Reasons for the belief in no God

[Willamena]

But is "A" transcendent?

Depends on what (it is that) you imagine to be transcended. (The image you hold.)

Now this --perfection - the quality or state of being perfect -is circular if you use it to delineate being, since it describes a state of being. But then, perhaps for some transcendence of being lies in the circular being (as opposed to the linear).

Ah, well. It's all beyond me.

Yeah... I think the term "being" was included for grammatical correctness so that the definition would be equivalent to the term defined. i.e. "transcendence is being above and independent of the material universe".

Okay; but I'm not quoting the dictionary, just referring to "being" itself. When we address a thing, we do so gramatically, in order to do so in the context of its being. It "has being" as noun or verb, modified by adjective or adverb, and given further context by other parts and phrases in the sentence.

 

[waitasec]

Since mans mind is inherently contradictory when compared to another mans mind, something needs to transcend mans mind,

souces...
why would you say "something needs to transcend mans mind"?

what you fail to see is we are almost the same... genetically speaking.
1/100th of 1 percent is where our differences are in our amygdala (jill bolte taylor, brain scientist)

i suggest you do a little more thinking about this, because you're seemingly dishonest by how you refute these very logical arguments with an off handed remark like, "something needs to transcend mans mind".
that is not a logical argument. you have to dig a little deeper, captain.
i understand it can be a daunting task since you have given your reason over to a lazy habit by using god as the answer to everything...
i know, i've been there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Depends on what (it is that) you imagine to be transcended. (The image you hold.)

If this is true, then it's not transcendent.

I'm not transcendent, so if the transcendence of a thing is dependent on my imagination, then it's not transcendent either.

Okay; but I'm not quoting the dictionary, just referring to "being" itself.

Ah. I thought you were directly addressing the definition I gave, which I did quote from the dictionary.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not transcendent...

Says you.

There's whole schools of philosophy that might disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Says you.

There's whole schools of philosophy that might disagree.

Sometimes I try to be independent of the physical universe, but then I get to the point where I can't hold my breath any longer.

 

[Amill]

What are your reasons for believing that there is no God? I don't want you to prove a negative, I want you to give me a reasonable argument that shows there is not logical possibility for God.

Well, it seems like we're constantly finding naturalistic explanations for processes within the Universe and some even about the expansion of the Universe, so I'm finding it more and more likely that reasons for the existence of the Universe are creator-less.

But mainly I think that the Universe's existence is odd and makes little sense(wouldn't make sense for it to make sense though:flirt, but adding a complex, intelligent, all powerful being makes even less sense in my eyes and therefore less likely to exist.

 

[McBell]

The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good. (Ps.53:1)

The fool says in his heart: 'there is no God'. The wise man says it to the world.
~Troy Witte

 

[laffy_taffy]

The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good. (Ps.53:1)

Matthew 5:22 (King James Version)

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


fyi: since most atheits do not say "there is no god", then your little post is not even applicable.........

 

[Meow Mix]

Can't you guys use a dang dictionary to satisfy your question, instead of harping on this same point?

a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe God - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Ok, I can give an argument for why the god defined doesn't exist: the Problem of Evil.

If God is "perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" then God should have the power to create the world any way he chooses, the knowledge to know the ramifications of all ways he could choose to create the world, and the goodness to combine those first two points such that this world wouldn't contain suffering.

However, this world contains suffering; much of it that isn't even the fault of our free will. Consider leukemia kids, malaria, birth defects, natural disasters, scarcity of resources.

If God is powerful and knowledgeable and good we wouldn't find these things.

But we do.

Therefore, either God is not powerful, not knowledgeable, not good, or doesn't exist: there is a contradiction when these attributes are all taken together.

 

[Subby]

Ok, I can give an argument for why the god defined doesn't exist: the Problem of Evil.

If God is "perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" then God should have the power to create the world any way he chooses, the knowledge to know the ramifications of all ways he could choose to create the world, and the goodness to combine those first two points such that this world wouldn't contain suffering.

Indeed initially created without suffering. However choice is there as well, because God doesn't want robots. To exorcise true love, it must be accepted by our free will.

However, this world contains suffering; much of it that isn't even the fault of our free will. Consider leukemia kids, malaria, birth defects, natural disasters, scarcity of resources.

If God is powerful and knowledgeable and good we wouldn't find these things.

But we do.

Therefore, either God is not powerful, not knowledgeable, not good, or doesn't exist: there is a contradiction when these attributes are all taken together.

God gave us choice. This choice that was acted upon by free will is sin which is human will. Sin altered the world in which death entered, and now the weakest now die, or what is survival of the fittest. Human will has changed the world, and thus natural disease is a reality now. Nature is conspiring for death essentially now.

 

[Penumbra]

Indeed initially created without suffering. However choice is there as well, because God doesn't want robots.

God gave us choice. This choice that was acted upon by free will is sin which is human will. Sin altered the world in which death entered, and now the weakest now die, or what is survival of the fittest. Human will has changed the world, and thus natural disease is a reality now. Nature is conspiring for death essentially now.

Creatures have been living and dying since before humanity ever came around. The fossil record proves it. There were even mass extinction events where most of life on Earth was killed. Sin did not create suffering and death; suffering and death were inherent parts of life on this planet with or without humans.

So that is an incorrect claim.

 

[Subby]

Creatures have been living and dying since before humanity ever came around. The fossil record proves it. There were even mass extinction events where most of life on Earth was killed. Sin did not create suffering and death; suffering and death were inherent parts of life on this planet with or without humans.

So that is an incorrect claim.

This is taking a view based on assumptions that pretend uniformitarianism/darwinian evolution as the be-all-end-all of fossil interpretation.
I don't agree with those assumptions.

 

[PolyHedral]

This is taking a view based on assumptions that pretend uniformitarianism/darwinian evolution as the be-all-end-all of fossil interpretation.
I don't agree with those assumptions.

How do you end up with fossils if nothing dies before humans came around?

 

[Subby]

How do you end up with fossils if nothing dies before humans came around?

How do you determine that there were fossils before humans?

 

[PolyHedral]

How do you determine that there were fossils before humans?

Applied chemistry/physics.

 

[Subby]

Applied chemistry.

That's not enough. Try elaborating so we can have a dialogue here please.

 

[Penumbra]

This is taking a view based on assumptions that pretend uniformitarianism/darwinian evolution as the be-all-end-all of fossil interpretation.
I don't agree with those assumptions.

So you have to deny reality for your beliefs to be coherent.

That's one of the reasons for lack of belief in your god.

 

[Subby]

So you have to deny reality for your beliefs to be coherent.

That's one of the reasons for lack of belief in your god.

That really isn't a coherent argument in the affirmative for your position.

 

[McBell]

That really isn't a coherent argument in the affirmative for your position.

Perhaps not.
But it IS a damn good reason for lack of belief in your god.

 

[McBell]

I noticed, Subby, that you have not presented a post of yours that you think challenges any of the items in post 79.
Rather telling, don't you think?