# Is it possible to disprove God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2004, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357 "2004-01-08T03:59:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/81 "2004-01-09T19:52:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TonyJ \* > All right. You say he is the creator of all, which necessarily includes himself, yet he is also un-created. So, this is a false property (and you’ll need to redefine). See my former post. No beginning, no end = uncreated = didn’t create itself because always was and shall always be. > [@](#): > > In a sense, however, this also implies that certain qualities - e.g. omnipotence - cannot hold. I mean, he created _almost_ everything, which means he’s not quite unlimited (i.e. all-powerful). He is also not powerful enough or simply unwilling to create another God, per your definition. So, it could be said that there are certain things beyond even God, I suppose. He created and creates everything. That there is no other God doesn’t prove He can’t create an other one or is even unwilling to. Christians believe God created a God Jesus, yet they claim they are one and the same (a theory that is in my view not supported by the practice by which they worship God. But that is an other discussion ) Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![olanv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ec8ea/32.png) [@olanv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/olanv)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/82 "2004-01-09T21:01:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*Where do you get such an idea? > > Why should the word “Creator” refer to “anthropomorphic”? > > “Creator” is merely a word humans use to describe the non-created that has no beginning and no end. Therefore also named “uncreated”. > Uncreated = no beginning and no end = no entity since that implies creation. In my opinion this also excludes “existence” in our limited understanding of what that can be, since every existence implies that it has to be created. > Salaam. A \*\* Creation is a word used to differentiate from neutral concepts like effect or does. Creation is a word that definately is used to describe the bringing into being of something by consciousness. You’re more than welcome to personalize your own definition of creation, but then I’ll be required to make a up new word to fill in the blank… because, the concept still exists whether or not you decide to remove the word that is used to refer to it. I mean, seriously, think about how the word “creation” is used… basically in art and in attribution to the deity stories. Creation doesn’t have a literary precident as a neutral term seperated from consciousness or intent. It makes no sense to state “Creator is a term used to describe the non-created”. Creator is a term used to refer to people who create things. Is english your native language? ---
**Author:** ![TonyJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9c0ed/32.png) [@TonyJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonyJ)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/83 "2004-01-09T21:01:52Z")
I’m nitpicking, but… God created everything (as you say), God is an element of the set we call everything, and God is uncreated (as you say), :. God did not create everything or God is not uncreated. This is because: If God created everything, then he had to have created himself - which contradicts the “uncreated” property. If God is uncreated, then he did not create everything, becuase he is a part of what we call everything - which contradicts the “created everything” property. One property or the other must be modified for it to work. It’s really just a matter of words, but more traits may follow. Also, what other explanation do you have for the idea that “God is the only God and forever be the only God”? It seems to me that being unwilling or unable covers the case well enough, but are there alternatives I missed? ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/84 "2004-01-10T00:01:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > Really? Not that harsh? Babies born with horrible deformities; earthquakes killing tens of thousands at a time; millions suffering and dying from AIDs and other diseases? Be honest - you can’t blame _any_ of those things on man’s actions; you can’t say we brought it on ourselves. And you can’t say “that’s just the cards we were dealt” because _God dealt the cards_. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to be a pessimist; I think life is a glorious adventure. But c’mon - you can’t honestly say it “doesn’t seem that harsh.” I don’t _blame_ most of those things on man. I hesitate to put myself in front of the firing squad here, but I do think we are responsible for some of the awful things that happen. AIDS wouldn’t be quite the widespread tragedy it is, if we weren’t so promiscuous. Starvation and some diseases would be controlled if we put the effort into those things that we do, for example, the beauty and diet industry. Earthquakes wouldn’t be so devastating if we would help with construction technology and dollars. We have so many resources that could be rechanneled if we weren’t so self-absorbed. I guess I just don’t expect G-d to rush in and fix the things, when we have the ability to do so much better and we just don’t bother. So yes, it does seem harsh, but we must not think a lot of it is _that_ harsh or we would do better. > [@](#): > > Oh, geez - sorry about that. You’re probably not gonna believe me, but I forgot that you had used that as an example before. It truly was off the top of my head. I swear. Okay, I believe you. It just came right after **Urban Ranger** made a comment about what a laughable argument “God not being bound by logic” is. Not long since _I_ tried to argue that point. Paranoia that my past was coming back to haunt me, I guess. > [@](#): > > Even so, the range is good, better, better still… There is no “bad” with which to compare, yet we still recognize the good. There’s without. That’s bad.