PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Does A=A?
-
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!
Evidence for God's nonexistence
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
Yes, for each.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
0zyzzyz0
Murphy's Law is the TOE.
It seems that if "God" is defined as anything other than what we can within the bounds of logical necessity consider to be real and existent, then that God, as defined, cannot be existent in any real sense. He can only exist then in an imagined sense, and be as unreal as any other conceived imaginary being.
Theists tend to object to this as an exercise in defining God out of existence. They may, alternatively posit that He is beyond being definable, and I have heard also "beyond comprehension", but then, at best, it seems to me, they back themselves into a deist position.
Put this to the test. Define God and then critically and honestly examine your proposed definition, or understanding of what you mean by God, to determine if it actually is logically sound. Can your God be both omni this and omni that or omni anything!? Is there any basis for claiming that He necessarily must exist or that He is the only plausible explanation for why there is something rather than nothing? ...?
We should, in taking on such an thought exercise, feel free to think and explore beyond your confirmational biases. It's called "freethinking".
%)
Anything truly existent can be described or defined relationally in terms of how it interacts with or is causily connected with other existent things. This, in effect, is the same as saying it may be discerned in some empirical way as observable, as having observable effect, or in some way being implied as necessary in order to explain something real. {{Maybe this provisional defining test for reality could use some refining - help}} As any posited form of god has not yet met with such criteria (except in the biased imaginings of proponents of the hypothesized god or gods), then it is safe to say, provisionally, that the traditional Abrahamic God, as variously and traditionally defined, cannot be said to be logically possible.
By default, if it cannot be possible for God to exist then it must be the case that we can safely say that God does not exist - in any sense of what we would consider "real".
I throw this out into the fray in full expectation of some reasonable objections and much much in the way of unreasonable objections. In the case of the former, I look forward to reading such responses. In the case of the latter, please just pass these along telepathically and I'll get back to you via the same medium.
0zy
Theists tend to object to this as an exercise in defining God out of existence. They may, alternatively posit that He is beyond being definable, and I have heard also "beyond comprehension", but then, at best, it seems to me, they back themselves into a deist position.
Put this to the test. Define God and then critically and honestly examine your proposed definition, or understanding of what you mean by God, to determine if it actually is logically sound. Can your God be both omni this and omni that or omni anything!? Is there any basis for claiming that He necessarily must exist or that He is the only plausible explanation for why there is something rather than nothing? ...?
We should, in taking on such an thought exercise, feel free to think and explore beyond your confirmational biases. It's called "freethinking".
%)
Anything truly existent can be described or defined relationally in terms of how it interacts with or is causily connected with other existent things. This, in effect, is the same as saying it may be discerned in some empirical way as observable, as having observable effect, or in some way being implied as necessary in order to explain something real. {{Maybe this provisional defining test for reality could use some refining - help}} As any posited form of god has not yet met with such criteria (except in the biased imaginings of proponents of the hypothesized god or gods), then it is safe to say, provisionally, that the traditional Abrahamic God, as variously and traditionally defined, cannot be said to be logically possible.
By default, if it cannot be possible for God to exist then it must be the case that we can safely say that God does not exist - in any sense of what we would consider "real".
I throw this out into the fray in full expectation of some reasonable objections and much much in the way of unreasonable objections. In the case of the former, I look forward to reading such responses. In the case of the latter, please just pass these along telepathically and I'll get back to you via the same medium.
0zy