There is no god....

[Greenback]

@Voyager

But we can see thoughts today - or their effect on the brain. We also can see the impact of thoughts on the world. We can measure the impact of belief in god on the world (so that exists) but god him or herself has been a bit scarce. So this old chestnut is not a good argument.
Faith exists. But just as the existence of lust for Jessica Rabbit does not mean that Jessica Rabbit really exists, faith in and love for god doesn’t mean any particular god exists.

Hold the phone!! Jessica doesn’t exist?

So many wasted nights :smack:

@Meatros

That’s something I never understood. All throughout the Old Testament God reveals himself, even to nonbelievers. In the New Testament, Jesus provides evidence of divinity (or at least of the supernatural) to pretty much whomever he meets.
Yet today these miracles are in short supply, especially to those who need them the most (such as atheists, agnostics, and people of different religions). If God exists, then why the change?

Fom what I can gather, God’s involvement in the OT was largely to prove that He was more powerful than the neighbouring gods at the time. The idea was to have people realize He was the One and for them to follow Jewish customs, thereby atoning for their sins and being able to end up in heaven. The New Testament saw salvation become available to everyone. Once Christ was sacrificed, the need for people to follow Jewsh customs was no longer required. The atonement came by accepting Christ as your personal Saviour.

Lastly, I believe that God is in a “wait and see mode” with humanity. If you believe the Adam and Eve story, we rejected Him when we had direct contact with Him. The OT shows the Jews rejecting Him when He was a physical manifestation on mount Sinai. The NT shows us rejecting God as He came among us as one of us. I think we’re at the point where God now figures He will wait until we come and find Him. It obviously hasn’t worked the other way around.

[Lissa]

I, too, think the notion of a god is silly. It amazes me that an intelligent person could believe in the supernatural-- if only because it defies the laws of physics/thermodynamics/gravity/reason.

God is nothing more than man’s ego combined with childish fear. Ego, because ee refuse to believe that our existance is ended by death-- that we must somehow go on, and childish fear because the concept that there isn’t something ultimately “in charge” is frightening to some.

People like the concept of God because it’s easier than accepting life just as it is. The idea that their lives are part of some master plan is comfortng to those whose lives are miserable or meaningless. The idea that those who have done them wrong will ultimately be punished, if not in this life, in the next, is grimly satisfying. And, most importantly, the idea that a father-like god is “watching over” believers makes people happy.

I know all about religious faith. I went to Christian school for five years, and memebers of my family are religious. (Hell, even my husband has some lingering religious faith. It makes for interesting conversations, let me tell you!) I was even briefly converted, before reason cleared it away.

I have seen people who claim a personal relationship with God-- that He is intimately concerned with the dreary details of their lives. “I prayed about my carberator last night . . .” They ask God what to do, and then are convinced that the “feeling” they have is God conveying his decision to them. It amuses me, and reminds me of what King Henry VIII once said: “God and my conscience are perfectly agreed.”

I have also seen people who confuse crowd-induced hysteria with God’s presence or power. I once sat through a church service in which the attendees whipped themselves into a frenzy, convinced that they were speaking with God, and that He was causing their gyrations.

I have seen people convinced they witnessed “miracles” when medical science cures an illness (or they just get better on their own), or when simple coincidence seems too good to have happened by chance. I have heard breathless accounts of NDEs or plain old hallucinations touted as visions. I have seen incredibly broad statements taken as “prophecy” and triumphantly proclaimed true when events occur which seem to be in line with the prediction.

But I have seen nothing which suggests to a logical mind that a god exists.

To me, these things are obviously self-delusion. Though some would argue that it’s harmless and potentially comforting to believers, I see it as somewhat dangerous and a little sad. If all of the money, time and energy devoted to religious observance were put to good use, this world would be a much better place. THAT would be a miracle.

[JThunder]

@Lissa

I, too, think the notion of a god is silly. It amazes me that an intelligent person could believe in the supernatural-- if only because it defies the laws of physics/thermodynamics/gravity/reason.

And that objection is itself silly. Youa are assuming that the laws of physics must necessarily apply to all objections, which is altogether unproven. Indeed, if there is a divine being who created the universe, then he must necessarily transcend physical laws, since he is himself the creator of those laws.

[JThunder]

Sorry. I meant to say, “You are assuming that the laws of physics must necessarily apply to all things, which is altogether unproven.”

The laws of physics only apply to the interactions between things which are (ahem) physical–composed of matter and/or energy. The creator would transcend physicality, since he is the very being who created all matter and energy.

