Reasons for the belief in no God

[Subby]

No problem



There is no god, only a mans inagination of what he would want if one did exist.

Im sure there were gods and spirits on this planet before homosapiens ever evolved. Im sure homo erectus had fire spirits and smoke spirits ect ect

Imagination is tied into our instincts and it is always used to answer questions we do not know.

OK, your imagination created god.... Well what created the natural mechanism that ultimately produced humanity and thus your imagination?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just produce an argument that reasonably logically concludes the non-existence of a transcendent being such as God.

I already did:

1. based on how you have defined "God", it has the qualities of transcendence and perfection.
2. transcendence, as I understand it in this context, means "being above and independent of the material universe". IOW, transcendence implies truth or validity in all circumstances and cases, at all times and all places.
3. perfection is the quality of acheiving the maximal value in some standard or scale of measurement.
4. therefore, perfection is an invalid concept without a standard or scale against which to measure it.
5. since no particular scale scale of measurement can be said to be true or proper anywhere and everywhere in all circumstances, by (2), no scale of measurement is transcendent.
6. therefore, by (4), perfection is not transcendent.
7. therefore, perfection and transcendence are mutually contradictory qualities. IOW, no perfect being can be transcendent, and no transcendent being can be perfect.
8. therefore, God, having contradictory qualities, is a logical impossibility.
9. therefore, God, as you have defined him, does not exist.

 

[McBell]

Are you referring to post 76?

lol
Yes I am.
My bad.

 

[linwood]

If you are arguing for the non existence of something, why define it and give it existence in that regard?

How can you even begin to argue for or against a thing until you can define what the thing is?

 

[McBell]

Just produce an argument that reasonably logically concludes the non-existence of a transcendent being such as God.

Lack of credible evidence.

Guess this thread is done...

 

[McBell]

How can you even begin to argue for or against a thing until you can define what the thing is?

He doesn't.
He merely tosses out a bunch of strawmen and then declares himself the winner.

 

[Subby]

1. based on how you have defined "God", it has the qualities of transcendence and perfection.
2. transcendence, as I understand it in this context, means "being above and independent of the material universe". IOW, transcendence implies truth or validity in all circumstances and cases, at all times and all places.
3. perfection is the quality of acheiving the maximal value in some standard or scale of measurement.
4. therefore, perfection is an invalid concept without a standard or scale against which to measure it.
5. since no particular scale scale of measurement can be said to be true or proper anywhere and everywhere in all circumstances, by (2), no scale of measurement is transcendent.
6. therefore, by (4), perfection is not transcendent.
7. therefore, perfection and transcendence are mutually contradictory qualities. IOW, no perfect being can be transcendent, and no transcendent being can be perfect.
8. therefore, God, having contradictory qualities, is a logical impossibility.
9. therefore, God, as you have defined him, does not exist.

How do you measure the laws of logic?

You refute yourself by claiming point 1. Thus your measuring technique, being based in materialism and naturalism is limited.

 

[Penumbra]

Exactly. You don't need to admit the existence of God to argue for the non-existence of God. Otherwise if you do, your intellectually dishonest... Get it?

Here's an example Subby.

If a kid asserts that Santa exists, and he delivers presents to all the good little boys and girls on Christmas Eve, and another kid that does not believe in Santa says, "Oh yeah, how can Santa deliver all those presents in one night on a sleigh, and how does a fat man fit through a small chimney, and what happens if people don't have chimneys, and why do rich kids get more presents than poor kids if the presents come from Santa rather than parents?" then the second kid is temporarily assuming the existence of Santa in the discussion to point out how erroneous the claim is. It allows the details of the claim to be shown as what they are: incorrect.

 

[Subby]

Here's an example Subby.

If a kid asserts that Santa exists, and he delivers presents to all the good little boys and girls on Christmas Eve, and another kid that does not believe in Santa says, "Oh yeah, how can Santa deliver all those presents in one night on a sleigh, and how does a fat man fit through a small chimney, and what happens if people don't have chimneys, and why do rich kids get more presents than poor kids if the presents come from Santa rather than parents?" then the second kid is temporarily assuming the existence of Santa in the discussion to point out how erroneous the claim is. It allows the details of the claim to be shown as what they are: incorrect.

No... He does not need to assume the existence, he assumes the non-existence and proves his stance from there.

 

[McBell]

You refute yourself by claiming point 1. Thus your measuring technique, being based in materialism and naturalism is limited.

You're not very good at this, are you?

