• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why There is Probably No God

Rational Agnostic

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
There are many arguments for the existence of god, but nearly all of them are something along the lines of "God is necessary to account for X." "X" could be any or all of a number of things or concepts, either physical or nonphysical, like the universe, or something more specific like the complexity of life, or even "transcendental" concepts like mathematics, logic, love, or beauty. Most theists believe (for whatever reason) these entities or concepts cannot exist without a cause, so they posit a "God" to account for them. But, apparently without realizing it, they have just re-created their own "problem" in an attempt to solve it since "God" is defined to be without cause, and simply taken as a given. It is much simpler to just accept the existence of the universe (along with all of its properties/laws/non-physical concepts) and leave it at that. The simpler explanation is usually correct.
 
InChrist

InChrist

Free4ever
That's like saying the painting just is, without an artist or the epic novel has no author. Doesn't seem simpler or correct to me.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hubert Farnsworth said:
There are many arguments for the existence of god, but nearly all of them are something along the lines of "God is necessary to account for X." "X" could be any or all of a number of things or concepts, either physical or nonphysical, like the universe, or something more specific like the complexity of life, or even "transcendental" concepts like mathematics, logic, love, or beauty. Most theists believe (for whatever reason) these entities or concepts cannot exist without a cause, so they posit a "God" to account for them. But, apparently without realizing it, they have just re-created their own "problem" in an attempt to solve it since "God" is defined to be without cause, and simply taken as a given. It is much simpler to just accept the existence of the universe (along with all of its properties/laws/non-physical concepts) and leave it at that. The simpler explanation is usually correct.
Click to expand...

If it were seen as a singularity than duality, it would make more sense cause everything is interconnected. There wouldn't be a need to solve that creation needs a creator because how we interact in spirit (life), creation (environment and people), and self (soul) is all together. There is no need to debate each person's life perspective because to each his own, literally.

We will always be searching, debating, and making opinions about god when we have media, history channels, and people debating the mystery of it. When god is simply life itself, there is no need to debate. In prayer, ritual, and meditation, you experience god itself. RF may go out of business, though, if we started looking in for god and find out because we are different than everyone else, so is god.
 
stvdv

stvdv

Veteran Member
Hubert Farnsworth said:
1: Most theists believe (for whatever reason) these entities or concepts cannot exist without a cause, so they posit a "God" to account for them.
2: But, apparently without realizing it, they have just re-created their own "problem" in an attempt to solve it since "God" is defined to be without cause, and simply taken as a given.
3: It is much simpler to just accept the existence of the universe (along with all of its properties/laws/non-physical concepts) and leave it at that.
4: The simpler explanation is usually correct.
Click to expand...

I disagree partly:
4: Untrue. See all the very complicated theories of Einstein and other great scientist. Definitely "simple is not usually correct". Sometimes it is.
3: True. It is simple to "Not be an Einstein" and "Not to find A&Q about existence. Great Sages, Saints, Scientists however did not leave it at that"
2: Untrue. There is yet to be found 1 agreed on definition of "God". All are free to create whatever/however they like. I don't create my own "problem"
1: True. But "to posit a `God` to account for them" does not necessarily mean the problem can't be solved. It is just a first step to solving things.
 
David T

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
InChrist said:
That's like saying the painting just is, without an artist or the epic novel has no author. Doesn't seem simpler or correct to me.
Click to expand...
Oh the painting is one reality a flat two dimension image thats lifeless brainless stupid and well canvas oil and zero more.on the other hand ane has life with breathing experiencing etc.


In the painting there is a golden calf tge

By gosh i do believe as an artis you are correct. Although i think our understanding is differ ent!
220px-Worshiping_the_golden_calf.jpg
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
InChrist said:
That's like saying the painting just is, without an artist or the epic novel has no author. Doesn't seem simpler or correct to me.
Click to expand...
But a painting is artificial, there are no natural mechanisms that could produce it.

Life, the universe and everything are the expected and explicable results of the natural laws and constants of the universe in which we find ourselves. No magic needed.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
InChrist said:
That's like saying the painting just is, without an artist or the epic novel has no author. Doesn't seem simpler or correct to me.
Click to expand...

How did you assume a novel has an author without reference to your belief?

Even more so, authors are humans; so, the logic is not the same as creator and creation.

