Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

Even till this day there are pathetic idiotic theist who believe the earth is flat!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Flat Earth Society

Do check out their assertions of evidence. Have a nice laugh.

Godless

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

C7ityi –

We know we are physical. The spiritual doesn’t exist.

A Christian is someone who follows one of some 30,000 different variations of an ancient superstitious idea derived from even more ancient mythologies. There never was a Christ that could be followed.

Many people have suffered and have been murdered by and because of Christianity; that makes it an evil regime that must be destroyed.

Kat

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry to shatter your illusions, but there is a world outside America

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1 in 5 Americans also believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. I believe that survey wasn't even conducted in the bible belt!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

jayleew -

Popular belief is only evidence that the idea is popular not that it has any truth.

Kat

 

In my country, I've sometimes heard people say that Americanos are stupid. I would guess there's like 20% christians in my country, dunno...

 

Lets not get political.

Religious people overall are inept to make political desicions that would serve them better. That's why the powers that be manipulate them with religious rhetoric so that they in turn would vote for the most religious leaders. Why else do you think an inconpetent jackass is still in the white house?.

Godless

 

why do you think he's incompetent?

 

First, God would not be omnipotent if God couldn't give control of some situation or another to someone else. God would be forced to act, which doesn't line up with the idea of an all-powerful God.
Second, the future doesn't create the past, no matter how compelling, so a confluence of events which leads to an event which God had foreknowledge of is not created by that foreknowledge - the event is caused by the precursors.
If you want to use this logic for an argument you have to explain how the big bang could only have "banged" into what we know as the now, and there were no other possibilities. The idea that everything is foreordained by God is a possibility, I suppose, but far from necessary -only if it were would your argument be of any value - but of course, if everything were foreordained by God, this argument would be pretty silly.



p.s. bush has done so much damage and accomplished so much for his people (not all the american people, just in case you don't catch my drift), I don't see how anyone could call him incompetent.

 

No there isn't. In fact, there is no America either. Just my street.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Give me a break and don't be so hasty with written communication, looking for anyway to exploit my words to create smoke clouds and mirrors and muddle the issue. All you are doing to distracting us from the issue. Read the discussion, and you will find that we were talking specifically about America.

 

I guess then, from this, I am safe to conclude you haven't studied your Einstein?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh yes they have. Quantum physics has shown there is something other than the physical..........Einstein showed there is something other than the physical. What do you think E=MC[2] means? Is energy physical? Matter, as we know it literally disappears at light speed, hence matter is simply slowed down energy, whatever *that* is!

Thoughts are not physical, but they certainly are *real* and absolutely influence, effect, and change the physical world........

 

Einstein showed there is something other than the physical.

Seems you might have it bass ackwards there.

What do you think E=MC[2] means?

Energy is equivalent to mass.

Is energy physical?

Absolutely!

Thoughts are not physical

Yes, they are. Neurons firing.

 

Why do fundies constantly wish for something non-physical within the universe? They even resort to trying to call aspects of the physical world non-physical. It's really quite sad that they seek mystery and comfort in this way.

 

A friend of mine, Blake Ostler, has noted something interesting on mind not being physical which is what I was getting at with the thoughts idea of not being physical.

It seems to me that what we need is not matter with mind (panpsychism) , but a solid form of emergentism where the properties of mind emerge from a certain function and organization of material neural states. Thus, mind is not panpsychic per se, but inherently such that a certain function and organization of matter gives rise to the properties of mind. The best anlaogies we have for the properties of mind are the function of computer software programs which organize the hardware in certain ways to produce outcomes. It also seems obvious that the properties of mental subjectivity (self awareness) and ability to think increase and become more complex as the underlying organization of the neural network of the brain becomes more complx e(e.g., dendrytes that branch from axons). Thus, a snail has more properties of mind than a rock, and a dog more than a snail, and a chimpanzee more than a dog largely because of the neural complexity of the respective central nervous and brain systems of the animals. However, it is still difficult to account for what Chalmers refers to as the "tough problem," the problem of explaining subjective awareness that we have awareness.

The result of this observation is that the properties of mind supervene on material states but are not identical to material states. It may be a form of epiphenomenalism except that there is a feed-back loop that then makes the material states of the brain subject to the downward casusation of the mind. It is admittedly this downward causation that is the toughest part of any mind-body theory to explain -- but the theory of emergent properties does a better job than any other in my view. So what I propose is close to panpsychism in the sense that matieral inherently has the capacity to create the properties of mind when organized in certain ways. However, mere matter sans the functional orgainzation doesn't have properties of mind.

This view is also dualist in a certain sense but strongly materalism because mind supervenes on material states. Mind is not identical to matter, but it is necessary for matter to give rise to the properties of mind.

 

Kerry -

In discussions such as these energy and matter are considered physical or perhaps more accurately material as opposed to the religious assertions of immaterial entities. Alternatively we could refer to the physical and material entities as natural to contrast with the supernatural environment of religions.

Explain how a thought is not physical. It is simply a label we give to a physical activity within the brain.


Kat

 

It's stupid to say that the universe is material since no one knows what matter is.

 

No, I don't think it's stupid, I think it's just incomplete. We know what matter is in conjunction with energy at light speed, for one thing. On the Quantum level the idea of matter becomes ***very*** difficult, I will agree with you there.

 

It doesn't 'matter' if we have a God-like understanding of what 'matter' is. That is what we call it, and that is what we define anything that resembles matter.