😉 > [@](#): > > And actually, that’s the part of Christianity that kind of chaps my hide (no, not orgasms;)) - it’s actually a central tenet of the religion that life was _supposed_ to be that way, i.e. only good, and that we now have to pay the price because the first 2 people screwed up. If you believe the story of Adam and Eve, we could ask your question regarding them: Before they tasted the apple, how did they know they were in paradise, with nothing to compare it to? According to the story, at first they knew good but not evil. But you’re saying that’s impossible. You would have to just assume that the absence of evil was good. > [@](#): > > From what you’ve written before, IWLN, I’m guessing that you personally don’t put a lot of stock in the Adam & Eve story, but for the J.C. God at least, I think the Bible flat-out contradicts the idea that humans _can’t_ know good without the existence of evil. No, I don’t believe the story was supposed to be anything but a lesson about choice. I find it impossible to believe that the whole purpose of man, G-d’s purpose was changed. Something that G-d really intended, was subverted by a stinkin’ piece fruit. Not very likely. It goes against omniscience, omnipotence and benevolency. The only reason Christianity gets away with it on such a large scale is that it equates critical thinking with a lack of faith. An act against G-d. Chaps my hide, too. Especially since I believed it for so long. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/85 "2004-01-10T03:09:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aeschines \* > Wrong. So, you’re saying that the rules of math require a physical universe to exist? “Yes,” you say. But what kind of physical universe? What about an empty void, devoid of matter? “Yes, that would work,” perhaps you say. OK, whatabout the raw singularity of the Bing Bang, pre-bang–do the laws exist within that, but could not exist without it? If so, then they can exist without any universe at all, since the raw singularity had no physical, spatial, or temporal properties whatsoever, according to conventional theory. now don’t go putting words into my mouth. mathematics is a set of rules men made up in order to describe the universe. it can’t be any other way. in an empty void, devoid of matter, there are no men to make up mathematics. there is nothing to describe. there is nothing which can be called “true”, nor anything which can be said to be noncontradictory. a universe without any description is not a universe at all. so the rest of what you say is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Very incorrect. So, you say we understand what pi is (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter) because we observe the value in nature? So, we might turn out to be wrong one day and discover that pi was really exactly 3.15? The conclusion is clearly ludicrous. pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius. without a circle there is no pi. without a universe there is no circle. how exactly is that ludicrous? > [@](#): > > Unintelligible. to you. > [@](#): > > Indecipherable. by you. > [@](#): > > That would be true, according to your definition. But number is like the sun; the universe is like a pond reflecting the sunlight. You are trying to argue that, without the pond, the sun does not exist. I am saying that the light shines whether reflected or not. if the pond (or anything else) is not reflecting the sunlight, there is absolutely no reason to believe the sun exists. it seems to me you place mathematics on way too high a shelf. there is nothing divine in numbers. there is generally no reason to believe there can not exist a universe in which our version of mathematics is different, nor that our universe could not have existed with a different sum of 2 and 2. it is not our universe, and we only have the tools we’re given. but that does not imply that mathematics exists independently of the universe. as we know it, mathematics does not even exist independently of _men_. if you like, i can suggest some good reading in the area of mathematical philosphy and philsophy of mathematics (the two areas are, incidently, not the same). perhaps if you peruse those volumes, some of the things i say will be less unintelligible or indecipherable. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/86 "2004-01-10T06:59:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Staale Nordlie \* > \*\*I don’t understand your example. What does “~” mean? (“Not”?) > > But let’s assume that it’s a (seemingly) valid logical proof. > > I hereby posit that the reason you and possibly many others mistakenly think it’s an example of something that can be disproved is that little green men from Mars are using their mind-control ray on you. > > Prove me wrong. \*\* Things in math are disproven all the time by proof by contradiction, which the above was a sample of. What the statement should have said is that existential negatives can’t be proven - that is some type of thing does not exist. The god question is an example of this, not a mathematical proof. If something is defined as having conradictory properties, however, we can be sure it does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/87 "2004-01-10T09:27:27Z")