 

[Meow Mix]

You have assumed there is a God for this conversation, thus my job is done and I don't need to go any further. This topic is not about the design of God, but the existence or non existence of God, not the design but the designer.

Then you misunderstand my point. My point was that having a powerful, knowledgeable, good god entails a contradiction with the existence of suffering.

If God designed Plasmodium falciparum to be a torture device, which we must assume that He did if we assume creation is true given its complex and specific traits to be just that (a torture machine), then we can say that a powerful, knowledgeable, good God doesn't exist since a good God (in any meaningful context of the word "good") would not create a torture machine to plague humanity with, would He?

The existence of suffering demands an explanation if a powerful, knowledgeable, good God is asserted to exist (and this is indeed the definition you were quoting). If no rational explanation is forthcoming, then the contradiction means that it's rational to say that such a being can't exist any more than a square-circle or anything else contradictory can exist.

"Plasmodium is the result of sin" isn't a rational explanation that absolves God of the culpability for the suffering it causes because it's so complex and specific: if we're assuming creationism is true and that God is the creator, it rationally follows that God created a torture device and therefore can't be good.*

(* -- or wasn't powerful enough to stop it, or didn't know how to prevent it, or doesn't exist; but either way such a being that has ALL those listed attributes cannot exist at the same time as suffering. Specifically, an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator being can't exist at the same time as said being creates the capacity or even the de facto causes for suffering.)

This is a legitimate argument for how a god so defined can't exist: it's because it entails a contradiction in the same way as saying Tom is a married bachelor entails a contradiction and so can't exist.

 

[Father Heathen]

If we define God, we assume He exists.

So by saying that a "unicorn" is defined as horse with a horn growing out of it's head, we assume they exist?

 

[Meow Mix]

Thank you. You have admitted to the existence of God.

No, I think you're misunderstanding.

Suppose your friend says that an invisible dragon that invariably eats all cats around it within 24 hours exists in their garage.

Suppose that you ask your friend where their cat is and they say "The cat's in the garage."

You ask how long their cat's been in the garage, and they say for the past week.

You can respond that assuming their invisible dragon exists, there is a contradiction: clearly "eats all cats around it within 24 hours" is an attribute contradicted by the fact that their cat has lived in the garage for more than 24 hours and is still healthy and alive.

In no way are you "admitting" that their dragon actually exists; you are just hypothetically taking its existence for the sake of argument in order to point out a contradiction.

Make more sense?

I don't believe that an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent deity exists, and I don't have to in order to point out that it can't without further explanation of some kind because the existence of suffering contradicts those attributes.

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually this conversation would go somewhere, if you atheists could produce a reasonable argument for the non-existence of God. Instead you have to assume His existence, you are supposed to reason with me why I should assume the NON-EXISTENCE of God.

Please give an example of showing how something doesn't exist without first examining how it MIGHT exist.

To demonstrate how something can't exist, you must first ask "what would it be like if this thing DID exist" and point out the contradictions therein. Understand?

 

[Father Heathen]

No. If your position is so readily acceptable and logical, there should be some pretty good reasons why God does not exist. So please let me in on your reasons.

Due to the lack of evidence and logic that's necessary for such a belief to be rational and justified.

 

[Subby]

Please give an example of showing how something doesn't exist without first examining how it MIGHT exist.

To demonstrate how something can't exist, you must first ask "what would it be like if this thing DID exist" and point out the contradictions therein. Understand?

No you don't assume the existence of something, to prove its non-existence. You assume the existence of something to prove its characteristics. For instance as an argument for an atheist, you could asnwer this question:"why is the non existence of God so obvious?" You can only answer it, by assuming nature does everything itself, but what created nature? You cannot say nature, because that is logically inconsistent and contradictory.

 

[McBell]

No you don't assume the existence of something, to prove its non-existence. You assume the existence of something to prove its characteristics. For instance as an argument for an atheist, you could asnwer this question:"why is the non existence of God so obvious?" You can only answer it, by assuming nature does everything itself, but what created nature? You cannot say nature, because that is logically inconsistent and contradictory.

You assume a creator without supporting your assumption.
You are claiming a creator.
It is on you to prove that said creator exists.

Now since you cannot prove that said creator exists, there is no logical reason to believe said creator exists.

 

[Meow Mix]

Just produce an argument that reasonably logically concludes the non-existence of a transcendent being such as God.

Fine, I have a transcendental argument.

