God cannot exist: Proof

[psychopixi]

btw psychopixi, I don't know if I came off disrespectfull at any time, but that wasn't my intention. just straitening out my views of the facts

Nope, you didn't. Um - my "bet you can't wait to get into heaven and meet them" bit was sarcasm. That wasn't having a dig or anything. Sarcasm doesn't really transfer well to typing.

Seriously though, it was cool to have someone respond to / counter the points I made, in an intelligent fashion. That was what I was hoping for!

psychopixi Reviewed by psychopixi on 11-08-2005. God cannot exist: Proof Proof that God cannot exist, and flaws in general ideas about the Christian God. _______________________________________________ The Christian God is considered omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. He is all powerful, all good, and all knowing. He will know if there is evil in the world, he will want to stop it, he has the power to stop it. Rating: 5

[beachguy in thongs]

LOL You all shall go to hell, LOL, You anti-God-ists, MonoNothingness', in fact, Y'all shall go, and Everybody shall go, when all y'all insist on taking your vitamins before smoking your bowl.

[MyAntiDrugIsAmy]

Proof that God cannot exist, and flaws in general ideas about the Christian God.

_______________________________________________

The Christian God is considered omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

He is all powerful, all good, and all knowing.

He will know if there is evil in the world, he will want to stop it, he has the power to stop it.

And yet there is evil... therefore God cannot possess all three qualities.

an example of that is in the story of Jesus. in christianity, God sent his son, and saw him go through the earthly pain and suffering but God allowed it to happen because Jesus was a sacrifice for mankind so that there doesn't have to be the ritualistic approach to God as in Judaism. Jesus was sent to bring the holy spirit to earth which is what saves mankind and allows man into heaven. the idea is that God has other reasons for things to work out, and evil being allowed in the world is a result of mankind's free-will and the idea of original sin.

God is omnipotent. He is all powerful. There is nothing he cannot do.

Can he create something so heavy he cannot lift it?
Can he lift something which is supposed to be too heavy for him to manage?

He obviously can't do both, therefore he can not be omnipotent.

what are you saying is out of his control?

Use of the bible to justify a given course of action. If the bible says something is okay / not okay, then it must be true, right?

Wrong.

The bible says that eating meat from a pig is a sin.
The bible says that eating shellfish is a sin.
The bible says that wearing a linen / wool mix is a sin.
The bible says that lending money for interest is a sin.

You cannot pick and choose which bits to listen to! If the bible is the word of God, then it should be followed to the letter. If you're willing to admit that certain bits are out dated then you cannot make a case for the bits that you still think are relevant to be treated as divine law. Picking and choosing makes the whole idea of sin and morality completely arbitray.

the bible says that, true. those were the laws set up by the ancient Jewish societies. shellfish and pork - it is unlean because those animals don't eat foods rich in nutrients, so there are a lot of empty calories in those foods. plus they are high in fat and have contributed to heart disease and stuff. i don't eat any meat, and i think it's a good guideline that was put up.

the linen/wool thing is more symbolic. linen was a sacred fabric used in tabernacles and on priest clothing for worship to Yahweh. the idea of the passage is not to mix holy and unholy. if you used wool mixed with linen, that would cheapen the idea of sacredness. it applies today, like if someone killed someone and robbed them, then used that money on sunday for an offering of worship to God, that would be mixing holiness and unholiness.

God created everything on Earth. God is good, and would have wanted to create things that worked well.

Not everything works well, many animals have features which could be called "poor design" if we were to believe God created them.

Therefore either God did not create these creatures, God is not all good and didn't mind having flawed creations wandering around, or God is not omnipotent, and just couldn't do any better.

the food chain and unity of nature is an example. God may have created these animals for other purpose, and the "poor design" may not be. i can't really think of any animals as examples to use with poor design...

As many Christians tell me, God wants me to believe in him. God wants all humans to believe in him before they die, so they can go to heaven.

Not all humans believe in God, even though if he were all powerful he could ensure this happened.

Therefore either God does not exist, or he doesn't have the power to make us believe in him.

Firstly, that statement "God wants all humans to believe in him before they die so they can go to heaven" is kind of true, but in christianity the idea is more for a relationship with God (if i don't have a relationship with God, then it's that the bible at least taught me a way to talk to myself and give schizophrenic answers back that help me and calm me and somehow has transcended between other people, and gives me a calming relaxing feeling that makes living better)
God gave man free-will, thus allowing them to make the decision. maybe he wants us to make the decision ourselves. so if christians believe that God gave man free-will, then maybe he prefers we make the decision to acknowledge him ourselves, without divine intervention.

Without further proof being offered from Christians, it makes more sense to not believe in the existence of God.

If there are two conflicting theories, you should always pick the less complicated option.

