I think you are missing the point of God. He wouldn't care to do anything of the sort in the first place, it is against a completely just will, which would not concern itself with such crap I am sure.
-
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 think you are missing the point of God. He wouldn't care to do anything of the sort in the first place, it is against a completely just will, which would not concern itself with such crap I am sure.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
No. The only thing you offer is your words and the conjecture that there is something that created the universe. That this creator is perfect and rules the universe as well. To prove that God you have to prove it's perfect, it's ruling the universe let alone created the universe.
I'm just saying that scientific methodology cannot be used to prove this. Also, that using logic alone will not prove or disprove this God.
The laws of nature are a human creation used to describe observations made by humans as to how the universe works. The laws we formulate doesn't answer why, or specifically, for what reason the universe exists.
Friend of Bill W
Member
Man created God because we're frightened, and we like to have a God to protect us. We also are scared of death, so we create a soul that will live forever in Happy La La Land.
My view is that I would love there to be an actual god to protect me, care for me, and let my egoic self live forever, but unfortunately my experience of life does not lead me to believe that that's true.
Unfortunately I see no evidence of god(s).
And it's pointless arguing where these laws come from, because if you're insinuating that there has to be a god to create these laws, then the next logical question is who created god?
No the explanation of the law is human creation. The law itself was there regardless of humans discovering it. Since it transcends humans, something that authored it has to transcend the human mind as well.
That is logical.
Actually that isn't logical, because it will infinitely regress, and thus to satisfy the logic, an element such as an eternal God must be introduced.
Last edited:
Friend of Bill W
Member
No, that's not logical at all. Here's the equation you just formulated...
Something happened that I don't understand = Majic Man in sky dun it
That's not rational at all!
Absolutely wrong. God created natural laws or a design in which we live under. That is what I am saying, try reading my posts with an unbiased mind.
Friend of Bill W
Member
When highly intelligent physicists get their work peer reviewed, and they say they can explain the universe without a Creator God, I tend to believe them. Okay, it does take a bit of faith on my part because I don't understand the maths; but I understand scientific method; and that's what they use.
I mean for many years we believed the world was flat, and at the centre of the Universe. Science has explained the truth of this, and as it turns out our planet is an insignificant little speck of dust in the big scheme of things.
Again, I see no evidence of God. Where is it? Why does he make it so difficult for us atheists/agnostics to find him? If I'm a child of God, where is he? I don't hide myself from my children; that wouldn't be right or fair would it. If my kids needed me, and I hid, where's the love in that?
So why does god hide from me? It's because he doesn't exist!
I have already said, creation itself. look around you. Nature itself just appeared out of nowhere, just spontaneously? Or something outside of nature designed it? One is obviously more logical.
We can see, touch, feel, taste, and experience nature. We can do none of these things with your hypothetical God. Therefore, it is much more rational to me to assume that nature has always existed, rather than hypothesizing the existence of something I have never experienced to explain the existence of something that I have.
To assume nature always existed goes against scholarly and peer-reviewed science that dictates a beginning of the universe.
Have fun with that.
Likewise, assuming the existence of something that is completely unobservable goes against peer-reviewed science.
There is much qualification about "beginning". The big bang might simply be the beginning of this cycle of creation-- an eternal cycle of beginnings and endings. We have no knowledge about the conditions "before" the big bang.
In such a situation, the response "I don't know" is the best response. Since there is no objective evidence of the existence of this omnipotent Creator, there is no compelling reason for me to plug him into the mystery of the beginning of the universe.
The universe has a beginning. Before it existed it is impossible for it to spontaneously begin to exist. Therefore you are relying on logical inconsistency to prove God does not exist.
Instead what is logical is positing a transcendent being such as God. That of course remains consistent with the established law of life coming from established life, biogenesis.
So you don't know. But then why posit "eternal cycle of beginnings and endings."? Taking your underlying premise, that is no more proven than positing a God, therefore you remain consistent with the existence of God. Although it remains illogical ultimately because the natural mechanism from which this eternal cycle manifests... what created that? And thus you go on into regressive infinity, instead the logical position is that ultimately God created the universe and natural laws we investigate through science.
Last edited:
That is an assumption that is not supported. The law of "cause and effect" is a law of this universe; we have no way of knowing whether it was in effect "before" the universe began.
On the other hand, it is possible that the universe always existed. There would be no "before".
And lastly, I did not use this to prove that God does not exist. I merely stated that a) it has not been sufficiently proven that an all powerful Being needs to exist in order for the universe to exist and b) it does not make logical sense to hypothesize the existence of this Being when we have no evidence for its existence.
It is not logical to posit the existence of something without any evidence for its existence. It was exactly this sort of reasoning that caused people to attribute lightning to Zeus and thunder to Thor.Subby said:
1) I know the universe exists. I have very solid proof that it does. I have no such evidence that God exists. Until further evidence is forth coming, it is more logical for me to default to natural processes, since I know for sure that they are possible.Subby said:
2) It is inconsistent to be ok with an eternally existing being, but have a problem with the concept of an eternally existing universe.
3) This argument is strange to me: The universe is much too complex to exist spontaneously. Therefore, an infinitely more complex being must exist to have created it.
4) It is extremely poor logic to assume something exists simply because you currently can't solve a mystery of the natural world. This reasoning has a notoriously poor track record.
The universe had a beginning, that is what science dictates by peer-review, etc. I have given arguments for why it is logical to conclude something outside of nature caused it. You failed to address those.
1) No, explaining the origin of natural processes with natural processes is circular.
2) It is inconsistent for you, indeed. However instead of your wild hypothesis, mine seems logical, I have given reasons why.
3) Yours can easily be called strange, in that there is an eternal cycle of beginnings and endings. But it is a useless argument, as it does not deal with anything substantive.
4) The existence of the natural cannot be explained by the natural. This is why you make it capable of eternity with your language. Nature cannot come out of nothing, unless something caused it. Nature cannot cause itself, that is circular.
Last edited:
There's no evidence for one. There isn't even a common definition for one.
-Religious creation myths have been debunked.
-Prayer has been shown to have no statistical effect.
-Evolution by natural selection explains how humans have developed from simple life.
-Most species that have existed on this planet have gone extinct. (Lack of purpose.)
-The universe is dangerous, violent, chaotic, neutral, and uncaring.
-Nature causes grievous suffering.
-Consciousness, morality, thought, and personality have been demonstrated to be emergent properties of the physical brain.
-Religious people cannot support their claims with evidence.
Why don't you learn how to be consistent and allow the conversation to flow naturally, instead of overwhelming it with half a dozen claims?
Choose one and lets go from there.Maybe the evolution one?
McBell
Unbound
Well, which do you want?
Do you want peoples reasons or are you wanting an argument supporting said reasons?
Or perhaps you want both?
Hilarious.
You've spent 8 pages responding to extremely short posts and showing dissatisfaction that posters are not answering your OP, and you're finally given a solid list of reasons and you tell me to learn how to be consistent?
Please.
This thread is a repeat of a thread on the same exact topic posted in this subforum earlier today called, "Your Reason for 'God Does Not Exist'". My response here is basically the same as the one I posted in there.
If you're overwhelmed by the number of reasons against your belief, you can pick a few and debate them if you want. To justify your beliefs and claims you'll have to be answer all of those reasons and more.
Indeed 8 PAGES. Yours was regurgitated lacking specifics.
And you fail to take up the task, namely elaborate on one. How about that evolution one?