> [@](#): > > _By Ramanujan_ > mathematics is a set of rules men made up in order to describe the universe. You’re wrong, dammit. Do I have to tell you the same damn thing over and over? The rules of mathematics are **not** dependent on the physical properties of the universe. For example, if the force of gravity was suddenly 0.999 its current value, would any of the rules of math change? NO. > [@](#): > > it can’t be any other way. in an empty void, devoid of matter, there are no men to make up mathematics. there is nothing to describe. there is nothing which can be called “true”, nor anything which can be said to be noncontradictory. a universe without any description is not a universe at all. so the rest of what you say is irrelevant. So, before humans existed, the rules of math did not exist or were not true? There is a difference between truth and recognition of truth. > [@](#): > > pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius. without a circle there is no pi. without a universe there is no circle. how exactly is that ludicrous? Well, for one thing it’s ludicrous that you got the definition of PI wrong. Not only did you get it wrong, but you provided this definition as a _correction_ of what I had written–the correct definition! It’s hard not to flame here, buddy, but I will contain myself. Just so you get it right, PI is the ratio of the circumference to the **diameter**. Do you think that our concept of the circle is dependent on observing circles in the universe? It can’t be, since there are no perfect circles in the universe. No universe simply means that there are no people to think about circles; it doesn’t mean that the concept itself is voided. > [@](#): > > if the pond (or anything else) is not reflecting the sunlight, there is absolutely no reason to believe the sun exists. The point being that the pond is competely insigificant vis-a-vis the sun, just as our particular instantiation of reality is completely dependent on the truths of mathematics. > [@](#): > > it seems to me you place mathematics on way too high a shelf. there is nothing divine in numbers. Yeah, well, I’m saying there kinda is. > [@](#): > > there is generally no reason to believe there can not exist a universe in which our version of mathematics is different, nor that our universe could not have existed with a different sum of 2 and 2. Do you know what “true by definition” is? That’s like saying that, in a different universe PI could = 3.18. It can’t. If we grant the base 10 number system and grant the definition of a circle, then PI will be 3.14 etc. in _any_ universe. Now, you could argue that another universe would be so different from ours (i.e., 8-dimensional, time running in multiple directions, etc.) that our particular mathematics (ie. the way we use symbols, not the truths thereof) would not occur to them; or they may not find it useful (as indeed many truths of advanced math have no practical application). But the truths would remain the same. > [@](#): > > it is not our universe, and we only have the tools we’re given. but that does not imply that mathematics exists independently of the universe. as we know it, mathematics does not even exist independently of men. Wrong. True, without someone to think about it, no one would think about it. But without people the sun would still shine, the earth would rotate, and 2 + 2 would = 4. > [@](#): > > if you like, i can suggest some good reading in the area of mathematical philosphy and philsophy of mathematics (the two areas are, incidently, not the same). perhaps if you peruse those volumes, some of the things i say will be less unintelligible or indecipherable. For someone who doesn’t know what the fuck PI is, you talk pretty big. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/88 "2004-01-10T17:15:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aeschines \* > For someone who doesn’t know what the fuck PI is, you talk pretty big. wow, you’re getting pretty upset over this. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/89 "2004-01-10T17:22:55Z")
Your goal perhaps? It couldn’t have been to say anythign intelligent. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/90 "2004-01-10T17:52:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by olanv \* > \*\*Creation is a word used to differentiate from neutral concepts like effect or does. Creation is a word that definately is used to describe the bringing into being of something by consciousness. You’re more than welcome to personalize your own definition of creation, but then I’ll be required to make a up new word to fill in the blank… because, the concept still exists whether or not you decide to remove the word that is used to refer to it. I mean, seriously, think about how the word “creation” is used… basically in art and in attribution to the deity stories. Creation doesn’t have a literary precident as a neutral term seperated from consciousness or intent. > > It makes no sense to state “Creator is a term used to describe the non-created”. Creator is a term used to refer to people who create things. Is english your native language? \*\* When I say “UN” created, this means “NOT” created, so how do you delcare it to be part of “creation”? I already explained that when used to refer to God it is used to express “always was and shall always be”. Creator is in that context not at all a term used to "refer to PEOPLE and not at all a term used to refer to “people” who create things. It is a term used to refer to God. I thought we were debating God and the possibility to give proof that God or the concept God doesn’t exist. Or are we debating people who make things = people who are creative and create things. And no, Enlgish is not among the languages I ever studied. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/91 "2004-01-10T18:01:11Z")
Aldebaran, I like your style. You are correct here. But how do you deal with the question of God and number? It would seem that he did not create those truths; they are independent of any being or anything’s nature. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/92 "2004-01-10T18:18:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TonyJ \* > I’m nitpicking, but… > > God created everything (as you say), > God is an element of the set we call everything, and > God is uncreated (as you say), > :. God did not create everything or God is not uncreated. > > This is because: > > If God created everything, then he had to have created himself - which contradicts the “uncreated” property. > > If God is uncreated, then he did not create everything, becuase he is a part of what we call everything - which contradicts the “created everything” property. > > One property or the other must be modified for it to work. It’s really just a matter of words, but more traits may follow. > > Also, what other explanation do you have for the idea that “God is the only God and forever be the only God”? It seems to me that being unwilling or unable covers the case well enough, but are there