How can God not exist?

[Kumar]

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.

 

[drumbeat]

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enmos,

On what are you basing the assumption that the concept of God was based on no other existing thing?

Because the concept of God is not based on anything we know in the universe, much less our day to day dealings.

If this is so how does one come to believe in God? Wishful thinking?

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

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Socratic Spelunker,

Right, but the concept of God they would derive from the experience wouldn't be true. It would just be lightning and thunder, not a personal, loving, eternal Father.

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

Because I don't think there's really any such thing as a truth being "self-evident".

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

If something is true, it's not because it makes itself true.

Okay.

If it's true, it must square up with, and be consistent with, OTHER truths that we know of the world.

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

Or else, what's to stop the Spaghetti Monster from being true?

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.

After all, 50 ft. tall walking, eternal piles of talking spaghetti are not something we've ever seen either.

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

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

So a greater being is self-contradictory and thus logically impossible? Fair enough.

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

They know the power exists, but not the why it happens.

Why would they need to know why it happens?

Who says there was any dramatic transition?

You did by invoking athropomorphisation.

It's not a question of history, but of the human mind.
The human mind tends to anthropomorphise objects that are real to them,
not create something that previously didn't exist.

That's the point - God is an anthropomorphisation...
for some of animals, for some of nature, for some of the entire universe and beyond.

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

Yet when you are provided with possible reasons you dismiss them for having assumptions??? :shrug:

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

Yes it is... it is squarely based on the concept of cause and effect - or are you disputing the concept of God as "initial cause" or "cause of all causes"?
In this regard God is just the anthropomorphisation of the gap in that knowledge.

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not you, Jan.
His sole response was "I'm not sure what you're getting at."
When my final sentence was "Ergo: he doesn't".

Blind spot much?

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

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...

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Why did you edit out all mention of St Anselm's ontological argument from your opening post, after leaving it for 5 hours?

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.

Did you change your mind about finding it "absolutely brilliant" after some of the other comments?

No, it's still absolutely brilliant.

Extrapolate from what you know. You know about parents. So imagine a super-parent. You know about people, so imagine a super-person.

What would be the need for a super parent?

A similar question would be to ask: how is it possible to come up with the concept of a unicorn while having absolutely no idea of unicorns? Answer: you know about horses. You know about horns and wings. So imagine a super-horse with a horn and wings.

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.

The notion of gods, of course, is obviously related to pre-existing things and concepts.

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

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Originally Posted by spidergoat
How is the concept of a transcendental father-figure not pre-existing? It is the most banal and obvious of wishes, to be supernatural, to have a friend who is superman.

Why is it?

jan.

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

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...

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

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

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

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

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

jan.

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

Exactly.
And god would be even more powerful if he created all of this without actually existing.

I still don't get it.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

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

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

Why would they need to know why it happens?

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

You did by invoking athropomorphisation.

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

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

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

Because your ideas don't give rise to reasons why a god would be
created over the real happening.

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.

Why go one step further?

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

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?

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.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos,






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

jan.

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).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Possibly because they didn't / couldn't understand it.

What's to understand?

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.

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.

jan.

 

[wynn]

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.

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, it cannot.

So you didn't read my first post then?

 

[wynn]

So you didn't read my first post then?

Yes. It is in the domain of square circles.

 

[wynn]

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?

The Bogeyman Theory:

A bogeyman (also spelt bogieman, boogeyman or boogieman) is an amorphous imaginary being used by adults to frighten children into behaving. The monster has no specific appearance, and conceptions about it can vary drastically from household to household within the same community; in many cases, he has no set appearance in the mind of a child, but is simply a non-specific embodiment of terror. Parents may tell their children that if they misbehave the bogeyman will get them. Bogeymen may target a specific mischief – for instance, a bogeyman that punishes children who suck their thumbs – or general misbehaviour, whichever need serves the adult's purpose best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman

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.