[Meatros]

@JThunder

The laws of physics only apply to the interactions between things which are (ahem) physical–composed of matter and/or energy. The creator would transcend physicality, since he is the very being who created all matter and energy.

What evidence do you have that the creator would transcend physicality? Perhaps this creator created everything out of him/her/itself, therefore it would be physical.
I mean, what did the creator create with, if not out of him/her/itself? How did the creator do this if not physically? If the creator exists outside of physicality, when did the creator start creating?

I don’t know, you could be right, but I’m not even sure how to comprehend what you are saying.

[JThunder]

@Meatros

What evidence do you have that the creator would transcend physicality?

Again, the fact that this being created the physical universe.

Moreover, I don’t have to prove that he does transcend physicality. As long as it is merely possible, that alone defeats the claim that all things must necessarily be subject to the laws of physics.

Perhaps this creator created everything out of him/her/itself, therefore it would be physical.

Again, even if that possibility were rational, it would not prove that all things must obey the laws of physics. In other words, your objection would only hold true against a God who is physical, which falls woefully short of demonstrating that there is no God whatsoever.

I mean, what did the creator create with, if not out of him/her/itself?

Who knows? You can speculate all you want, but that’s ultimately irrelevant. The problem is that you keep thinking of a limited, material God who can only create things out of something else. That’s certainly not the Judeo-Christian God, who created ALL things out of nothing. You might not be able to comprehend this concept, but that doesn’t make it invalid.

[Jon_the_Geek]

@JThunder

Who knows? You can speculate all you want, but that’s ultimately irrelevant. The problem is that you keep thinking of a limited, material God who can only create things out of something else. That’s certainly not the Judeo-Christian God, who created ALL things out of nothing. You might not be able to comprehend this concept, but that doesn’t make it invalid.

Neither does it make it valid.

I don’t agree with those few people who assert that a deity can’t exist. But the idea that a deity might exist certainly doesn’t make any particular religion correct, nor inform us on what this possible deity expects of us. Perhaps a deity exists, but he purposefully has not given us evidence of his existance, and wants us to prove reasonable by not assuming he exists. Who knows? If you know, I’d like to know how.

[Meatros]

@JThunder

Again, the fact that this being created the physical universe.

How is that evidence as opposed to an a priori assumption

@JThunder

Moreover, I don’t have to prove that he does transcend physicality. As long as it is merely possible, that alone defeats the claim that all things must necessarily be subject to the laws of physics.

I didn’t ask you to prove it. I asked for evidence. How is it possible? What evidence do you have that it even exists?

@JThunder

Again, even if that possibility were rational, it would not prove that all things must obey the laws of physics. In other words, your objection would only hold true against a God who is physical, which falls woefully short of demonstrating that there is no God whatsoever

I wasn’t trying to demonstrate that there is no God whatsoever. I was trying to figure out what you meant by your statements.

@JThunder

Who knows?

Then why do you assume one did?

@JThunder

You can speculate all you want, but that’s ultimately irrelevant. The problem is that you keep thinking of a limited, material God who can only create things out of something else.

Why would I have reason to assume otherwise? Why is it rational to assume an immaterial being could make anything, much less something material?

@JThunder

That’s certainly not the Judeo-Christian God, who created ALL things out of nothing. You might not be able to comprehend this concept, but that doesn’t make it invalid.

No, it doesn’t make it invalid. I don’t know a lot of things, but your explanation has not offered any insight as to why it would be valid and that’s what I’m asking for.

[Lissa]

@JThunder

Again, the fact that this being created the physical universe.

Moreover, I don’t have to prove that he does transcend physicality. As long as it is merely possible, that alone defeats the claim that all things must necessarily be subject to the laws of physics.

It’s entirely possible that I’m a sentient Popsicle. You cannot prove otherwise.

Again, even if that possibility were rational, it would not prove that all things must obey the laws of physics. In other words, your objection would only hold true against a God who is physical, which falls woefully short of demonstrating that there is no God whatsoever.

I was not attempting to demonstrate that. The idea that God would somehow trancend the very laws He supposedly created seems to me to be a silly way of supporting a silly idea. It’s an OJ defense: it’s remotely possible that the police made the whole thing up, so you can’t convict. Just because the jury bought it doesn’t mean it’s sensible.

