God does not exist

Hey, it's not just "my" explanation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_atheism - ;http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Negative-Atheist.htm

Not quite. I believe because it's not unreasonable and there's some supporting evidence for it. It's still a bet, as are anyone's beliefs.

I think of "soul' as a concept or abstraction denoting the conscious mind or ego, which probably is the work of different neural sub-networks. I don't believe in a "ghost in the machine" that occupies my brain and takes flight to another realm when I die. In that respect, my conceptualization is different from both the eastern and Christian traditions.

I'm not talking numbers. I'm talking content of their writings.

Good. Likewise, I'm sure.

 

Why do you feel it is necessary to make those distinctions?

 

I've always thought that both ideas were hard to swallow, but I find it particularly hard to get my mind around the eastern concept of selflessness. Taken literally, this is not just an unselfish attitude; it's the idea that self is an illusion. The usual arguments have to do with the constant molecular changes in the composition of our bodies, the fact that we are changing profoundly as we mature and age, etc, so that in a sense we're not the same person. Yet our DNA remains the same, and--most importantly--we still retain the same integration as a single organism, the parts of which are interconnected by a nervous system, sensory receptors, and memory that we don't share with others. Clinton may "feel our pain", but not in a literal sense. Reciprocal altruism is an impressive achievement of evolution, but it struggles mightily against powerful urges toward self-preservation. One can sacrifice one's self for a cause, learn to be unselfish, hypnotize ourselves to ignore self, or free ourselves from self-awareness through meditation, yogic disciplines, etc., but in each of those cases the self is still there as the basis for the experiment. As for the western "ghost in the machine", who knows what,if anything, it is or where it might go, if anywhere, when our brains cease to function. To me, it's an interesting abstraction to describe a pattern of neurons firing. I don't know that. It's simply an operating assumption, based on a certain amount of empirical evidence from neuroscience.

 

.

 

A little something I stumbled upon to spread some logic and reason.

Six improved arguments for atheism:

Argument 1: The Aggregate of Qualities Argument
1. If God exists, God must necessarily possess all of several remarkable qualities (including supreme goodness, omnipotence, immortality, omniscience, ultimate creator, purpose giver).
2. Every one of these qualities may not exist in any one entity and if any such quality does exist it exists in few entities or in some cases (e.g. omnipotence, ultimate creator) in at most one entity.
3. Therefore it is highly unlikely any entity would possess even one of these qualities.
4. There is an infinitesimal chance that any one entity (given the almost infinite number of entities in the Universe) might possess the combination of even some two of these qualities, let alone all of them.
5. In statistical analysis a merely hypothetical infinitesimal chance can in effect be treated as the no chance to which it approximates so very closely.
6. Therefore as there is statistically such an infinitesimal chance of any entity possessing, as God would have to do, all God’s essential qualities in combination it can be said for all practical and statistical purposes that God just does not exist.

Argument 2: The Man And God Comprehension Gulf Argument
1. Man is finite (in time, space and power etc).
2. God if he exists is infinite (in time, space and power etc).
3. Therefore mankind cannot possibly recognise God or even know that God exists.

Argument 3: The ‘God Has No Explanatory Value’ Argument
1. God if he exists must be the ultimate being and provide the answer to all our ultimate questions – otherwise he is not really God.
2. Yet even supposing as a hypothesis that God exists the questions that God was supposed to finally answer still remain (though in some cases God is substituted in the question for the Universe).
3. Therefore hypothesising God’s existence is only unnecessarily adding an extra stage to such problems and has no real explanatory value.
4. Therefore according to Logic (Occam’s Razor Law – ‘that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity’) we should not postulate God’s existence and there is no adequate reason to suppose that God exists.
5. Therefore we should suppose that God does not exist.

