IndigoStorm
Member
Anything can be possible but no, the biblical god is impossible.
The big bang theory is more likely to be possible than an omnipresent god.
The big bang theory is more likely to be possible than an omnipresent god.
-
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!
Is God impossible?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Belief in G-d is justified. Nobody could give any concrete evidence that G-d with the attributes as elaborated in Quran does not exist.
Right? Please
Regards
HomiNid
New Member
The word "god". Is no more than a word. It is not "god"
him/her/it's self. When someone uses the word "god", the object, impossible or impossible, is the thing or person, named by that person with that word. If *you* use the word god, and for you, it means something impossible, such as, say, a perfectly square circle.then, for *you*, yes, god is impossible. An atheist uses the word "god" to describe something impossible. If someone else uses the word and for him, it names a 'circle that is circular', then for him, yes, god IS possible. So, that's to say, Unless you put together a definitive list of all of the attributes, of *your* God, as *you* know them, then no discussion can take place. Can you do that? Write a list of all that God is, and may be demonstrated, and proven to be, or NOT .. for *you*, and then bring your list of observations for research, and thereby arrive at conclusive proof, or a decision ..one way or the other. If you cannot present any evidence, or information to be demonstrated as true or untrue, with regard to your own possible, or impossible god, I think you may be wasting your time, and mine, with your question. ?
HomiNid
New Member
I very rarely use the word 'god'.Any god that *needed* the assistance of man, as thinker, preacher, writer, designer/operator of printing/publishing machinery , salesman, bookshop, religious structure, political structure, monetary system, specialist clothing, etc etc to exist, would seem to me to be the *invention of* ..not any kind of *creator of*, man himself. That is, of Man, the creature prone to serious errors in every endeavour.
HomiNid
New Member
We know a little, not a great deal, about the nature of *our own* reality, but I think that no one, no scientific or religious or philosophical research declares our *own reality* to be the *only* reality.May there not be billions of realities? One for every particle of all matter, and for everything else that isnt matter... Curiousity inquisitiveness, appears to be a natural/essential characteristic of many life forms, the pursuit of Information guarantees no answers.
What you're saying has some pretty damning implications for believers: if God doesn't reveal himself to unbelievers, then every believer became a believer for irrational reasons.
And you should probably know that to me - and to many other people, IMO - saying that you need to already believe that something is true in order to feel justified in believing it is a big red flag that the belief has a high likelihood of being nonsense.
Great! How is it justified?
Even if this was true, it wouldn't be justification for beliving in the god of the Quran.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Anything is possible except things that are self refuting (even then: the are possible, though incomprehensible, because it's possible that logic is not universal).
I'm more interested in models of the universe that can be used to explain and predict observation. No such God model exists: at least not where God is actually a requirement.
It's possible, for example, that we are all brains in jars being fed the stimulus we mistake for reality... but there's no support for that.
I'm more interested in models of the universe that can be used to explain and predict observation. No such God model exists: at least not where God is actually a requirement.
It's possible, for example, that we are all brains in jars being fed the stimulus we mistake for reality... but there's no support for that.
Animore
Active Member
I can say for one that the Abrahamic God, a loving God, is not just improbable, it's impossible.
Obviously the literal creation in Genesis cannot happen. Evolution has debunked this. However, say you don't take it literally. Say that you accept that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Then that means for millions of years, the heavens gazed upon the cooling, early earth, and gazed upon simpler organisms...and did nothing. He just let the cruel thing that is nature kill the weak, and let horrible mutations happen. They were indifferent to the organisms not naturally selected to survive. Does that really sound like a loving God to you?
So no, the Abrahamic God is neither probable, nor improbable. He is impossible. Simple as that.
Obviously the literal creation in Genesis cannot happen. Evolution has debunked this. However, say you don't take it literally. Say that you accept that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Then that means for millions of years, the heavens gazed upon the cooling, early earth, and gazed upon simpler organisms...and did nothing. He just let the cruel thing that is nature kill the weak, and let horrible mutations happen. They were indifferent to the organisms not naturally selected to survive. Does that really sound like a loving God to you?
So no, the Abrahamic God is neither probable, nor improbable. He is impossible. Simple as that.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
None of the above is valid and relevant to G-d with attributes mentioned in Quran.
Please quote from Quran to prove one's point of view.
Anybody, please
Regards
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
There are an unlimited number of subjective realities, sure. But those realities don't constitute anything more than perspective.
What's String Theory to a dog? What's algebra to an infant? What's a collegiate American Lit course to an Australian Aborigine?
The dog, the infant, and the aborigine have no use in their daily existence for any of those things, but they all still exist, right?
Like I said, there are things that we don't know. There are things that we can't know. But at what point does any of that knowledge create room for a being or deity who completely defies all the laws of nature and supposedly exists beyond understanding? Simply saying that you don't know something, therefore god must exist, is just yet another God of the Gaps argument. I'd like to know why people posit god as a being in the first place. What is the rationale? What is the logic? What's the evidence upon which such a conclusion is founded?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Really, dude...?
Is my statement also Ageist and Speciest?
What need or value does a lecture course on American Literature @ Harvard have in the daily life of an aboriginal tribesman?
The answer is none - How is that statement inaccurate?
Read this article and then ask your question again:
Rise of Aboriginal PhDs heralds a change in culture
Shad
Veteran Member
Which can not be blamed on the unbeliever as God is the one deciding whether to be revealed or not. Beside this argument can work against a specific religion. You have not experienced God so how could you know that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or, etc, etc is true
You just contradicted the previous sentence as you have established evidence is withheld by God rather than turned away by an individuals "condition"
Begging the question and circular reasoning. In order to establish the information, and it's source, is true I must already accept it as true.
A doctrine based premise that must already be accepted as true prior to establishing it is true, or even useful.
More doctrine based premises merely asserting a truth prior to establishing it as true.
To finish up you shift of the burden of proof away from you, the claimant, to the one you are attempting to convince. This also becomes an argument by ignorance and assertion as you have made various claims to truth which you do not support yourself.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
You start by saying the God of the Bible is impossible, then you follow up by saying an omnipresent God is possible. Hmm...
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
1. Prove no god exists.
2. Prove abiogenesis without divine intervention.
Since you can't prove either then the belief in a god is indeed logical.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
That's where the rub is, then.
I should have been more clear in my specific reference to tribesmen, then. And not the whole of the group. That's fair.
A PhD and a sustenance farmer live two very different lives - but that's enough derailment.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Okay, then do something that might be possible. Prove that the existence of a god is not logical.
Nope, you can't even do that much.
I guess your question has its answer, sir.