My Argument Against God

[zeitgeist]

Exactly my point

OK then you could use that same argument about the universe. How was the universe created? How was something as complex as a seed created from fire(the big bang)?
See, I can use your exact same reasoning to what you say

[Coelho]

Man... P3 is indeed the downfall of your reasoning. Do you have a good reason for why it should be true?

(PS. BTW God exists, so dont spend too much time trying to prove the opposite... :thumbsup

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

On the subject of "god":

Before one may prove or disprove the existence or nature of "God" one must first define what "God" IS.

If i were to define god, i would say that there is no singular deffenition, that god is all of all; infinite infinity.

all that has ever existed and will exist is "God".

in my eyes, all of reality is a zero point singularity of infinity. from an outside persepctive (of which cannot exist) it would appear to eb a single speck of all color and no color. a fluxuating pinprick bright/black light. however, to be outside of existence is to exist somewhere else, bringing yourself to a new area of existence. we cannot exist outside ourselves, so how can we know we exist?


All of existence is real, all of reality exists, and all of it is equally infinite and finite.

that which is, is that which it is, and inside everything are smaller things, and all things build up toward larger things. Existence is microscopic, macroscopic and infinite in both directions.


the root of infinity, the basis of consciousness, of awareness, is God.

[BathingApes]

Seeing as "eternity" isn't something that can be imagined, existence should, theoretically be eternal. However, we don't know that the universe doesn't just collapse/create itself in a continous cycle, and that it hasn't just been doing so eternally.

The problem with this whole disproving/proving God argument is that nothing can ever be proven 100%. If God came down right now and spoke to you, it is still entirely possible that you're in a coma and it's just your imagination. We can never prove anything, EVER. Even if you see a video of someone killing someone else, it is possible theoretically that "they" could just be a shapeshifting alien from a far away galaxy. Nothing is proveable.

For all we know, God could have been puffin on a J for a few bazillion years before creating us. Maybe we're the product of a haze induced trip. I hope so. That'd be so ironic. Imagine that shit, if Bush goes before God and God's like "Shit man, shoulda legalized maui, douche bag," - then throws him in the pit of flames.

[BBoyShotty]

Imagine that shit, if Bush goes before God and God's like "Shit man, shoulda legalized maui, douche bag," - then throws him in the pit of flames.

hahah :smokin:

[NaughtyDreadz]

You will be respected here.You have some good point of views,but explain this too me......can you explain a 120% in increased storms,the Tsuamni,plague slowly coming into the world?

The Prohecy's are coming correct,God made it clear the time they would come true,when man douted his existance.I can understand why some of you may be turned off,but soon I believe your mind will be changed.

HA@! what you call god someone might call global warming... resurrection = resuscitation.. so on and on and on and on....

+ all these natural disasters happened before... tsunamis are recorded from the 1600's in that region... and it will happen again.. and god will kill all the infidels once again in a few 100 years ( because of poor infrastructure...) what is true is that humans are fucking up the atmosphere... but don't worry, "god" (HA!) will correct that during the next ice age coming up... :thumbsup:

[hazetwostep]

Sup everyone, here's a little argument I made up to try to disprove the existence of god.. feel free to criticize and point out flaws, I wanna make it a very strong argument... Anyway cheers, and enjoy

P1: If god exists, he has existed forever, and nothing has existed before him.
P2: Therefore, god must have existed for an infinite period of time before the present.
P3: There is no reason for a god to exist but not cause any other existence.
P4: Therefore, god must have created the world as soon as he began to exist.
P5: If god created the world as soon as he began to exist, there is a finite time period between
the beginning of the world and the present.
P6: But god has never begun to exist, as he has existed forever.
P7: Therefore there is an infinite time period between the beginning of the world and the
present.
P8: P5 and P7 could not possibly be true at the same time.
C: Therefore, god does not exist.

L Rag... i wanted to give you some feedback on your argument like you asked for. I guess the way I see it is that while it may be a great example of your personal belief on the existence of reality (including all things like god, the universe, etc), it is not a philosophically sound argument.


For instance in P1.
If god exists, he has existed forever, and nothing has existed before him.