Argument 4: The ‘This Is Not The Best Possible World’ Argument
1. God if he exists must be omnipotent, supremely good and our ultimate creator.
2. Therefore an existent God (being supremely good and competent) would have created the best possible world (if he created anything).
3. As the world is inconsistent (between ages and people) it cannot all be the best possible world.
4. Therefore as the world is not the best possible world, God cannot exist.

Argument 5: The Universal Uncertainty Argument
1. An uncertain God is a contradiction in terms.
2. Everything in the Universe must be fundamentally uncertain about its own relationship to the Universe as a whole because there is no way of attaining such certainty.
3. Therefore even an entity with all God’s other qualities cannot have the final quality of certain knowledge concerning its own relationship to the Universe as a whole.
4. Therefore God cannot exist because even any potential God cannot know for sure that it is God.
Note: Stated as a logical paradox this argument is ‘God cannot exist because God cannot know for sure that it is God’.

Argument 6: The ‘Some Of God’s Defining Qualities Cannot Exist’ Argument
1. God must have certain characteristic qualities (such as providing purpose to life), otherwise he would not be God.
2. But it is impossible for any entity to possess some of these qualities (such as providing purpose to life since we can find no real purpose and therefore we in practice have no ultimate purpose to our lives) that are essential to God.
3. Therefore since some of God’s essential qualities (such as being the purpose provider to life) cannot possibly exist in any entity, God cannot exist.
​

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/06/six-improved-arguments-for-atheism/

 

Although the arguments are cast in the form of a logical syllogism, I don't think they hold water as deductive logic. If your source is doing deductive logic, it shouldn't talk in terms of probabilities, even infinitesimal ones. How could the probabilities of omnipotence, omniscience, etc., be calculated? The notion is silly.

There seems to be an obvious nonsequitor in saying, on the one hand: " Every one of these qualities may not exist in any one entity and if any such quality does exist it exists in few entities or in some cases (e.g. omnipotence, ultimate creator) in at most one entity;" while on the other hand:"Therefore it is highly unlikely any entity would possess even one of these qualities." It does not follow that if it is unlikely that "at most one entity" can possess some of the qualities, that "it is unlikely that any entity would possess even one of these qualities". Those statements are clearly contradictory. That's the trouble with logic. It's not a matter of opinion, and invalid reasoning is easily exposed. It is quite possible that a creator could be omnipotent, immortal, omnipotent or good. Why would that be unlikely"

There are other problems. The definitions of the qualities concerned are a matter of debate in theology. What does "omnipotence" mean? The ability to do logically impossible things, like making square circles? Or just the ability to do all things that are not logically contradictory? Most theologians would say the latter. For further discussion, see Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes.

By the way, I and most process theologians happen not to believe that it is consistent with omnipotence for God to self-limit His capacity to do everything. The notion that God gives humans free will does exactly that. If God is omnipotent, He can set whatever limits He wants on His own abilities. Scripture tells us that He wants humans to have free will. He could not achieve that purpose without limiting, by self-control, his ability to intervene.

This is also a weak argument. Abrahamic religions teach that mankind knows God through revelation, and can infer God's existence from the natural order. What would be the problem of an infinitely powerful entity conveying that knowledge to humans?

Here again, the logic is faulty. I'd question the initial premise that "God if he exists must...provide the answer to all our ultimate questions – otherwise he is not really God". Who came up with that idea? The Abrahamic God has no obligation to do squat. That was the point of the Book of Job. In fact, it is also suggested in Genesis, where our illustrious forbears decided they were entitled to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (metaphorically, of course.)

As for Occam's razor, numerous scientists and scholars think that, while other explanations have been put forward for the integrated complexity of the universe, principally the theory of multiple universes, intelligent agency provides the most plausible and parsimonious explanation. For example, mathematical physicist Paul Davies, after reviewing leading alternative scientific explanations, including the theory of multiple universes, concludes that "In the end, Occam's razor compels me to put my money on design..." Indeed, he characterizes the multiverse theory as "the very antithesis of Occam's razor...To invoke an infinity of other universes just to explain one is carrying excess baggage to cosmic extremes, not to mention the fact that all but a minute proportion of these other universes go unobserved (except by God perhaps)." Likewise, Spitzer criticizes the multiverse theory for "running counter to the canon of parsimony or "Occam's razor". It seems that Occam's razor is two edged.

