-
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!
Reasons for the belief in no God
- Thread starter Subby
- Start date
I am asking YOU to prove YOUR claims.
I'm not making any claims.
I started the topic with a question, if you can't answer it... Don't respond I would have to say.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Is visibility part of the definition. See not all God concepts include visibility as a defining aspect of God. And what's this He stuff? I think you left that out of your definition as well. You can't start making stuff up after you've already established the meaning.
Can I see air? No. Can I see gravity? No. I see the trees blown by the wind, feel it against my skin, watch things fall to the ground, trip and fall.........all the things we can observe in this world that have led us to use the terms air and gravity to define those specific things and which can all be measured independently and verified by all people.
Now back to this claim about God. Is this God visible? Does it have male genitalia?
I did answer it. You weren't satisfied(not my problem), now explain why my reason isn't justifiable.
So you have assumed Gods existence in order to define Him. "Him, He, etc" is just a common way of describing God nothing more.
Exactly, you cannot see God, yet you see His effect. Namely creation itself, air, gravity, etc.
Your reason is not good enough for me. Meaning that it is illogical and can be contradicted by anybody at anytime.
So, you're satisfied with not having evidence?
That is YOUR illogical thinking, not mine.
Ok, what evidence do you have? I'm not aware of any.
This is a topic for the NON-EXISTENCE of God. What are YOUR arguments that are based on logic and reason? That is the question.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
I assumed nothing. The meaning of this term God, which you claimed in the OP, is being defined by you. If I were defining God than I would be assuming God exists. I have done no such thing.
I don't see anything but the material world around me. What does your definition of God have to do with it. You say it exists. By what tool is this God measured by?
You say gravity is evidence of God? That's no different than if someone said slurf, burple derp. When I look at trees I see trees. When I feel the air I feel the air. You lump everything together and say God did it but that doesn't make it so.
Is this god omniscient and omnipotent?
Actually I was saying God is creator of natural laws. How did all that get here? It just magically appeared?
gnomon
Well-Known Member
I don't know.
I can't show how the universe came to be. I can't show the existence or non-existence of this alleged perfect being that created and rules the universe.
I've stated my case logically as well. Your definition of God is one of a being that is beyond direct physical observation. The defined existence of this God lies outside of space time and human beings cannot observe anything outside of space time. Temporal existence, aka human existence, is a subset of eternal existence. There is nothing by which to measure this perfect creator. The offered evidence given by no more than words in a definition and indirect allusion does not amount to physical evidence.
I cannot logically prove or disprove anything that exists outside this universe. All that is left is to either believe or not believe any concept any person conjectures and I choose to not believe.
Unless there are things that transcend us, like the laws of logic and natural laws. They are there without our opinion on it. Therefore logically, there is more proof for a transcendent being like God that authored such laws.
Friend of Bill W
Member
Nope, but science is pretty close to explaining how we got a Universe from nothing.
This physicist explains...
[youtube]7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]
YouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
No 'god' is required; in fact Stephen Hawkin - the brilliant physicist in a wheelchair - recently published in a book that the Universe works just fine without God.
Why don't you try to articulate your own opinions, then we try again. Hawking declares no God is required just certain laws.... Where did those laws come from then?
I'll give you a reason why I don't believe in the god you've defined. In your definition, god is all powerful. A god that is all powerful is logically contradicting. A famous example of this, that you may have heard before. Can god create a rock so big that even he can't lift it? If he can, he's not all powerful, if he can't he's still not omnipotent. Thats one reason why I don't believe in the god you defined.