Thief
Rogue Theologian
Believing in the existence of an "afterlife," requires the ability to ignore or suspend rationality. Once again, something some of us cannot do.
Won't see you there.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Believing in the existence of an "afterlife," requires the ability to ignore or suspend rationality. Once again, something some of us cannot do.
Won't see you there.
Won't see you there.
In case you do not know it, science is walking toward God. Discovery will take time. You say you don't have to search for God because you see no evidence. Can one be so blind?? You are right. It is a waste of time for you to search for God. There will come a time you might think differently. All the secrets of the universe patiently wait for us all to discover them. One must want to discover them. When your time comes, forget all you have been taught about God through religion. You cling so hard onto it that it corrupts your thinking.you have the burden of proof, you think god exists, and i don't. Thats why science is so much further than religion in every possible aspect, we used to think rainbows were created by god but now we know exactly how rainbows are made. we used to think lightning was because the gods were angry, but we used science to find out the truth as to why there was lightning. There used to be supernatural explanations for almost everything, we thought they could never be proven and it would be futile to even try, but we did it. Can we prove god exists? We don't have to, because we've never seen evidence or even an small idea that he does exist. I've never seen him, no one has ever seen him, but people see rainbows every day. Double rainbows even.
Science is walking towards the theory of everything. If this is synonymous with "God", please elaborate.In case you do not know it, science is walking toward God.
These is simply the problem of suffering, it's been deal with by every Apologetic in the book, I can't believe you even bothered with it,Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox
P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.
Sources: StrongAtheism.net - Atheology
Arguments against the existence of god - Iron Chariots Wiki
.
These is simply the problem of suffering, it's been deal with by every Apologetic in the book, I can't believe you even bothered with it,
Free will exists, we observe it, (don't like it, go be a Calvinist) and therefore we have suffering as a result of sins, both reflexive and to others, and as a result of living in a sinful fallen creation, such as climate change
However if you are using it as an arugment against the Christian God, of which I can speak of, you have to understand God Himself bore the suffering of the world and the responsibility of free will on the cross, He died for us, because we've screw up big timeI personaly feel that the problem of suffering is not the strongest argument against a "loving" deity. However, it does bring up a valid point, and that is, this "loving" god is ultimately responsible for the suffering in the world? And if he's responsible for it, then allowing people to suffer without intervention is not loving, but rather sedistic.
I beg to differAs per requested, here are the logical and scientific arguments that disprove the monotheist God's existence. Let me note that these arguments aren't necessary because the Theist has the burden of proof for their claim, whereas Atheists aren't required to disprove anything.
I am going by this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is Godan omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself." - Monotheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And to those who believe in some sort of impersonal God or spiritual force, then these arguments don't apply. Though, I really don't think an impersonal force can be considered "God" because "God" is a personification. Also, if you feel that this God or force plays a role in your life, you pray to it, or it intervenes, then your God is actually a personal God.
If you believe in a God that is unknowable or beyond human comprehension, then your position is ultimately meaningless because you are asserting a concept that we can know nothing about and thus cannot derive meaning from this unknowable concept.
Now, on to the arguments:
The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument
P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)
Argument from Quantum Physics
P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent all-observing being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)
The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument
1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).
Argument from Evil
P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.
(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)
Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox
P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.
Sources: StrongAtheism.net - Atheology
Arguments against the existence of god - Iron Chariots Wiki
.
However if you are using it as an arugment against the Christian God, of which I can speak of, you have to understand God Himself bore the suffering of the world and the responsibility of free will on the cross, He died for us, because we've screw up big time
A couple of points.I personaly feel that the problem of suffering is not the strongest argument against a "loving" deity. However, it does bring up a valid point, and that is, this "loving" god is ultimately responsible for the suffering in the world? And if he's responsible for it, then allowing people to suffer without intervention is not loving, but rather sedistic.
And the various natural disasters, biology faults and diseases are because...?These is simply the problem of suffering, it's been deal with by every Apologetic in the book, I can't believe you even bothered with it,
Free will exists, we observe it, (don't like it, go be a Calvinist) and therefore we have suffering as a result of sins, both reflexive and to others, and as a result of living in a sinful fallen creation, such as climate change
Edit: Evil also doesn't exist, it's a negative, the absence of Good,
The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)
Argument from Quantum Physics
P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent all-observing being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)
The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument
1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).
Argument from Evil
P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.
(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)
Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox
P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.