alternatives I missed? The second point of your interpretation is already wrong : God is not an element of what we call “everything” that is created or shall ever be created. God caused and causes creation, which is quite different then being an element of creation itself. If you make a drawing you cause the drawing to appear on a surface of your choice. That doesn’t make you the drawing or an element of it but it makes you the creator of that drawing. You can now argue that your talent to draw is an element of the drawing, because without that you wouldn’t be able to draw. But your talent is not an element that is part of the drawing itself while at the same time inherent to the drawing itself as it appears on the surface. Your talent is the driving power behind it which makes it possible for you to create the drawing, which on its turn makes it possible for the drawing to appear and become visible. If there was more then one God we would have a set of creations if these Gods also decided to cause creations. It is always possible there are such sets since the human mind is extremely limited both in its understanding and imagination. But if you accept that there is more then one God The Uncreated Creator of All then you need to redefine all what is understood now when talking about “creation” and “universe”. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![olanv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ec8ea/32.png) [@olanv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/olanv)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/93 "2004-01-10T18:25:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*When I say “UN” created, this means “NOT” created, so how do you delcare it to be part of “creation”? > I already explained that when used to refer to God it is used to express “always was and shall always be”. > Creator is in that context not at all a term used to "refer to PEOPLE and not at all a term used to refer to “people” who create things. > It is a term used to refer to God. > I thought we were debating God and the possibility to give proof that God or the concept God doesn’t exist. > Or are we debating people who make things = people who are creative and create things. > > And no, Enlgish is not among the languages I ever studied. > > Salaam. A \*\* When you state that “creator = always was and always shall be”, this comes back to my original question. Do you mean existence instead of creator? Creator is a word used to refer to the artistic act of an intentional being that is capable of abstracting existence. I will state in no uncertain terms, that if you mean to suggest that creator/creation is a synonym for existence, that I will agree with you that there is such a thing as existence. God = Creator = Existence = perfect synonyms Ok, I agree that existence exists. So if you define God as existence, I agree that God exists. If you define God as a loaf of bread, I agree that God exists, because I agree that a loaf of bread exists. Do we have that out of the way? When creator is used to refer to God, in common usage, it is used to refer to the idea of using ones intent to abstract and form the artistic purposes of their being. This is precisely how it is used when referring to God. The only exception, is that when referring to God, as opposed to other intentional beings, the term is used to encompass everything that we interact with as being within the purveiw of Gods artistic expression of being. There is no necessary correlation between that which God expresses and “always has and always will be”, because presumably as the creator of all that we interact with and conceive, God also has the choice to uncreate, or rather, destroy that which God created. If God does not have that choice, then we are not dealing with an intentional being, then the word creator is not anthropomorphic, then it becomes a synonym for existence. I already stated that I will agree with you that existence exists. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/94 "2004-01-10T18:31:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aeschines \* > You are correct here. But how do you deal with the question of God and number? It would seem that he did not create those truths; they are independent of any being or anything’s nature. My knowledge in this field stagnated by the calculation 1+2=4. There are still some of my teachers safelylocked way in a madhouse and for which I’m bound to pay the bills for life, since this happened before the discovery of my twinbrother Dyslex. But when you ask if God created anything of what humans ever discovered or shall dicover in the future: These discoveries only serve to give humanity insight in creation and if they are correct, then these “truths” you speak of couldn’t be discovered if they weren’t already part of that creation since the creation of creation. So yes, if God exists then God caused them as he caused everything that exists or shall exist. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/95 "2004-01-10T18:41:59Z")
olanv, In my understanding of the word, “existence” refers to" being" which refers to something created. So no, that can’t refer to God. And what has “artistic expressions” to do with it? I don’t think I understand quite well what you mean. “Creation” used in this context describes a lot more then what we “interact with”. I also don’t get where you make the link between “having the possibility to destroy creation” -with of course God has- and “intentional being” and then stretch that again to the word God refering to “being with human characteristics”. (I already said it has no reference to that) Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![olanv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ec8ea/32.png) [@olanv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/olanv)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/96 "2004-01-10T20:04:09Z")
