Thread: So who here believes that God doesn't exist?

Pie.

Atheist's are so immoral and stupid. If you don't read the bible how will you ever enter the kingdom of heaven. Historically speaking jesus was perfect, he sacrificed his life so we could go to heaven. The devil was angry that day, he should be because the savior was born.

Note: Although religion has hold back science, intelligence and killed many people. They weren't true christian. You are all wrong, I am right, I am the christian.

Who needs reason, logic or evidence when you have gut feeling and god. Does god even need evidence? The anwser is no. I can feel I am right, I have exprienced god, theirfore he must be real. Stuff like the big bang, evolution and basic scientific knowledge is wrong, they haven't got evidence and they have been proven wrong.

Yeah, so you can either think or have the bible. Science is second to the bible and belife is good. Faith is good. Atheist are closed minded, theist are divine and saved by jesus.

lol, sarcasm funny :bravo:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster

(He always gets mentioned by an atheist at some point in these threads, so there you go.)

My take: There are three qualities requisite to godhood in the ordinary sense:
All-Powerful
All-Knowing
All-Benevolent

An impossible(by observation) god would have all three, a morally bankrupt god would have the first two(and would only be barely plausible), and the benevolent gods lacking ultimate power or ultimate knowledge are somewhat plausible, but ultimately weak(i.e. not gods at all).

It's not hard to see why Atheists believe the way they do: if the perfect god does not exist, and reason would refute his existence, then there are no 'gods' at all, and it is not worth asserting the existence of gods who can have no effect on the world or a god who rules it with malevolence or indifference.

Originally Posted by jasuum

I am just curious because you are wrong.

Hahaha, that made me laugh.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Atheist's are so immoral and stupid. If you don't read the bible how will you ever enter the kingdom of heaven. Historically speaking jesus was perfect, he sacrificed his life so we could go to heaven. The devil was angry that day, he should be because the savior was born.

Note: Although religion has hold back science, intelligence and killed many people. They weren't true christian. You are all wrong, I am right, I am the christian.

Who needs reason, logic or evidence when you have gut feeling and god. Does god even need evidence? The anwser is no. I can feel I am right, I have exprienced god, theirfore he must be real. Stuff like the big bang, evolution and basic scientific knowledge is wrong, they haven't got evidence and they have been proven wrong.

Yeah, so you can either think or have the bible. Science is second to the bible and belife is good. Faith is good. Atheist are closed minded, theist are divine and saved by jesus.

Nobody said anything about Christianity, or religion for that matter until you did. Basically your post is absolutely useless to the topic, as is pretty much every post I've ever read of yours.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

My take: There are three qualities requisite to godhood in the ordinary sense:
All-Powerful
All-Knowing
All-Benevolent

An impossible(by observation) god would have all three, a morally bankrupt god would have the first two(and would only be barely plausible), and the benevolent gods lacking ultimate power or ultimate knowledge are somewhat plausible, but ultimately weak(i.e. not gods at all).

It's not hard to see why Atheists believe the way they do: if the perfect god does not exist, and reason would refute his existence, then there are no 'gods' at all, and it is not worth asserting the existence of gods who can have no effect on the world or a god who rules it with malevolence or indifference.

How can you possibly attempt to apply human reasoning and logic to a supposedly infinite being? Do you not see the logical fallacy in this line of reasoning?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How can you possibly attempt to apply human reasoning and logic to a supposedly infinite being? Do you not see the logical fallacy in this line of reasoning?

You are trying to apply logic to God also. If logical reasoning does not apply to God in R.D.'s case, then why would it in yours? Besides, if our system of logic does not apply to God, then God is an illogical entity according to our system of logic.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are trying to apply logic to God also. If logical reasoning does not apply to God in R.D.'s case, then why would it in yours? Besides, if our system of logic does not apply to God, then God is an illogical entity according to our system of logic.

No, I am applying logic to human capabilities, something that is perfectly valid. He didn't say that an infinitely powerful and infinitely benevolent god is illogical, he said that it is impossible. I am simply applying my human logic to deduce the fact that human capabilities are limited to dealing with sub-infinite questions.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No, I am applying logic to human capabilities, something that is perfectly valid. He didn't say that an infinitely powerful and infinitely benevolent god is illogical, he said that it is impossible. I am simply applying my human logic to deduce the fact that human capabilities are limited to dealing with sub-infinite questions.

You are not just talking about human capabilities. You are also talking about the nature of God. You are saying that the nature of logic as humans know it cannot be applied to the nature of God. In making that point, you are using the nature of logic as humans know it to conclude something about the nature of God. You claim God is infinite and therefore is beyond the scope of our logic, but you are using our logic to make that conclusion about God's existence beyond the scope of our logic.

And again, wouldn't your point suggest that God's nature is illogical under our system of logic? If the nature of God's logic is outside of our system of logic, then the nature of his logic is not logical in our system, so his nature is illogical under our system, just like the nature of 2 + 2 = 5, which has a logic nature that is outside our system of logic.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are not just talking about human capabilities. You are also talking about the nature of God. You are saying that the nature of logic as humans know it cannot be applied to the nature of God. In making that point, you are using the nature of logic as humans know it to conclude something about the nature of God. You claim God is infinite and therefore is beyond the scope of our logic, but you are using our logic to make that conclusion about God's existence beyond the scope of our logic.

And again, wouldn't your point suggest that God's nature is illogical under our system of logic? If the nature of God's logic is outside of our system of logic, then the nature of his logic is not logical in our system, so his nature is illogical under our system, just like the nature of 2 + 2 = 5, which has a logic nature that is outside our system of logic.