The fact that there’s a tiny, infantesimal possibility that something exists does not make it likely. Life may exist on Mars, but due to its climate, it’s unlikely that sentient life does. Of course, there’s always that tiny, infantesimal fraction of a possibility that there is, because we haven’t searched every single inch of the planet to be able to say so with 100% certainty, but I’m not expecting alien visitors any time soon. (Of course, there’s a tiny, infantesimal possibility that the alien life is invisible and cannot make its presence known for whatever reason . . . Hey, they could be on Earth, too! You might be sitting in a room full of invisible people right now!!!)

What about your soul? God may defy the laws of physics, but why should a part of a human?

Who knows? You can speculate all you want, but that’s ultimately irrelevant. The problem is that you keep thinking of a limited, material God who can only create things out of something else. That’s certainly not the Judeo-Christian God, who created ALL things out of nothing. You might not be able to comprehend this concept, but that doesn’t make it invalid.

Oh, I comprehend it just fine. God can be anything, anywhere. Gotcha.

That I find it ridiculous is the point. Sure, there’s a tiny, infantesimal possibility that there exists a deity which needs no external energy source, (and likely doesn’t produce heat ) has no physical form, yet has a coherent mind, who created the incredibly vast universe out of nothing, and created said universe pretty much just for his voyeuristic viewing pleasure, who set the guildines for human behavior, but to make it interesting, fashioned human desires to be completely opposed to it and who watches over me tenderly while I sleep, oh, and also hides his existance from man just to see who will defy all logic to believe it, but it’s not likely. Nor do I think that it’s reasonable.

I’ve always thought that if you find yourself making excuses for a belief akin to: “Well, I suppose it’s remotely possible that . . .” it’s time to sit down and think long and hard about it. I like reasonable logic in the television shows I watch (cars should not suddenly take off and fly, for example . . . though I suppose it’s remotely, infantessimally possible . . .) much less a cause to which I am supposed to devote money and time and for which I am supposed to reshape my entire life.

[Voyager]

@Greenback

Hold the phone!! Jessica doesn’t exist?

So many wasted nights :smack:

Wasted in both senses of the word, I’m sure

Fom what I can gather, God’s involvement in the OT was largely to prove that He was more powerful than the neighbouring gods at the time. The idea was to have people realize He was the One and for them to follow Jewish customs, thereby atoning for their sins and being able to end up in heaven. The New Testament saw salvation become available to everyone. Once Christ was sacrificed, the need for people to follow Jewsh customs was no longer required. The atonement came by accepting Christ as your personal Saviour.

Lastly, I believe that God is in a “wait and see mode” with humanity. If you believe the Adam and Eve story, we rejected Him when we had direct contact with Him. The OT shows the Jews rejecting Him when He was a physical manifestation on mount Sinai. The NT shows us rejecting God as He came among us as one of us. I think we’re at the point where God now figures He will wait until we come and find Him. It obviously hasn’t worked the other way around.

That’s an odd interpretation. Remember that the miracles related to the Exodus were done before either the Torah or the Ten Commandments were given. Some of the miracles were part of the Exodus, and part were to demonstrate God’s power. The parting of the Red Sea is of the first category, Moses and the water was of the second. Moses was punished for smiting the rock, which could let someone think that the physical action was the cause of the water flowing. You’d need more faith in this scenario than the one God wanted.

Now, perhaps these miracles didn’t do the trick, but remember that the 40 years in the desert was to let those who were slaves in Egypt die, and their descendants be available to invade Canaan. So those living day to day with miracles (the manna) were exactly the ones found righteous, and who were given a victory. So this bunch did not reject him.

No, miracles evanesce like a soap bubble in the sun. A long time ago the sun stands still and the water parts. 100 years before the NT is written, more or less, Jesus does parlor tricks. Today, nothing. “Israel in 4 BC had no mass communications” is exactly why the miracles happened then.

[Voyager]

@JThunder

Sorry. I meant to say, “You are assuming that the laws of physics must necessarily apply to all things, which is altogether unproven.”

The laws of physics only apply to the interactions between things which are (ahem) physical–composed of matter and/or energy. The creator would transcend physicality, since he is the very being who created all matter and energy.

I have no problem with that - but this creator must be able to interact with the physical world, or else we wouldn’t know he’s around. He could poof the universe into existence in 7 days, but then the universe would have to more or less look poofed. At the moment he so transcends physicality it seems like he doesn’t exist at all. All we’re asking for is a god footprint, or a god scat -anything.

Oh, and saying he talks to me, and sounds just like a self-help book, doesn’t cut it.

[JThunder]

First of all, I believe that God does interact with the physical world, even though there are times when we wish he’d intervene and he doesn’t. But that’s beside the point.

