Is God impossible?

[Windwalker]

I say maybe.

... if for no other reason than when we ask a question and have no information to help us come up with an answer, the default answer is always "maybe": it could be yes or no, but we don't have enough information yet to tell which.

So could God be impossible? The answer is yes... until someone gives a good reason to believe that God is possible.

Does anyone have such a reason?

This question is important to you. I find it interesting you start with impossible and take it from there. Cynicism is a mask we wear in defense of ourselves. Sorry, just saying. I find the question telling.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The universe is an evidence, it's either to believe that it existed as a result of
nothingness or there was was an always existing thing, something should always
be existing and this universe should be existing because something was existing,
I believe this thing was God and you believe it was the nil, not even the vacuum.

Using your own logic, the Universe is also evidence for the Titans... The Universe is evidence for the great creator god Ojibway. The Universe is evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cosmic Pink Unicorn, and Invisible Space Wizard.

Again, simply making a claim that "it must be so" is not evidence for anything. It's not evidence at all. That's why I'm asking why the god conversation is even a conversation. There's no convincing evidence or argument that any such being exists. I go so far as to say that not only does one not exist. I say that it can't.

Your greatest argument for the Theist's position is a logical fallacy. At some point we have to all realize that this is a very true statement.

Presupposition - Wikipedia
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Claims require specific evidence - Wikipedia

Rephrase please.

You said people have always talked about God. That's true.
I'm saying that there are many well-researched explanations for why this is so. Most of them are psychological and culturally-based. They have nothing to do with the objective existence of said deity.

 

[fallingblood]

Except that the planner is always existing, if you believe that the universe started
from nothingness then that's another thing which I don't agree with.

One can also say that the universe always existed, and thus didn't need a planner to begin with. Simply you're argument fails as it allows a plan to not have a planner, thus, not all plans need a planner. Your argument fails.

Do you believe that the universe started from nothingness or that there
should be something that started it?

I don't think it needed something to start it. If you can accept that G-d always existed, then it is just as reasonable to assume that the universe always existed, or at least the material that created the universe always existed.

 

[FearGod]

Using your own logic, the Universe is also evidence for the Titans... The Universe is evidence for the great creator god Ojibway. The Universe is evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cosmic Pink Unicorn, and Invisible Space Wizard.

Again, simply making a claim that "it must be so" is not evidence for anything. It's not evidence at all. That's why I'm asking why the god conversation is even a conversation. There's no convincing evidence or argument that any such being exists. I go so far as to say that not only does one not exist. I say that it can't.

Your greatest argument for the Theist's position is a logical fallacy. At some point we have to all realize that this is a very true statement.

Presupposition - Wikipedia
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Claims require specific evidence - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Claims_require_specific_evidence

Call that thing which is always existing as "X", to you it can be the flying Spaghetti or
any similar fictitious things, to me it's "Allah".

You said people have always talked about God. That's true.
I'm saying that there are many well-researched explanations for why this is so. Most of them are psychological and culturally-based. They have nothing to do with the objective existence of said deity.

If you have no reason to believe in the one God, the first of everything that exists
in this universe, then that doesn't mean you got it right, it means that you chose
the wrong path, many smoke cigarettes and they believe it's good for them,
does that mean they're right.

 

[FearGod]

One can also say that the universe always existed, and thus didn't need a planner to begin with. Simply you're argument fails as it allows a plan to not have a planner, thus, not all plans need a planner. Your argument fails.

Except that science doesn't agree with your assumption, the universe starting
from a starting point, it wasn't always existing.
Age of the universe - Wikipedia

I don't think it needed something to start it. If you can accept that G-d always existed, then it is just as reasonable to assume that the universe always existed, or at least the material that created the universe always existed.

As I had said, science doesn't agree with you..

 

[jonathan180iq]

Call that thing which is always existing as "X", to you it can be the flying Spaghetti or
any similar fictitious things, to me it's "Allah".

Your reference of Allah alongside my list of similarly fictitious characters is quite telling.

If you have no reason to believe in the one God, the first of everything that exists
in this universe, then that doesn't mean you got it right, it means that you chose
the wrong path, many smoke cigarettes and they believe it's good for them,
does that mean they're right.

However, they aren't wrong because you say so. And they aren't wrong because I agree with you. They are wrong because that's what the scientific observation demonstrates. Smoking restricts circulation and literally poisons the body through the inhalation of noxious gases. Cigarettes are filled with carcinogens and people happily ingest them because "it feels good." These things are true, regardless of our faith in them. They are true whether you and I agree about it or not.