The argument also seems to assume that the primary utility of the God concept is explanatory, as a sort of hypothesis about the nature of the universe. Most believers find other value in God in providing meaning to their lives. That's my main reason for believing.

Does it seem a little presumptuous for a fallible mortal to infer the kind of world a deity would create? It would be kind of like my dog trying to figure out why I get upset when he shits on the rug. What is the best possible world depends on God's value system, what He was trying to accomplish. We don't know that. We don't even know that God "must be omnipotent". Omnipotent deities were not a Greco-Roman concept, and process theologians don't require them. I don't assume that my God is omnipotent. He's created a beautiful world, albeit not one free of suffering. Maybe that's the best world He can create. Haisch contends that it is God's plan to explore all the possible combinations and permutations of His nature through the multiverse. If that is the plan, we can expect some aspects of the multiverse to seem less than perfect to enhance others that are. God also may value freedom and diversity, thus not interfere with our exercise of free will. Leibniz argued that this is "the best of all possible worlds" because without evil or suffering there would be insufficient challenge to develop moral character. The dynamism of an evolving planet may be enough of a good to offset the suffering of those who are born at the wrong stages of the process.

This is the most muddled of the arguments. "Everything in the Universe must be fundamentally uncertain about its own relationship to the Universe as a whole because there is no way of attaining such certainty." What does this mean, why does it matter, and how was this generalization arrived at? It seems to be simply postulated as a great truth without any support at all. If God is omniscient, as was posited earlier, why would he be uncertain about anything? Note: It is God's certainty, not our own uncertainty, that is critical here. And the notion that God cannot know for sure that He is God seems absurd. I think I can know for sure that I'm me. If I can know that, why assume that God can't know His identity.
would He be uncertain about anything?

It just gets worse and worse. "it is impossible for any entity to possess some of these qualities (such as providing purpose to life since we can find no real purpose and therefore we in practice have no ultimate purpose to our lives) that are essential to God." If "we" includes non-atheists, some of us can find real purpose in life." That's the main thing belief in God does for us. So the premise is simply wrong.Those who can't might get with the program.
​

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/06/six-improved-arguments-for-atheism/
If these are the "improved" arguments, I'd hate to see the unimproved one

 

Could the problem be humans? If God conveyed his perfect knowledge to humans, what is the likely hood of inerrancy considering the fallibility of humans?

 

What I was responding to was a very strong assertion in the form of a conclusion to a syllogism:"3. Therefore mankind cannot possibly recognise God or even know that God exists."
[/quote]This is a claim that an omnipotent God communicating with humans or making His existence known to them is impossible, as proven by deductive logic. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and indeed is so at variance with the traditions of major religions that it requires strong arguments instead of the non-sequitors offered. At least three major world religions claim that God revealed His existence to various mortals: Abraham (who entertained God in his tent), Moses and other great prophets, Mohammed (through an angel), and of course Jesus. There are also thousands of mystics since ancient times who claim to have had personal experience with God. Obviously atheists don't believe this, and don't believe in God either, but if they purport to be proving the case by formal logical deduction, the premises have to be solid and the inferences have to follow clearly from them. The statement doesn't question "inerrancy". It denies revelation itself, which is perfectly okay if you're not putting it forward as the product of deductive logic, but not otherwise.