Even if God did not interact with the physical universe, that would not mean that he does not exist. Indeed, deists do believe in a God, but posit that he has taken a “hands-off” approach after the moment of creation. So one could believe – as many do – that the evidence points toward God’s creation of the universe, even if one believes that he no longer intervenes in human affairs.

[JThunder]

@Lissa

Again, the fact that this being created the physical universe.

Moreover, I don’t have to prove that he does transcend physicality. As long as it is merely possible, that alone defeats the claim that all things must necessarily be subject to the laws of physics.It’s entirely possible that I’m a sentient Popsicle. You cannot prove otherwise.

Stay on topic, please. Your claim was that God does not exist because God violates the laws of physics. Your accusation inherently assumes that all things must obey these laws. The burden of proof rests upon you to prove that this is necessarily so.

And that is why the objections raised by you and Meatros hold no water. You can’t insist that God must be beholden to the laws of physics, and then use this assumption to demonstrate that he does not exist. You are arguing from an unsubstantiated assumption, which makes your contention logical fallacious.

One can raise all sorts of questions about what it would mean for God to transcend physical laws, but that is ultimately irrelevant. The burden of proof rests on you to show that he is indeed enslaved to the very rules that he created. Your failure (and mine) to understand how this might happen does not make it either impossible or implausible.

[Lissa]

@JThunder

Stay on topic, please. Your claim was that God does not exist because God violates the laws of physics.

Well, that was the first sentance, anyway, but there was a bit more to my post than that.

Your accusation inherently assumes that all things must obey these laws. The burden of proof rests upon you to prove that this is necessarily so.

It would be impossible to “prove” anything. As I explained in my lengthy previous reply, anything is possible, the question is whether it is likely.

However, I should think that the burden of proof would lie on the person making the positive statement; i.e that a Being exists which defies the laws of physics/thermodynamics.

And that is why the objections raised by you and Meatros hold no water. You can’t insist that God must be beholden to the laws of physics, and then use this assumption to demonstrate that he does not exist. You are arguing from an unsubstantiated assumption, which makes your contention logical fallacious.

It seems to me that the very first illogical assumption is that there is a god in the first place.

Secondly, I didn’t “insist” on anything. You’re the one who keeps bringing it up. It’s like trying to debate how man angels can dance on the head of a pin: it bores me because it’s completely illogical that there are such creatures as angels in the first place. This was only one of the many statements I have made on this subject.

I cannot debate the physical nature of something which I believe does not exist. It was an off-the-cuff remark but I do feel compelled to say that I know that the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and gravity exist. You are the one claiming that there’s a magical Being which defies these laws. Therefore, I think the burden is on you, my friend.

One can raise all sorts of questions about what it would mean for God to transcend physical laws, but that is ultimately irrelevant.

Then why do you keep harping on it?

The burden of proof rests on you to show that he is indeed enslaved to the very rules that he created. Your failure (and mine) to understand how this might happen does not make it either impossible or implausible.

There is no failure to understand anything. I understand perfectly that a claim is being made that this Being is above all laws. The implications thereof aren’t particularly mind-blowing to me. What is implausible is the base assumption that there is a Being.

Can you give me any logical, reasonable and compelling reasons to believe that there is? I went to Christian school for five years, church for longer than that, and have read dozens of Christian “science” books on Creationism and the nature of God, and I have yet to see a single one.

[Jinx]

@Goldenchild487

In this thread Zagadka says:
…And even if God himself came to me right now to prove his existance, I would reject him. I don’t want any part in a God who will punish man for all eternity for something two dumbasses did in a garden a couple thousand years ago.

And for the record: I’m agnostic. Just because I hate God and everything he stands for, doesn’t mean I’m not open to the possibility that he exists in some form or another.

For the record, you’re a Christian agnostic. Judaism has moved on while Christianity seems to hold this “original sin” idea over your head forever. Judaism says woman got painful childbirth, man got to toil to earn his keep, and (as Archie Bunker said) then they were told to put their clothes on and get the hell out of there. This is all because the snake rattled on them, of course! …Then, God said “Hey, dudes, get over it and move on!”

In all seriousness, though…I agree with your thoughts. (Would the world have been such a mess without the creation of mankind?) Also, the Bible falls short of explaining quite a lot…often why good is always punished for good deeds while evil goes scott free. And, even should evil ever have to answer for its actions, it’s too late…the damage is already done. And, why would He stop talking to us?

It’s a Mobius Strip of a life where wrong is right and evil is rewarded handsomely.