Do you see the difference?

You're telling me I'm wrong - and your evidence for claiming that I am wrong is simply that you are claiming that I am wrong... That's simply not a good enough argument in this current intellectual landscape.

 

[Willamena]

That's important later, but even without "God" defined, you can still respond to "is God impossible?" with "maybe."

As any parent who has looked a child in the eye and asked, "Did you do that?" will tell you, "Maybe" isn't an answer. You can respond with it, but to no avail.

 

[fallingblood]

Except that science doesn't agree with your assumption, the universe starting
from a starting point, it wasn't always existing.
Age of the universe - Wikipedia

As I had said, science doesn't agree with you..

One, Wikipedia isn't a science book. Two, Wikipedia doesn't support your assumption, as the article you referenced is specifically about the age of this universe. The first sentence states that they are only look at the time from the Big Bang until now. If we keep using Wikipedia, as you seem to accept it as a valid reference, we can look at other entries. For instance: Cyclic model - Wikipedia Which really is the idea that there are multiple big bangs, followed by big crunches, followed by a big bang, and so on.

 

[FearGod]

Your reference of Allah alongside my list of similarly fictitious characters is quite telling.

I don't make imagination of how Allah looks like or what's he, he's unknown to
me and I don't need to think about the flying spaghetti or the monkey God ..etc

However, they aren't wrong because you say so. And they aren't wrong because I agree with you. They are wrong because that's what the scientific observation demonstrates. Smoking restricts circulation and literally poisons the body through the inhalation of noxious gases. Cigarettes are filled with carcinogens and people happily ingest them because "it feels good." These things are true, regardless of our faith in them. They are true whether you and I agree about it or not.

Do you see the difference?

You're telling me I'm wrong - and your evidence for claiming that I am wrong is simply that you are claiming that I am wrong... That's simply not a good enough argument in this current intellectual landscape.

Let me ask you this question, are you sure 100% that God as a creator of the universe doesn't
exist and can never be true?

 

[FearGod]

One, Wikipedia isn't a science book. Two, Wikipedia doesn't support your assumption, as the article you referenced is specifically about the age of this universe. The first sentence states that they are only look at the time from the Big Bang until now. If we keep using Wikipedia, as you seem to accept it as a valid reference, we can look at other entries. For instance: Cyclic model - Wikipedia Which really is the idea that there are multiple big bangs, followed by big crunches, followed by a big bang, and so on.

You wish to accept any theory that may exclude God such as the everlasting universe(the cyclic universe) instead of God, just a wishful thinking.

 

[fallingblood]

You wish to accept any theory that may exclude God such as the everlasting universe(the cyclic universe) instead of God, just a wishful thinking.

I believe G-d exists. Belief in G-d is based on faith. The existence of G-d is not probable, it's improbable, and there is no evidence for the existence of G-d.

You stated science disagreed with me. I simply showed why you were wrong in that statement. Science didn't disagree with what I said.

 

[FearGod]

I believe G-d exists. Belief in G-d is based on faith. The existence of G-d is not probable, it's improbable, and there is no evidence for the existence of G-d.

You stated science disagreed with me. I simply showed why you were wrong in that statement. Science didn't disagree with what I said.

Blind faith doesn't work with me, it's either to believe or to disbelieve by thinking and
to search for which makes more sense.

 

[fallingblood]

Blind faith doesn't work with me, it's either to believe or to disbelieve by thinking and
to search for which makes more sense.

But that's what you're left with. There is no evidence for G-d. You can search as much as you want, but there is no evidence. Thus, the probability that G-d existed is very low. One has to take a leap of faith to accept that G-d existed.

 

[paarsurrey]

I say maybe.

... if for no other reason than when we ask a question and have no information to help us come up with an answer, the default answer is always "maybe": it could be yes or no, but we don't have enough information yet to tell which.

So could God be impossible? The answer is yes... until someone gives a good reason to believe that God is possible.

Does anyone have such a reason?

I agree with you if I understood the above narrative correctly.
G-d does exist. Nobody could give anything concrete that He doesn't exist.
Right? Please

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with you if I understood the above narrative correctly.
G-d does exist. Nobody could give anything concrete that He doesn't exist.
Right? Please

Regards

Depends on what you mean by "God".

In any case, I'm more interested in whether belief in God is justified. We could come up with any number of things that can't be disproven but have no good reason to accept them as true. The time to believe in God is when we have good reason to.

