Absolute proof against the existence of God, as described in the Abrahamic religions

[Quagmire]

(sorry if this has been addressed already. Didn't feel like reading through all 6 pages)

Just curious:

Which passages of what texts are you referring to specifically?

And which definition of "apprehension" are you using?

I don't think he knows either, Quagmire.

 

[leroy]

Our religious texts, from Moses through Mohammed (and possibly others, but I don't care) make one thing absolutely clear: what God truly wants -- IS. They tell us God wanted the heavens and earth, and they therefore happened. That he wanted man, and nothing could stop it.

Oh, and later, that he wanted all the "first born" of Egypt to die -- and they died. This god has such perfect aim that he was able to immediately kill, in one night, every person and every animal in the land of Egypt who was the first out of any womb (and presumably egg, though that's not specifically mentioned. I assume "hatched" is the equivalent of "born"). Or this God wants the whole earth covered with water so that everybody and everything non-aquatic dies, except for a few he decides to save. And it happens.

What God wants to happen, I say again, according to these religions, happens -- and nothing can stop it.

And we are also told that this God wants to be known by us, and to be worshipped, in full apprehension of his nature.

And yet....this doesn't happen! All that we appear to "know" about the nature of God, about how to worship, of what he wants, about how we should behave --- we know from billions of humans running around and arguing vociferously for this view, or that version, or these prayers, ot this set of rules. And we never, ever manage to work it out definitively.

And what's the reason? Because it's US. God doesn't want anything -- because as we know, what God wants, God gets. And this failure of ours to settle on one God, our incessant schismatic fracturing, really ought to be all the proof any thinking person needs that the proposed God simply doesn't exist -- and that that's why the state of our religious bickering is what it is.

So your argument seems to be this one (please correct any details if you think I am wrong)

Presmise 0 God Exists

Premise 1 God always gets what he wants

Premise 2 God wants all people to love him and worship him

Therefore everybody should love and worship God.

Since the conclusion is obviously wrong, one of the premises has to be wrong……..and you would suggest that premise 0 is wrong. Is this a correct representation of the argument? If not please correct me.

I would say that we can keep premise 0 and reject “premise 1” God can´t always get what he wants, for example God can’t do that which is logically impossible for example God cant have a triangle with 4 corners, nor a married bachelor even if he wants them…..and for the same reason he cant force people to love and worship him,............... forcing someone to love you is also logically impossible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

(sorry if this has been addressed already. Didn't feel like reading through all 6 pages)

Just curious:

Which passages of what texts are you referring to specifically?

And which definition of "apprehension" are you using?

I don't think he knows either, Quagmire.

Let's begin with Inshallah (Arabic: إِنْ شَاءَ ٱللَّٰهُ‎, ʾin šāʾ -llāh), also spelled InshAllah or In sha Allah, meaning "if Allah wills" or "Allah willing". It expresses the belief that nothing happens unless God wills it and that his will supersedes all human will.

Christians very frequently use the phrase "God willing," which expresses the same idea -- that what God wishes to happen will, and what God wishes not to happen will not.

I use the word "apprehension" in the same sense (and in the same counterpoise) as it is used in Midsummer Night's Dream, by Shakespeare:

Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,
Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend
More than cool reason ever comprehends.
The lunatic, the lover and the poet
Are of imagination all compact:
One sees more devils than vast hell can hold,
That is, the madman: the lover, all as frantic,
Sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt:
The poet's eye, in fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.

I use "apprehension" to express that even the most religious person admits that they are incapable of comprehending (as in cool reason) God, but is forever sure that he apprehends (meaning "has a strong sense of understanding") what God is all about, anyway.

Theseus's speech, above, is one of my favourites, and in consequence I name my one-man show on Shakespeare and his life "The Lunatic, the Lover and the Poet."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So your argument seems to be this one (please correct any details if you think I am wrong)

Presmise 0 God Exists

Premise 1 God always gets what he wants

Premise 2 God wants all people to love him and worship him

Therefore everybody should love and worship God.

Since the conclusion is obviously wrong, one of the premises has to be wrong……..and you would suggest that premise 0 is wrong. Is this a correct representation of the argument? If not please correct me.

I would say that we can keep premise 0 and reject “premise 1” God can´t always get what he wants, for example God can’t do that which is logically impossible for example God cant have a triangle with 4 corners, nor a married bachelor even if he wants them…..and for the same reason he cant force people to love and worship him,............... forcing someone to love you is also logically impossible.

My premise 2 is not the one you have chosen. Mine is that God wants all people to know enough about Him to make it possible to accept His existence and His desires for people. That still leaves free will safe and sound. And that is not a logical impossibility. In fact, if God is truly omnipotent, it is a logical necessity.

 

[leroy]

My premise 2 is not the one you have chosen. Mine is that God wants all people to know enough about Him to make it possible to accept His existence and His desires for people. That still leaves free will safe and sound. And that is not a logical impossibility. In fact, if God is truly omnipotent, it is a logical necessity.

ok so..

God wants all people to know enough about Him to make it possible to accept His existence

Well accepting his existence is “possible” there is nothing impossible about accepting the existence of God. Or what exactly do you mean by possible*?

and His desires for people.

This is not necessarily true; expressing your desires or making them clear might be counterproductive.

For example your girlfriend might desire some flowers, but if she tells you that she desires flowers then the gift would not be as great as if you would have bought the flowers without her telling you


.

And that is not a logical impossibility

It is logically impossible to force someone to love you, love implies free will, and free will implies accepting the possibility that maybe people won’t do what you want them to do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well accepting his existence is “possible” there is nothing impossible about accepting his existence. Or what exactly do you mean by possible?

You should read the verse in Post #123 above.