How did you assume creation has a creator without reference to your belief?
 
Jumi

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Based on what we can read between the lines, your idea of god is certainly not one I'd assume exists. Your last line is about "simpler explanations"... those fail such that we can't make it a good rule for anything. Simple thinking and solutions are useful because it can expand to meet challenges, not because they're the best but because rules of thumb save the limited resources people have in their heads. Rest are handled by our assumptions. Think of windows and android and their background processes that you don't even realize are there if you don't know to look for them or curious. We can see how the simple solutions to problems given to humans can solve problems, but given computer programs you need to be more exact in your instructions... there's that part of our thinking processes that is filled with assumptions that they do not have. So a simple thought can become incredibly complex if it's to be useful.
 
J

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Hubert Farnsworth said:
There are many arguments for the existence of god, but nearly all of them are something along the lines of "God is necessary to account for X." "X" could be any or all of a number of things or concepts, either physical or nonphysical, like the universe, or something more specific like the complexity of life, or even "transcendental" concepts like mathematics, logic, love, or beauty. Most theists believe (for whatever reason) these entities or concepts cannot exist without a cause, so they posit a "God" to account for them. But, apparently without realizing it, they have just re-created their own "problem" in an attempt to solve it since "God" is defined to be without cause, and simply taken as a given. It is much simpler to just accept the existence of the universe (along with all of its properties/laws/non-physical concepts) and leave it at that. The simpler explanation is usually correct.
Click to expand...

I think you are right.
 
InChrist

InChrist

Free4ever
Hubert Farnsworth said:
Don't you understand that you have the same problem from a theistic perspective? You say that God just is and give no account for where he came from.
Click to expand...
It is not my problem, God is beyond me. You are correct that I can't give an account for where God came from. I think the only way I or any created being could possibly account for anything about God is by revelation of information provided by God to us. The biblical scriptures have revealed that God IS Eternal. I have found enogh reason to accept that information.
 
Rational Agnostic

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
InChrist said:
It is not my problem, God is beyond me. You are correct that I can't give an account for where God came from. I think the only way I or any created being could possibly account for anything about God is by revelation of information provided by God to us. The biblical scriptures have revealed that God IS Eternal. I have found enogh reason to accept that information.
Click to expand...

Why posit a God to account for the universe, when you only end up with the same problem of being unable to account for something?
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
InChrist said:
It is not my problem, God is beyond me. You are correct that I can't give an account for where God came from. I think the only way I or any created being could possibly account for anything about God is by revelation of information provided by God to us. The biblical scriptures have revealed that God IS Eternal. I have found enogh reason to accept that information.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe the scriptures are a reliable physics/metaphysics/cosmology resource?
 
InChrist

InChrist

Free4ever
Valjean said:
Why do you believe the scriptures are a reliable physics/metaphysics/cosmology resource?
Click to expand...

I consider the Bible reliable because although it was written over approximately a period of 1500 years by 40 individuals of diverse backgrounds, all presenting different perspectives, they all proclaim one true God and point to Jesus Christ as Savior, either prophetically or as eyewitnesses of His life. I see a supernatural coherence and theme which I don't think is possible by the human writers, but by the hand of God the Creator in His revelation to humanity. There are other reasons that I believe the scriptures to be reliable after researching them for a number of years (in areas of manuscript transmission, historical accuracy, archeology, prophecy, and moral and practical help and wisdom for life), along with directly asking God to clarify the subject, and seeing the work of Christ in my life and that of so many others.
But basically, I believe God became flesh reached down to human level to make Himself known. The scriptures say it is this Jesus who created all things and holds all things together. He is the Word, the Bible is His Word so I find Jesus a reliable resource for everything in regard to life, this world and the universe.

So your turn. Why don't you find the scriptures reliable?
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
InChrist said:
So your turn. Why don't you find the scriptures reliable?
Click to expand...
LOL -- fair enough.
It's full of inconsistencies, contradictions, outright errors, historical errors and and copy errors.
It's cherry picked from a much larger library of ancient texts. It's content was chosen by vote, by men with an agenda.
It provides no evidence for many of its assertions, many of which would never pass journalistic muster today.

In short, it's an anthology of fantastic folklore, like the religious literature of many other religions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top