Time and god just don't mix logically. Time is a part of the very fabric of our physical universe limiting its effects only to things of this universe. Time is often misunderstood. It is not a set, constant thing or "speed of existence" but something that can be manipulated and changed just like a rubber band can be or anything in our universe. It is not an absolute measurement of all existence. It is only a relative measurement to that which resides within its boundaries. The concept of a being who created this existence obviously must be from outside of the "newly" created existence and therefore outside any laws or boundaries of it including the concept of "time."

So when you say "nothing has existed before him," it is an illogical statement because "before" is a description of time (past, present, future) of which has no relation or consequence to a being outside of it.

Hope I am making sense... i am really tired after working all day and that bowl is putting me to sleep fast. Feel free to ask clarity on anything I said.

Again, I think it is a fascinating expression of your reality of the world. It's kinda like abstract mental poetry and I would express it from that angle as opposed to an argument.

[justanotherbozo]

as an agnostic (that would be someone who believes in a God, just not religion) i would have to say that your logic is flawed across the board. absence of evidence is not evidence.

the existence, or lack of existence, of a supreme, omniscient being who takes a personal interest in my daily life is a concept i have great difficulty getting my head around, it just doesn't make sense to me.

that being said, i have survived experiences in my life that should have killed me or earned me a private room with rubber wallpaper.
maybe it wasn't 'God' that saved me, maybe it was just dumb luck.

frankly, for me at least, it's moot. i believe we each choose to be 'God-like' or we slide into evil.
in other words, we can either choose to be good people, never hurting others willfully, never screwing anyone over (even someone who has screwed you over), never being dishonest, never giving in to the baser instincts we all have (we are all animals after all).
or we can choose to hurt anyone we please, we can screw everyone we come into contact with (especially those who have screwed us), and we can lie, cheat and steal any thing and any time we please and from anyone we choose. we can quickly come to believe that only our needs matter, screw everyone else!

for me that would be unacceptable, the reason not getting caught in a lie isn't as good as telling the truth is that you know the truth, you know you are a liar, even if no-one else ever knows, you will always know.

a religious man and an atheist were having a talk in Alaska some time ago and the atheist said 'I gave your 'God' a chance to prove himself and he failed.'
so the religious man said, 'In what way did you give God a chance?'
so the atheist responded, 'Well, i was lost in a blizzard a couple of weeks ago so i fell to my knees and shouted at the sky "God, if your out there, please save me!"
so the religious man said, 'Then you must believe in God because here you sit!'
so the atheist said, 'Nah, some eskimo came by and led me home.'

the point is, you shouldn't discount what you don't understand (and i don't understand it either)

[hazetwostep]

as an agnostic (that would be someone who believes in a God, just not religion) i would have to say that your logic is flawed across the board. absence of evidence is not evidence.

the word agnostic is a tricky one because it currently holds many personal definitions that are not accurate. at it's base an agnostic is someone who believe that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god, so he/she suspends ultimate judgment. while an agnostic may believe it is improbable that there is a god or that it is very likely that there is, to remain in the agnostic category the person must remain in a state of uncertainty.

an atheist believes that there absolutely is no god.

anyone who follows a religion or who follows a personal belief system (not a mainstream system like christianity or hinduism) but believes that there is a god would more accurately fall into a general category of spirituals or believers (not in the sense of "christian believers" as beliefs can vary immensely).

an agnostic (traditionally speaking) is a group who would answer the question, "Do you believe there is a god?" with a reply of "i don't know" or "i can't know" and NOT "Yes there is a god but i don't know how it all works." by believing that there is a god one leaves the heading of "agnostic."

[justanotherbozo]

the word agnostic is a tricky one because it currently holds many personal definitions that are not accurate. at it's base an agnostic is someone who believe that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god, so he/she suspends ultimate judgment. while an agnostic may believe it is improbable that there is a god or that it is very likely that there is, to remain in the agnostic category the person must remain in a state of uncertainty.

an atheist believes that there absolutely is no god.

anyone who follows a religion or who follows a personal belief system (not a mainstream system like christianity or hinduism) but believes that there is a god would more accurately fall into a general category of spirituals or believers (not in the sense of "christian believers" as beliefs can vary immensely).

an agnostic (traditionally speaking) is a group who would answer the question, "Do you believe there is a god?" with a reply of "i don't know" or "i can't know" and NOT "Yes there is a god but i don't know how it all works." by believing that there is a god one leaves the heading of "agnostic."

and i agree completely, i just didn't want to further cloud the issue, personally, i'm still on the fence