If I were an atheist trying to do a better job with this, I'd ditch the syllogisms altogether and concede that people have been putting forward logical "proofs" for and against God for many centuries and the results don't hold up, so that mode of argument isn't likely to be effective. Then I might question whether or not those revelations actually happened, pointing out that the sources aren't that good, many events happened long ago, we don't have much corroborating evidence,extraordinary events like that need extraordinary evidence, the sources seem contradictory, the observers may have been hallucinating, etc. This would be an appeal not to "logic" but to judgment. But as I've said so many times before, flatly asserting that "mankind can't possibly know" shifts the burden of proof to the asserter, who in this case falls woefully short.

 

.

 

Regardless whether you make those distinctions or not is irrelevant to the primary impulse to have our good. The theoretical underpinnings of any religion
are a place to put effort and devotion but they are not the cause of it. Such distinctions have no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether god exists or not.

Particular religious distinctions are not so meaningful in comparison to each other. Their meaning come to fore in relation to their function. Does application of the purported doctrine deliver the advertised effect?

 

On N.D.E. s people that have had them often meet people that knew not at the age as they last saw them but between 18-25 years of age . On God I wanted to post this link , its a member or another forum asking to see God , while out of body , in the astral . http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/w..._experiences/i_asked_to_see_god-t38258.0.html desert rat

 

It certainly is a simplistic treatment of the question does god exist. Obviously the word god exists and all words are symbols of conditions. The word god represents in any instance an experiential conjugation. The appearance of god represents the endemic impulse for good. Everyone has a god although not everyone uses that term. The god that everyone shares is that which we invoke as good cause. God is a metaphor for authority.

Anthropomorphic god symbols make the abstract appear more concrete and more understandable to some. Of course symbols can be twisted to mean anything you want and real confusion sets in when you confuse the symbolic representation to be the thing itself.

 

I agree. Generalizing about eastern and western traditions has some value, but there is certainly a diversity of variants in both camps--and some commonality behind the apparent differences. The Hindu tradition, for example, as Meagain points out, does not see our souls as separate and our selves separated from the Godhead. But it seems more accurate to say that we and God are One, rather than that our souls and God don't exist. The Rig Veda says of God: "They call it Indra, Mitra, Varuna, and Agni, and also heavenly, beautiful Garutman. The real is one, though sages name it variously..." The Upanishads developed a concept of godhead that transcends the deities but is present in all things. Brahman is the name for this power which sustains everything. Some Upanishads see this as a personal power, but others see it as impersonal. And we are part of it; and it is part of us. And our sense of separateness and a material reality apart from the One is an illusion. Only consciousness is real. The Chandoga conveys this in the parable of salt in water. "The whole universe has its Self.: that you are..."

Tillich and the Christian process theologians who've influenced my thinking don't seem radically different. Tillich of course speaks of the Godhead as not a supernatural being at all but rather "the Ground of Being." They're panentheists (not a misspelling) who believe that God is both immanent and transcendent. As Saint Paul (Acts 17:28) puts it, "God is actually not very far from any one of us, as someone has said 'in whom we live, and move, and have our being.'"

As you say, "Anthropomorphic god symbols make the abstract appear more concrete and more understandable to some". Thus, we have the Vedic deities, the Trimurti of Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the sustainer), and Shiva (the destroyer), plus their various manifestations, like Krishna, Rama, and Kali. To the intellectual elite, these are just "anthropomorphic god symbols", but as you say, to the ordinary believers, "the symbolic representation tends to be confused with the thing itself".

 

thedope:

lol Then how does everyone have one? :-D You must be caught up in your conjugations to think that!

That's how?! All for one and one for all? Godism never caught on; not everyone has heard. Our freedom demands more than its cause, in all innocence.

Shared god, god as handout, as communion, god as all-encompassing metaphor, god as anything at all, is a bore! lol

Okie spoke of his christian understanding of god as separate from humanity. Is this how all christians understand themselves as humans?! :-D

We're just not boring enough for god. We're bright enough for love though.

I divined this from life. God can exist, and go on existing for the theists as long as they live, but god will not live for them so long as they insist it must exist for the atheists. :-D