be proven nor disproven physically. it can only be experienced.

because it can be experienced, the experiencing of it at least, is, a thing that exists.

all of this has to exist/can't exist/what WE define as a god, that is our own ego, whining about not being able to know everything.

 

this is nonsense. man has gone mad. equally so, those who believe and those who do not, alike.

 

This is a question of semantics, not philosophy. If you want to say God is that which one subjectively believes, then, yes, God exists. However, this is not what most people mean when they say something exists. If your friend said he had a giant blue dragon in his bedroom and he tried to show you and you could see that there was no objective blue dragon in the room, then the fact that the dragon may exist subjectively would not have any sway for most people from saying, "There's no dragon in your room, mate." Or when kids get older and find out that Santa does not really, objectively bring them presents, they don't get upset because Santa was real inside of their brains. They get upset because this being doesn't in fact exist, because they were told a lie—but whether it is a harmful lie or not, I have no interest here.

Redefining what it means to say something is existent to mean someone believes something is not a very pragmatic definition. It's useless and only causes ambiguity and confusion. Personally, I like it when words are used in clear ways so I know what someone is talking about, without all the pointless word-game bullshit.

Furthermore, quantum theory has many different interpretations and no consensus with physicists besides one: It's the "Shut up and do the math!" interpretation. Most physicists don't care which one is objectively true. They often have a pet-interpretation, whether it is Everett, Copenhagen, Objective Collapse, or any of the other interpretations, but that is largely because it is easier to understand quantum theory when one uses an interpretation. As of yet, though, there have been no definitive tests concluding which one is the right interpretation. So as of yet, all of the many interpretations are just hypotheses, some of which have more evidence than others.

In some of the interpretations particles do have definite positions. Some of the interpretations lack the weirdness of the Copenhagen interpretation, which is the interpretation people are typically taught first, largely because of its historical significance. Some of the interpretations are completely deterministic, others are indeterministic. However, going by Copenhagen interpretation, which I assume you were going by, then how you worded it is not quite accurate. It is not just that the particle has the probability of existing in position X or position Y. The particle is existing in position X and position Y in a superposition until something interacts with it, which causes the probability wave to collapse and the particle to exist in only one location. (The cat is both dead and alive until you open the box.)

If you are going by the Everett interpretation, however, which uses Occam's Razor to remove all of the ad hoc hypotheses from quantum theory that are found in the Copenhagen interpretation, then it would give you a very different answer. The natural result of removing the ad hoc hypotheses from quantum theory that are found in the Copenhagen interpretation lead to the conclusion that for every time there would be a possibility for a particle to exist in position X instead of position Y, the universe splits apart and becomes two temporally separate universes, one where the particle is in position X and one where the particle is in position Y. (The cat is dead in one universe and alive in another universe.)

 

How can the cat in the hat not exist, I read a book about him....

A fantasy of something is not the same as that something - how fucking old are you?

 

..
moved it to "All religions are false thread"

... :book:

 

because it appeals to our ego to pretend that we do. it is the ego alone, that cannot stand the idea of not knowing everything. when in reality, even everything that can know anything, even all together, can never know more then a tiny fraction, of what is.

 

i have absolutely no problem with the possibility of that. and fail to understand the problem other people do.

 

what would be a good answer to "how can the tooth fairy not exist?"

i just think this is such a non-sense question.

theres absolutely no physical consequence to the tooth fairy and god not existing.

 

I am a wannabe writer and the characters I create "exist in my mind" too, but they sure as hell ain't real!

 

Nor is your wanna be character.

 

Well I guess after all those posts you entitled to be rude.

 

I guess you entitled to be offended where none is intended.

 

What do you mean by physical consequence? Assuming we could prove the non-existence of God to where it could be accepted as like much as common sense as basic math or stop signs or something, then that would likely cause mass overhauls in society and likely have a significant effect on religious people.

That is just a hypothetical situation though, I mean we got adults playing the part of tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Alot of belief in God is in a deity which resides beyond comprehension or even the physical compass of the universe we can observe. So the religious find a refuge of sorts in the unknowable aspects of God, eventhough some claim to have a relationship with it.

 

Thats actually a really cool way of looking at it. If im getting it right, are you trying to say that god, in the literal sense, doesnt really exist but instead the force(s) god can be described as a belief in a god?

 

i guess if scientists one day come up with some kind of hypothetical evidence that definitively disproves god, there might be changes in peoples lives and in religious institutions.

but i bet, if this actually happened and scientists held a press conference to tell the world that they found definitive, unquestionable, and undeniable proof that god does not exist, i bet most religious people would simply ignore those facts and continue believing whatever they believed before. thats what most of them do now anyway.

 

^ oh that reminds me of the ken ham vs bil ney debate which took place in the creationist museum. at the end of the debate there was a Q and A portion where the crowd was able to ask some questions and get answers from both debaters. one question was:

"what proof if any would change your mind about the existence of god?"

Ken ham's answer: "As far as the word of god, nobody is ever going to convince me that the word of god (aka the bible) is not true."

Bill's answer: "just one piece of proof, one piece of evidence...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZjX2e7Kx8

 

The term God kinda takes on a vague, amorphous quality on these forums. I don't find that particularly appealing when we consider what God supposedly represents. That vague quality is probably why many religious are brought up on and rely on the prophet archetype. That is more tangible to our human rationale and appeals to our emotions.

 

unfortunately, this is highly likely.