Identity (the Law of Identity) is the state of affairs where if something exists, it exists as itself and not something else. In logic identity is expressed as A = A. It basically means that if a basketball exists in reality, then it is a basketball and not a baseball or a quarter. Please note that this is a statement independent of our perception: of course we might perceive an oasis in a desert that isn't there, but all the Law of Identity states is that if something exists -- regardless of what it is and regardless of whether we perceive it correctly -- that it is what it is.

It has two corollaries, excluded middle and noncontradiction. All three together are as follows in English and symbolically (please note that ¬ means "not," such that ¬A means "not-A.")

--------------------
1) Identity
Explanation: Something is what it is if it exists and not something else
Symbolically: A = A
Logic: true = true, also false = false

Example: If the moon actually exists in reality, then regardless of how we perceive it, it is what it is. If we perceived it as a lump of cheese when actually it's rock, then it's still true that (even though we see it as cheese) it's still rock in reality: it is what it is.

2) Excluded middle
Explanation: Something is either what it is, or it's actually something else
Symbolically: A or ¬A
Logic: A statement is either true or it is false.

Example: If I see an oasis but it's actually an illusion, then it's not an oasis: it is instead an oasis.

3) Noncontradiction
Explanation: Something can't be itself and something contradictory at the same time and in the same respect
Symbolically: ¬(A & ¬A)
Logic: A statement can't be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.

Example: There can't be a married bachelor because to be married contradicts with being a bachelor
--------------------

Now, identity (and its corollaries) are incorrigible; meaning that they are necessarily true. It's not possible under any circumstance for them to be false.

Since identity is incorrigible and necessary, it can't be created; since to be created implies that at one point it wasn't true.

For instance, try to imagine something creating identity: how was that thing itself before creating identity? It puts the cart before the horse.

Identity was never created and has always been true, and necessarily so. Thus, there can exist no being which created identity. Thus, there can exist no being that created everything since identity has always existed and always been true.

 

[Subby]

You assume a creator without supporting your assumption.
You are claiming a creator.
It is on you to prove that said creator exists.

Now since you cannot prove that said creator exists, there is no logical reason to believe said creator exists.

Yawn, please stay on topic. This is for you atheists to shine. Also I have already given numerous evidences of the necessary need for God to exist. Please read my posts.

 

[Subby]

Fine, I have a transcendental argument.

Identity (the Law of Identity) is the state of affairs where if something exists, it exists as itself and not something else. In logic identity is expressed as A = A. It basically means that if a basketball exists in reality, then it is a basketball and not a baseball or a quarter. Please note that this is a statement independent of our perception: of course we might perceive an oasis in a desert that isn't there, but all the Law of Identity states is that if something exists -- regardless of what it is and regardless of whether we perceive it correctly -- that it is what it is.

It has two corollaries, excluded middle and noncontradiction. All three together are as follows in English and symbolically (please note that ¬ means "not," such that ¬A means "not-A.")

--------------------
1) Identity
Explanation: Something is what it is if it exists and not something else
Symbolically: A = A
Logic: true = true, also false = false

Example: If the moon actually exists in reality, then regardless of how we perceive it, it is what it is. If we perceived it as a lump of cheese when actually it's rock, then it's still true that (even though we see it as cheese) it's still rock in reality: it is what it is.

2) Excluded middle
Explanation: Something is either what it is, or it's actually something else
Symbolically: A or ¬A
Logic: A statement is either true or it is false.

Example: If I see an oasis but it's actually an illusion, then it's not an oasis: it is instead an oasis.

3) Noncontradiction
Explanation: Something can't be itself and something contradictory at the same time and in the same respect
Symbolically: ¬(A & ¬A)
Logic: A statement can't be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.

Example: There can't be a married bachelor because to be married contradicts with being a bachelor
--------------------

Now, identity (and its corollaries) are incorrigible; meaning that they are necessarily true. It's not possible under any circumstance for them to be false.

Since identity is incorrigible and necessary, it can't be created; since to be created implies that at one point it wasn't true.

For instance, try to imagine something creating identity: how was that thing itself before creating identity? It puts the cart before the horse.

Identity was never created and has always been true, and necessarily so. Thus, there can exist no being which created identity. Thus, there can exist no being that created everything since identity has always existed and always been true.

Your language is begging for a transcendent being that is able to author such laws. In fact you are so very close to admitting such a thing, instead you choose to give the laws themselves some sort of eternal nature, which isn't necessary and begs the question, what created those laws?