 

[Fool]

Depends on what you mean by "God".

In any case, I'm more interested in whether belief in God is justified. We could come up with any number of things that can't be disproven but have no good reason to accept them as true. The time to believe in God is when we have good reason to.

exclude god and go solely with the idea of belief. people in science have beliefs and have for thousands of years. some time in the future there will be a cure for some disease that was incurable in history and the learned of that future will marvel at the beliefs and practices of such an uninformed culture.

 

[IndigoStorm]

For purposes of this thread, lets assume we are referring to the so called "biblical god."

If we are then I sincerely hope that he/she/it is impossible.

Why?

There are hundreds of references to god's cruelty in the bible, but here are only a few:

1. Genesis
   
2. "I will destroy ... both man and beast."
   God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
   
   
3. "Every living substance that I have made will I destroy."
   God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
   
   
4. "All flesh died that moved upon the earth."
   God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
   
   God sends a plague on the Pharaoh and his household because the Pharaoh believed Abram's lie. 12:17
5. God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10
   
   
6. "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
   I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32
   
   
7. Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8
   
   
8. God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24

All these references are in the bible ... so is the bible incorrect or is god a blood thirsty monster who especially loves the smell of burning flesh?

Why do people worship this cruel monster?

Better he is impossible.

 

[Marty]

I say maybe.

... if for no other reason than when we ask a question and have no information to help us come up with an answer, the default answer is always "maybe": it could be yes or no, but we don't have enough information yet to tell which.

So could God be impossible? The answer is yes... until someone gives a good reason to believe that God is possible.

Does anyone have such a reason?

Since Jehovah God does not reveal Himself to unbelievers, then you don't have any chance of ever experiencing anything that you would consider evidence of God. Your heart condition, or rather, disbelief, in God, prevents you from believing in Him. As far as me, so many things daily PROVE to me, that God is real, is a close friend, cares, protects, and helps, constantly, that it's impossible for God to be impossible. And if He were, none of us would exist, and neither would ANYTHING exist. No planet Earth, universe, etc.

So you won't ever have "information" to help you come up with an answer, UNLESS you change how you think and how you believe. And the only way for that to happen, is to stay FAR AWAY from ALL religions of man, and instead to carefully study God's inspired word. This doesn't mean studying a false translation like the KJV or the like, but the word of God. The KJV and those Bibles like it are NOT the inspired word of God. They have been so drastically changed, that they don't teach anything God intended to teach us. So to get your information, you have a lot of work ahead of you, but it is possible. If you honestly desire this "information", then you will start this work.

 

[McBell]

For purposes of this thread, lets assume we are referring to the so called "biblical god."

If we are then I sincerely hope that he/she/it is impossible.

Why?

There are hundreds of references to god's cruelty in the bible, but here are only a few:

1. Genesis
   
2. "I will destroy ... both man and beast."
   God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
   
   
3. "Every living substance that I have made will I destroy."
   God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
   
   
4. "All flesh died that moved upon the earth."
   God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
   
   God sends a plague on the Pharaoh and his household because the Pharaoh believed Abram's lie. 12:17
5. God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10
   
   
6. "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
   I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32
   
   
7. Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8
   
   
8. God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24

All these references are in the bible ... so is the bible incorrect or is god a blood thirsty monster who especially loves the smell of burning flesh?

Why do people worship this cruel monster?

Better he is impossible.

That is an awful lot of typing to not answer the question....

 

[McBell]

Since Jehovah God does not reveal Himself to unbelievers,

Says who?

then you don't have any chance of ever experiencing anything that you would consider evidence of God. Your heart condition, or rather, disbelief, in God, prevents you from believing in Him. As far as me, so many things daily PROVE to me, that God is real, is a close friend, cares, protects, and helps, constantly, that it's impossible for God to be impossible. And if He were, none of us would exist, and neither would ANYTHING exist. No planet Earth, universe, etc.

So you won't ever have "information" to help you come up with an answer, UNLESS you change how you think and how you believe. And the only way for that to happen, is to stay FAR AWAY from ALL religions of man, and instead to carefully study God's inspired word. This doesn't mean studying a false translation like the KJV or the like, but the word of God. The KJV and those Bibles like it are NOT the inspired word of God. They have been so drastically changed, that they don't teach anything God intended to teach us. So to get your information, you have a lot of work ahead of you, but it is possible. If you honestly desire this "information", then you will start this work.

oh goody.
Perhaps you will be so kind as to reveal which version is Gods Word?