How can God not exist?

How God can exist?

Just match its indicated properties/qualities with anything which is known to us.

Since God is said to be omnipresent, it should be present in all things & beings--so all with God.

Since God is said to be omniscient & omnipotent, all should have these qualities(as logic) in view of HIS omnipresent quality.

Since God is omnipresent, it should be prime duty of everyone to know HIM or most simple to understand HIM or to understand everyone's inner presence.

God lie in truth and truth is simple which should lie in balance,midline,centerline, midpoint.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:bugeye:
Just run that by us again...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Enmos,

Me personally, by understanding that I am not this body.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Socratic Spelunker,

What, in your opinion is ''an eternal loving Father''?

I would have thought the truth would only be self-evident?

Okay.

Aren't you talking about facts, theories, ideas, and so on?

How do you know it's not true?
After all it's just a thought up being made up of stuff that looks like spaghetti.
''Monster'' merely describes its behaviour.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And you've made sure of that by asociating ''talking'' and ''spaghetti''.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Things that do exist.

jan.

 

Sarkus,

Why?
Some humans are open to God, some are closed.

Why would they need to know why it happens?

You did by invoking athropomorphisation.

Before antropomorpization of God, how/why did they create God in the first place?

Because your ideas don't give rise to reasons why a god would be
created over the real happening.
Why go one step further?

Why wouldn't they just think of themselves as beings of the earth,
and that the earth has always been here?
Why try to create situation that doesn't figure in their everyday experience?

jan

 

Explain yourself or don't.
I doubt you'll have much beyond taking the opposing side.
Although I'm always up for a surprise.

jan.

 

I don't see how it can be made much simpler.
St. Anselm's own "proof" can be used to show that god doesn't exist.
Do try to keep up...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

James R,

Because as absolutely brilliant as it is, it was only there to provide
a genre for the theme of the thread. But it became the feature (undoubtedly because of it's brilliance), and took the focus off the point of the thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, it's still absolutely brilliant.

What would be the need for a super parent?

We don't know that a unicorn didn't exist, indeed they were written about
as creatures that may have at some time existed in the region of India.

It's not as obvious as you have been led to believe.

jan.

 

Because we are relatively powerless, especially those of us who are not leaders of a clan or harem.

 

Well?
Don't just stand there.
Take your hands out of your pockets and explain.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

How would making up an imaginary creature help to gain power?
Why wouldn't they just accept their lot, like other animals?

jan.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Still got that blind spot I see.
Post 3 is the "explanation".

 

I still don't get it.

jan.

 

Either he is provable or not... you are just clutching at straws here.

No "need" per se. Just human curiosity, and evolutionary traits to observe patterns. Understanding the why can aid survivability etc.

You think anthropomorphisation is a "dramatic transition"?? Again, Jan, you're clutching at straws.

As explained, they saw something with power that they did not understand and anthropomorphication did the rest.

Yes they do, you're just choosing not to listen to them. Nothing about the concept of god is not based on something that already exists.

Lol. You are the one going the extra step, since the explanations currently provided to you do not require the actuality.

Possibly because they didn't / couldn't understand it. They created a "god of the gaps" to explain anything that was beyond them.
When understanding of their world and their place within it improved, those gaps diminished - and keep diminishing.

 

Sorry. I missed this.

First off, how did you reach that conclusion?
Secondly, even if you are not your body it does not follow that therefor there has to be a God (not to mention any god in particular).

 

Sarkus,

It depends on the individual.
If one decides there is no God, then for that person that is the case.
The ability to hold that thought in this life, is the point of this existence.

What evolutionary traits?
How is knowing WHY it rains going to aid survivability?

You're clutching at straws by assuming God was, firstly, created by early man,
and then, antropomorphized.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're assuming they wanted to know the reason why, so bad, they created
this whole phenomena. Please give a reasonable explanation as to why they did.
Thus far you have failed to do so.

Just because you say ''they do'', doesn't mean they do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thus far you haven't provided any correlation between wanting to know why
something works, and proceeding to invoke something that does not exist, as an explanation for that thing. Simply asserting they did is no different than asserting they didn't.

I am prepared to accept that THAT explanation (because there is only one so far) is a popular idea by atheists.
But now I would like a more in-depth analasys.

What's to understand?

Again, why would they create something absolutely alien to their day to day
life, in order to explain something they didn't need an explanation for, as those events occured anyway?

I'm looking for reasons for your assertion, not just simple assertions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

No, it cannot.

The Ontological Argument is a kind of ex negativo proof; it works not by delineating but by pointing toward. It's like saying "In order to get to New York from here, go East".

The core term is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". If you can conceive of X, and then you can conceive of something greater than X, then, by the OA, X is not God.
For an individual, the greatest thing they can conceive - that is God.
IOW, the most fabulous, richest, beautifullest, most powerful entity you can conceive of, that is God.

But as it is the nature of the mind to expand, even to be infinite, so the notion of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" expands as well.

 

So you didn't read my first post then?

 

Yes. It is in the domain of square circles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The Bogeyman Theory:

This ties in with the idea that God/religion was invented for the purpose of controlling people.

There is no doubt that religion is often used with the purpose of controlling others - and this in most exploitative ways.

Given the harm that is done in the name of religion, this notion is hard to refute.