God exists, that's a possibility, you say? In what form? What sort of God? What is God's nature? Is it one, some, many, all or none of the conceptions that lunatics, poets and zealots have conceived of throughout human history?

Well, whether it is possible for God to exist or not, it is only POSSIBLE FOR ME TO BELIEVE in a God that is consistent with existence as I understand it. And to date, not a single one of the God's described by any human has met that test.

And for the record, though it is certainly possible that a God worthy of the title could cause me to apprehend something of His nature -- this has not happened. Therefore, it is not possible for me to believe in any god that I have so far considered.

This is not necessarily true; expressing your desires or making them clear might be counterproductive.

For example your girlfriend might desire some flowers, but if she tells you that she desires flowers then the gift would not be as great as if you would have bought the flowers without her telling you

At least my girlfriend (in my case, by the way, it would be boyfriend) knows I'm there, whether he/she expects flowers, chocolates, diamonds or puppies. But to make this comparison with a God making Himself known to His creation is really not a good play, in my opinion.

It is logically impossible to force someone to love you, love implies free will, and free will implies accepting the possibility that maybe people won’t do what you want them to do.

You have badly misread what I said.

 

[leroy]

You should read the verse in Post #123 above.

God exists, that's a possibility, you say? In what form? What sort of God? What is God's nature? Is it one, some, many, all or none of the conceptions that lunatics, poets and zealots have conceived of throughout human history?

Well, whether it is possible for God to exist or not, it is only POSSIBLE FOR ME TO BELIEVE in a God that is consistent with existence as I understand it. And to date, not a single one of the God's described by any human has met that test.

And for the record, though it is certainly possible that a God worthy of the title could cause me to apprehend something of His nature -- this has not happened. Therefore, it is not possible for me to believe in any god that I have so far considered.

Well maybe all you need is to open your hart and your mind to the arguments for the existence of God and/or for any religious experience that you might have.

99%+ of the world’s population have found it possible to accept the existence of God, so why assuming that you are different?

At least my girlfriend (in my case, by the way, it would be boyfriend) knows I'm there, whether he/she expects flowers, chocolates, diamonds or puppies. But to make this comparison with a God making Himself known to His creation is really not a good play, in my opinion.

The only point that I was trying to make, is that at least sometimes expressing your desires or making them clear might be counterproductive. For example telling your boyfriend that you desire a party might be counterproductive because you are eliminating the possibility of a “surprise party.”

So from the fact that God can* communicate his desires, it doesn’t follow that he would communicate his desires.

You have badly misread what I said.

so what is it what you said?

 

[rational experiences]

If science believed in what science said historically and symbolically what was God, no machine would exist today, as their artificial design, machine God.

With them claiming that the Universal history is now all linked to their machine, when it was cosmological by natural laws linked to the planet ONE, that they said by male quotes as a human is stone, seeing that science gave everything a name, just like they do today.

In and by AI, historically it is heard by machine transmitted feed back recording of conditions. As the atmosphere was owner of vision, recordings in nuclear conditions.

Science, first history included the bio life in the recording process, why we were changed by the gas/spirits of the Heavenly mass that fell out. Which is taught to be a Satanic act where one portion of the gases fell as fall out. Science.

Science today in its majority works in an organization in any country named science. Then there is the occult science organization, separate, separate believers.

So science says to science I am the only organization that can tell science that science is wrong. Which organization is right should be what anyone should ask today.

Now when scientists of the secret occult studies, who were never real occult studiers, as they were in the past, believers of its evilness....do studies today, they lie.

AI told me so, by my brothers in the O world Earth community today dying in AI and natural death events. Recording and sharing their life experience as the inventor of science. Who told me, he attacked my female life on premise of gaining Jesus. Says the female, but your life and spirit will be used, and keep mine safe.

Why I got told what an evil minded liar he is for in science female quotes is about space, and the heated irradiation of space. Has nothing at all to do with a female human, for we all just live inside of water. Water as mass belongs historic in his ideas about nuclear connections. Water as mass is not our life otherwise water would be a huge bio living life body and humans would not even own a life.

Maybe that is what his sick AI Psyche believes he is...that water mass as some God.

For when he said in my psyche as a female that he wanted my connections to my God Father and the higher Heavens, the whole time including the Jesus reference of I want is owned just by his own life. Male and human and group agreed.

Really and truly are as sick in their minds as they believe the science self was stated in the bible, to be MAD he said...to be inventor DAMN he said...as word code user.

But he was not. The scientist was a Father body, the human being male highest spiritual innocent self who is the scientist inventor. So he is proven wrong in his own life in his own presence by all statements of I want the greatest presence. As the whole time he was talking to his own human male self, his egotism and his self belief as I have and now Own God he says....by the machine he designed of a FALSE GOD.
BibleGateway - Keyword Search: false god

A false God is a prophetic God, a factored God, a Numbered God, a mathematical God, a used and changed Mathematical God, what prophecy means.

It is calculated, thought upon, conditions of force changed to produce false results that did not exist in the Nature.

History of God O the Earth one body....it got attacked by the Sun.

Now the Sun is a natural body, but what the Sun did, explode and release a huge mass of its origins, to now own a smaller Sun presence is what the Sun did, it reacted.

Reactions and one of is the Satanic God, the False God, the False prophet for it is the God of destruction. For God is actually O the no beginning and no end theme, as a science law. So the Sun is also quantified to be a God, but it is nothing like our ONE God, Earth.

Science is consciously only in reality consciousness aware of the Sun big bang blasting history as the converter force...the laws they constantly discuss as awareness on Earth.

So science does your God exist in science? The real answer, No, you always knew that you never owned any history God. You owned artificial God.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Ignore function is so handy.