Sure, the nature of god is illogical, I never claimed it wasn't. I thought I made that clear in my last post. The question wasn't about god being logical; it was about the impossibility of an all powerful, all knowing, infinitely benevolent god. To understand the finite parameters of human logic in no way applies that logic to something that supersedes it. What R.D. tried to do was to claim the ability to know the possibilities that exist beyond our capabilities of reasoning. This is ridiculous in the same way that it would be ridiculous to walk a mile down a road and then claim it is impossible for there to be a Denny's 2 miles down that road.

lol@how this thread proved my point

Originally Posted by jaasum

lol@how this thread proved my point

lol@how your point was that there are too many threads like this, and now it is one.

Originally Posted by jaasum

lol@how this thread proved my point

How so? Beyond the initial creation of the thread which added to the count of threads like this, of course. What other point did you have other than the fact that there are a lot of religious discussions in a religious discussion forum?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Sure, the nature of god is illogical.

That's why I don't believe in him. I think the laws of logic are universal. For example, I don't see how 2 + 2 = 5 could be a reality in any dimension or other type of realm of existence. I don't believe in things beyond our logic. If I did, I would believe in all kinds of wild stuff, like that God both exists and does not exist and is a dog living in Montana but is an invisible fish swimming on my ceiling. I would see good possibility in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What other point did you have other than the fact that there are a lot of religious discussions in a religious discussion forum?

owned

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's why I don't believe in him. I think the laws of logic are universal. For example, I don't see how 2 + 2 = 5 could be a reality in any dimension or other type of realm of existence. I don't believe in things beyond our logic. If I did, I would believe in all kinds of wild stuff, like that God both exists and does not exist and is a dog living in Montana but is an invisible fish swimming on my ceiling. I would see good possibility in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (He hadn't been mentioned on this page yet, so I had to recognize him.)

So in essence; you believe that in the vast expanse of space and time, a creature that has been around for only about the last 0.0145% of the known duration of the entire universe is the acme of all creation and is capable of understanding all there is to know? I don't know if a more egocentric world view exists, unless of course you took it just one step farther and actually claimed you were the creator of the universe.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So in essence; you believe that in the vast expanse of space and time, a creature that has been around for only about the last 0.0145% of the known duration of the entire universe is the acme of all creation and is capable of understanding all there is to know? I don't know if a more egocentric world view exists, unless of course you took it just one step farther and actually claimed you were the creator of the universe.

Huh? What in the world are you talking about? I don't claim we know everything or even a googleplexth of a percentage of everything. We can't know how many atoms were in Abraham Lincoln's right index finger when he gave the Ghettysburg Address, and an infinite number of other things like that and an infinite number of other things completely unlike that. I just said that our system of logic is universal. That doesn't even mean we know all of the laws of logic. It is just that the ones we do know are absolutes of existence. Could a number not equal itself? If A = B and B = C, could A not = C? If if A then B is the case, and A is the case, could B not be the case? I don't believe that there are exceptions to such rules of logic in any possible realm.

And dammit, you quoted my edited out point about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You must have gunned it to my post and hauled ass responding to it because I edited the point out right away. I edited so fast that it wasn't even long enough for my post to indicate that it was edited. I thought we were on page 2, but we're still on page 1. I'll have to mention him again when we get to page 2.

Again, to believe that any system of reasoning created by humans is all encompassing is to claim that humans are capable of understanding everything. I thought it was the atheists that denied belief in universal, absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Again, to believe that any system of reasoning created by humans is all encompassing is to claim that humans are capable of understanding everything. I thought it was the atheists that denied belief in universal, absolute truth.

Humans did not create logic. We discovered it. A = A was true long before there were humans. The falsehood of it is a metaphysical impossibility. And that issue has nothing to do with omniscience.

Atheists generally do believe in absolute truths. We are defined by our belief that the nonexistence of God is an objective truth.

What is the difference between the two, exactly?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Humans did not create logic. We discovered it. A = A was true long before there were humans. The falsehood of it is a metaphysical impossibility. And that issue has nothing to do with omniscience.

Atheists generally do believe in absolute truths. We are defined by our belief that the nonexistence of God is an objective truth.

"A" didn't exist before humans. Our concept of equality didn't exist before humans. Are you saying these ideas were floating around in space before there existed a brain to conceive them? Logic is an invention, no matter how much you claim it isn't. Whats more, not even all humans operate under the same system of logic, so how could you possibly claim that it is universal? There isn't even a planet wide system of logic, how could there be a universe wide one?

Originally Posted by Keeper

What is the difference between the two, exactly?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

"A" didn't exist before humans. Our concept of equality didn't exist before humans. Are you saying these ideas were floating around in space before there existed a brain to conceive them? Logic is an invention, no matter how much you claim it isn't. Whats more, not even all humans operate under the same system of logic, so how could you possibly claim that it is universal? There isn't even a planet wide system of logic, how could there be a universe wide one?

I'm not saying our conceptualization of equality existed before we did. I am saying equality existed before we did. "A" did exist before we did because "A" is the general representation of an existing thing. A particular dinosaur was itself before there were humans, and a particular star was exactly what it was before there were humans. Newton and his observations did not exist back then, but the truths of what he discovered did. Law: If there is an action, then there is an equal and opposite reaction. Event: There is an action. Therefore, it has an equal and opposite reaction. That rule of logic as applied to a law of physics was true before humans. It was true before the existence of our galaxy. Humans only invented the words and methods of understanding it.

A student once asked a teacher I know why they didn't just make Pi 3. Why would you say "they" didn't? Do you think it is possible for a number to not equal itself? Do you think we could make it where if A = B and B = C, A does not = C? We can change the symbols we use, but we can't change the laws of reality.