For example; There exists a creature called a flargh. A flargh is invisible, and intangible. I cannot see one, touch one, hear one, taste one, or smell one.

Or: There does not exist a creature called a flargh.

I could conduct all the research I wanted, and it would still fit both of the above options, so how am I to know that flargh's do not exist? Because it makes more sense not to believe in them.

that statement goes against science. the less complicated theory is definitly NOT the true one. in primitive time, we didn't have very much evidence of the circulation of the planets or anything. the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was less complicated than the idea that the earth is amongst other planets all circulating around the sun by some mysterious force. someone had to test it, and that's how science always is. that's why there are scientific studies, the world is definitly not simple, and complicated ideas lead to reasoning.

God is perfect. God created the universe.

Being perfect entails no needs, or wants.

If God does not need, or want anything, why would he create the universe?

Either God did not create the universe, or God is not perfect.

in hebrew, the words for perfect used in the Bible connote wholeness, soundness, integrity, and often takes on ethical significance, divinity, completeness or aesthetic beauty. perfect is used to describe God's personality. it's in regards to his ethical qualities being justice and uprightness rather than selfishness.

[CocaCola]

Why bother?

[Polymirize]

I think the most elegant argument against the existence of God is that offered by Mikhail Bakunin: "If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist." But most Christians are for some reason comfortable being slaves to an imaginary dictator, even going so far as to admit they are sheep, since nobody but sheep would need a Lord that they call their "shepherd".

Emphasis my own...

This is a horrible argument. You could drive a tractor through the holes in it. I wouldn't grant you either of the premises of the argument. It is not neccessary that if God is, than man is a slave. Rather it could be the case that God has been, I don't know, misinterpreted perhaps. Second, "man can and must be free", it's very poetic, but can it be supported? Do men in captivity cease to be men? I assume "free" implies freedom from control, but if this is the case, welcome to the social contract. You sold your freedom for a place in society, so obviously men must not be free. (ergo, God must exist?)

I'm with you in sympathy I think, but that's no excuse for shoddy logic. thoughts?

[psychopixi]

what are you saying is out of his control?

I'm saying he can't both lift the rock, and not lift the rock.

if christians believe that God gave man free-will, then maybe he prefers we make the decision to acknowledge him ourselves, without divine intervention.

Free will wouldn't be compromised if he just did something fantastic, a modern day miracle, and something that was worldwide. Say, turned the sky green and wrote "God was here 2k5". That would probably convince me.

that statement goes against science. the less complicated theory is definitly NOT the true one.

Not always, but it's a good theory to follow. Take my example with the flargh creature. If you have all of the empirical evidence that you're ever going to get, and it could support either one of two theories, it makes more sense to belive the simplest theory. With the example of the earth going around the sun, people didn't have all of the information needed to really compare theories:

(1) Sun goes round the Earth.
(2) Earth goes round the Sun.

If I had lived then, I would have believed that the sun went round the earth, because based on what we could observe, it made the most sense. Now we know more, we know it's the other way round. If someone can provide irrefutable evidence of God, then I will believe in him.

[P.E.N.G.U.I.N.]

Does the idea that God could actually be a little less than omnipotent and omniscent? Maybe God is only omniscent within our universe. Within Its universe It's just a bundle of thoughts about everything and nothing at once. How about we retool the definition for omnipotent to mean, able to do anything except for anything that would cause a paradox. As soon as God makes something so heavy that It can't lift it, It gets strong enough to lift it. It balances out. Did that ever cross your mind?

P.S. I had a much better argument ready but when I was almost done, my drunken father closed the window. It was a massive post so I really don't feel like typing it again :sadcrying

[beachguy in thongs]

I wonder if God has evolved, as Human Beings have evolved.

Or,

I wonder if the planets have changed as time has gone by?.

The answer behind God must be in the planets, or the universe as a whole.

[P.E.N.G.U.I.N.]

The answer behind God is that he created everything in the universe and set it into motion. Before you people flame me...

"How can something come from nothing?"
Nothing came from nothing. The only thing that makes the universe real is our ability to percieve it. The only thing that makes us think it's real, anyway.

"How could God have the power to create a whole universe?"
He doesn't have the power. This universe was created by a thought. That thought is just being played out, creating more thoughts. God's power (our power) relies in our ability to think.

[psychopixi]

The answer behind God is that he created everything in the universe and set it into motion. Before you people flame me...

"How can something come from nothing?"
Nothing came from nothing. The only thing that makes the universe real is our ability to percieve it. The only thing that makes us think it's real, anyway.

"How could God have the power to create a whole universe?"
He doesn't have the power. This universe was created by a thought. That thought is just being played out, creating more thoughts. God's power (our power) relies in our ability to think.

Maybe it's just 'cause I'm stoned that that didn't make much sense. Um, get back to you tomorrow.