Aldebran, Existence is a word that refers to all that is, whatever that is, that which is, everything that is… Existence is not a word used to refer to something that was created, as “created” is something, and thus a part of existence. Universe is the next closest word to existence in terms of the all-encompassing summation of “that which is”. To suggest that “that which is” is created is an open question of whether or not God exists. Existence is considered the default, it’s there. The question of God is whether or not God created existence. Existence for example contains motion and otherness. So when someone suggests that God created motion and otherness a clear non-sensical statement arises. As you need to move, and you need something to move from and to in order to create. Existence is generally considered eternal. It doesn’t make sense that motion and otherness “came into being” from nothing at all, because motion and otherness are required for that to even occur. In general, existence is a word used to refer to otherness and motion, and the idea behind this, although it’s debated, is whether or not something can exist without motion and otherness, which would be “God”. Existence is the most neutral term that humans use for “what is”. It’s not implied that existence was created, it is implied that existence is. If you pay attention to the language, you will notice that there is a tremendous difference between the word is (which is neutral) and created which is solely used to refer to the act of an intentional being. Created, always implies “by something of intent.” We have other words for things that emerge without intent that we may refer to, such as “just is” or “happened” “occured” The debate is over “John is here” vs. “John created here” When people state that “John created here”, people ask, well not ALL of here… John didn’t create motion for example." To which the theist replies, "but the book says what it says, it says that John created here, and the book is never wrong. So obviously John did create motion itself. It’s right there in the book, “John created here.”. As in fashioned or made. People get bothered by this, because it’s not rational to state that something created motion, only that motion simply is. But, when you say “God = Motion”, that’s trivial. Of course I agree that motion exists. or when you say “God = otherness” again, trivial, of course I believe that there is something to be referred to in some way. When you say existence, as in “God = motion and otherness”, again, that’s trivial. It is also trivial to state that motion and otherness are uncreated. But motion and otherness do NOT create, they are conditions necessary in order for creation to occur. Motion and otherness are defaulted to being neutral terms… there is no directness other than the fact that direction occurs in some form in order for motion to exist, and that this implies otherness, and that otherness simply is. Any term using “create” as a base, is specifically referring to some type of directness. Science calls these “natural laws”, again, a neutral term. Religion gets into some sense of directed will with regards to all of these neutral terms, an actual intent of some sort that is actually aware of exisetence and is not constrained by any sort of deterministic condition. A deterministic condition would be that motion is pre-required in order to create. A religious person disagrees with statements like this. So, when their super-deity is referred to using this notion of create, they are saying that this is a being of choice and will, and that it is aware of this, aware of itself and aware of existence, and does not require the existence of otherness, being or motion in order to create. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/97 "2004-01-10T22:17:28Z")
I don’t say God=motion. Motion is created by God = motion is a human term/understanding for something that was/is part of creating proces. If there was no God who created everything, there would be nothing. This “nothing” includes motion and everything else you can possibly imagine yourself or possibly describe. I don’t know if you refer to “God” when you talk about “a being of choice and will”? God is not a “being”, not an “existence” and not an “otherness”. God is God. There is nothing like God, there is nothing that can be compared with God. Because God is uncreated, always was and shall always be. Nobody says God “had” to create anything. Everything that exists however is the result of this “decision” to make a creation appear. The fact that we use words to describe such a process and to describe God, does not mean that God can be described with words or is limited to the words we invent to describe God. Even the word God has no meaning other then to refer to what can’t be named or described. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![olanv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ec8ea/32.png) [@olanv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/olanv)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/98 "2004-01-10T23:04:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*I don’t say God=motion. > > Motion is created by God = motion is a human term/understanding for something that was/is part of creating proces. > > If there was no God who created everything, there would be nothing. This “nothing” includes motion and everything else you can possibly imagine yourself or possibly describe. > > I don’t know if you refer to “God” when you talk about “a being of choice and will”? > > God is not a “being”, not an “existence” and not an “otherness”. > > God is God. There is nothing like God, there is nothing that can be compared with God. Because God is uncreated, always was and shall always be. Nobody says God “had” to create anything. Everything that exists however is the result of this “decision” to make a creation appear. > The fact that we use words to describe such a process and to describe God, does not mean that God can be described with words or is limited to the words we invent to describe God. > Even the word God has no meaning other then to refer to what can’t be named or described. > > Salaam. A \*\* You state that God is not “being”, “existence”, “otherness”, “motion” etc… That God created these things. You then said that we cannot define