• Jinx

[Sinful]

It’s people like you-and I’m speaking to the Christians in this thread-that have made jobs like mine so much more difficult. There’s no need for you to be so tyranical. Keep your faith between you and God, all of you.

[UDS]

@Sinful

It’s people like you-and I’m speaking to the Christians in this thread-that have made jobs like mine so much more difficult.

Why? What’s your job? I’m curious!

@Sinful

There’s no need for you to be so tyranical. Keep your faith between you and God, all of you.

Is it ironic that you make this comment in a thread titled “there is no god . . .” and opened to allow a poster to articulate a specifically andi-Christian viewpoint?

[Voyager]

@JThunder

First of all, I believe that God does interact with the physical world, even though there are times when we wish he’d intervene and he doesn’t. But that’s beside the point.

So saying there is no need for evidence because god is extra-physical doesn’t cut it, since there should be evidence of the interaction. And there would be if any of the holy books are true. And don’t give me absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The holy books make specific statements about god’s interaction with the world, all of which, when they can be checked, turn out to be wrong.

Even if God did not interact with the physical universe, that would not mean that he does not exist. Indeed, deists do believe in a God, but posit that he has taken a “hands-off” approach after the moment of creation. So one could believe – as many do – that the evidence points toward God’s creation of the universe, even if one believes that he no longer intervenes in human affairs.

Deism I have no problem with, since I don’t know any deist who thinks this hands off god has a problem with my sex life. But except for making deists all snuggly and warm, we cannot tell the difference between no deistic god and a deistic god. (Which means you can’t disprove him.) If I draw an Ace of Spades in a poker game, is it chance or god’s plan? It might make me win, it might make me lose, and they both can be god’s plan. The whole concept seems to contribute zero value to my life.

[Greenback]

@Voyager

That’s an odd interpretation. Remember that the miracles related to the Exodus were done before either the Torah or the Ten Commandments were given. Some of the miracles were part of the Exodus, and part were to demonstrate God’s power. The parting of the Red Sea is of the first category, Moses and the water was of the second. Moses was punished for smiting the rock, which could let someone think that the physical action was the cause of the water flowing. You’d need more faith in this scenario than the one God wanted.

I messed up my point. Forget the part about the Torah and such. That had no business being there.

However, the Exodus miracles would also be in the category of the God of Israel “flexing a bit of muscle” to show He was more powerful in relation to other civilizations’ deities. I have read that the 10 plagues were linked to the gods of Egypt at that time (It is not the best link but it is long past naptime).

Now, perhaps these miracles didn’t do the trick, but remember that the 40 years in the desert was to let those who were slaves in Egypt die, and their descendants be available to invade Canaan. So those living day to day with miracles (the manna) were exactly the ones found righteous, and who were given a victory. So this bunch did not reject him.

No, they wandered for the extra 40 years so that the ones who doubted that God could give them the promised land would die off (Those who were age 20 and older). It just so happened that all the original slaves were included in that lot, save two.

They doubted even though they were liberated from Egypt, fed manna and quail through the desert, and received water from rock. So yes, when push came to shove and it was time for the Israelites to actually do something, they rejected the God’s gift of the promised land. This was a generation that had witnessed some of the most powerful displays of celestial power and still rejected Him.

No, miracles evanesce like a soap bubble in the sun. A long time ago the sun stands still and the water parts. 100 years before the NT is written, more or less, Jesus does parlor tricks. Today, nothing. “Israel in 4 BC had no mass communications” is exactly why the miracles happened then.

That is a great theory. But I was responding to meatros’ question of "If God exists, then why the change?. Assuming that the God of the bible exists results in miracles actually occurring. Mass communication would only have served to spread it further and/or pervert it though sensationalizing the event(s). I then offered a possible reason for the lack of miracles occurring today within the context of the quesiton.

[Dunderman]

@JThunder

One can raise all sorts of questions about what it would mean for God to transcend physical laws, but that is ultimately irrelevant. The burden of proof rests on you to show that he is indeed enslaved to the very rules that he created. Your failure (and mine) to understand how this might happen does not make it either impossible or implausible.

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. Everything we’ve ever seen obeys physical laws. Some laws we understand well, some we barely understand at all, some we are only now beginning to learn, but nothing has ever had this “nonphysical” quality that you ascribe to God. Then why would we need to prove that God does not obey those laws? You’re saying that he doesn’t, show us.

You’re also saying that you don’t understand how he cannot obey those laws. That should be a big warning sign for you right there. You don’t even understand your own hypothesis.