God, because God is uncreated. Well, any theory of reasoning that I’m aware of assumes otherness to be uncreated and motion to be uncreated, yet you state that God created these things. Then you state that God is uncreated. The only word I know of that is a synonym for “otherness and motion” is existence. In my understanding, you are equivicating God and existence. Existence by definition is “all that is”, this includes God, assuming God does exist, which is the point of the topic! You’re working this topic by stating effectively “Ok, so prove that God didn’t create existence.” By definition, you just stated that God was uncreated, since God is part of the set of existence (existence = all that possibly is or can be), then God created himself, which is much different than stating that God is uncreated. I already stated that otherness is required in order for creation to occur, and creation requires a creator; also, that otherness is an uncreated condition necessary for the facilitation of creation or the perception of creation. To state that otherness is created completely violates any sense of foundational reasoning. How does a lack of otherness “” (“do anything”)? How is anything facilitated when no otherness exists? You’re line here is to somehow play with the definition of the word creation. It has emerged deductively that creation = existence, even though you deny this. creation = absolutely nothing (which is what a lack of otherness is) creator refers to that which is uncreated. Rocks don’t create, they aren’t considered intelligent. Rocks are also not considered created, they did not spring from some intelligence… rocks just are. We don’t say that rocks are created nor do we say that rocks create, unless we are anthropomorphizing the rock with a personality or intelligence of some sort. We don’t call rocks a creator or a creation, we call sculptures a creation, and we call the sculptor a creator of the sculpture. To get back to your original point, I’m also curious how you pull this definition of God, which is basically an unintelligent non-existent being (creator of existence, otherness, motion and intelligence who is uncreated) from your religion? Your religion has things like commandments from God, God interacts presumably, people have a hypothesis of God, this HYPOTHESIS exists. > [@](#): > > Even the word God has no meaning other then to refer to what can’t be named or described Yet people are able to fathom commandments, scriptures from the essense of something defined as indescribable. By including this, you’re also asserting that God cannot describe God!! You understand that don’t you? Or would you like to make ANOTHER condition on the word “God” besides “That which cannot be described.”? In the peculiar way that you’re using anthropomorphic terms neutrally, I’ll use one as well, in spirit of your philosophy of language. “describe is a synonym for represent, thus by you stating that God cannot be described, you state that God cannot describe God… which de-anthropomorphised, mean that God cannot represent God.”. If you cannot represent your own identity, you are said to not even hypothetically exist. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/99 "2004-01-10T23:17:03Z")
Well, maybe I could refute all you bring up here, if I could do it in a language I master. Taking my words and change their meaning until you have a meaning that fits you, isn’t a very sportive thing to do. Especially not when debating with someone who has a very limited vocabulary in a language he never studied. If you fail to understand what I try to bring across then I can’t help it. There is nothing “human” about God and nothing humans can invent to describe God. I thought I said that already a few times. “That which can not be described” by humans since only humans try to describe God. That is not “stating that God can’t describe God” or “God can not represent God”. First of all: why should God “need” to describe God when humans can’t gain any understanding of what God would describe about God. Next: Why would God “need” to represent God? Why should God need an “identity”? You continue to project human idea’s and words and definitions to God. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![olanv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ec8ea/32.png) [@olanv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/olanv)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2004, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357/100 "2004-01-10T23:22:47Z")
Your argument in a nutshell just dawned on me, the way that you are coming at the OP. “God doesn’t need to exist in order to create.” or rather, “God created existence”. And then you say, “Ok, now refute Gods existence.”. I say, "Well, God can only be nothing at all if God does not exist, even creation is something, do you mean that God is creation, or that God is existence, is this Pantheism of some form? absolute equivicationism? No, God does not equal these things, God is the creator of these things. God is the creator of existence, which means that God doesn’t need to exist in order to create. Now refute that God doesn’t exist." Then we go in circles, because I state… “Well if it doesn’t exist, it must be nothing at all, thus Gods’ existence is refuted.” to which you again come back with, “Nothing at all does not exist. Nothing at all cannot create, how can creation occur when there is nothing at all? God is the creator of existence, how silly are you to suggest that something comes from nothing at all, it comes from God.”. I then state that you’re anthropomorphising “nothing at all”, to which you reply, “I’m not anthropomorphising it, where did I state that God is a being of intent? God is the creator of being, the creator of intent the creator of uncreated creations. God created existence and does not need to exist in order to create. It is beyond your mind, just accept that God exists and is not nothing at all and did create the uncreated creator in an uncreated way that was creative, but not.”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-disprove-god/223357.md?page=6)