There Is No God

[Ouroboros]

You have been deceived by the world and all its "logic." You think it is true, when actually Gods ways are higher than this world's ways.

So you're saying that the Devil created logic, not God?

 

In other words, God is the source of irrationality and illogical thoughts, while the Devil is the master of reason, logic, and rationality.

 

Thanks for admitting that. Finally a Christian who admits that Christianity is the same as insanity.

 

To solve your cognitive dissonance problem pray that Jesus would help you sort out the lies that you have come to believe to be true and real.

You mean, we should use the Devil's logic, reason, and rationality to sort out what is truth or lies?

 

I used to think I was brainwashed too, I have since changed my mind. I know that Jesus cannot and will not lie.

So Jesus is talking to you, in your head? You hear his voice? You need to get help.

[Ouroboros]

you meationed in another thread that you stopped taking your meds, prehaps you should start again as you seem rather delusional.

Yes, I agree. Justyna needs to get back on her meds.

[Shyone]

Why do you all need all this proof? Why cant you have faith and just believe? Is that so hard to ask for?

Ah, but the evidence against god is overwhelming.

 

Look outside on a sunny day and have faith it's night time.

 

As a Christian, all you have to do is Close Your Eyes.

[FourDogBrewing]

You have been deceived by the world and all its "logic." You think it is true, when actually Gods ways are higher than this world's ways. To solve your cognitive dissonance problem pray that Jesus would help you sort out the lies that you have come to believe to be true and real. I used to think I was brainwashed too, I have since changed my mind. I know that Jesus cannot and will not lie.

 

Seriously?

 

You are right, we should just throw out logic. pfffffttt who needs that crap anyway.

 

So to solve my logic and cognitive issues I should ask a mythical being for help. I will get right on that!

 

If Jesus can't lie, then where the hell was he when I was still a believer and begging and pleading with him during my de-conversion?

[FourDogBrewing]

You have been deceived by the world and all its "logic." You think it is true, when actually Gods ways are higher than this world's ways. To solve your cognitive dissonance problem pray that Jesus would help you sort out the lies that you have come to believe to be true and real. I used to think I was brainwashed too, I have since changed my mind. I know that Jesus cannot and will not lie.

 

you meationed in another thread that you stopped taking your meds, prehaps you should start again as you seem rather delusional.

 

 

I was laughing my butt off until I realized this was a serious post.

[Overcame Faith]

I know that Jesus cannot and will not lie.

 

True. A nonexistent being cannot and will not lie.

[Guest Valk0010]

Why do you all need all this proof? Why cant you have faith and just believe? Is that so hard to ask for?

Is short it is hard.

 

Think of it like this. You going into a used car dealership. And you ask to look for cars. Now you search around for awhile, and you find a car that looks nice to you. You ask the dealer does everything work right. Do you trust the dealer when he says yes, and just drive it off the lot, paid for. Or are you going to take it for a test drive before you buy it.

 

Religion is the same sort of thing, when you talk about faith. It is investing into something(like with a used car) without a check on its evidence(like a test drive).

[J.W.]

You have been deceived by the world and all its "logic." You think it is true, when actually Gods ways are higher than this world's ways. To solve your cognitive dissonance problem pray that Jesus would help you sort out the lies that you have come to believe to be true and real. I used to think I was brainwashed too, I have since changed my mind. I know that Jesus cannot and will not lie.

 

Well Justyna,

I just have to say that I don't care anymore-- really. There is not a shred of evidence for god, and every instinct of mine cries that death is the end. I think deep down inside everyone knows this or they would be taking a dive off a building to meet Jesus. I don't need things sugar coated, but I understand if you do

[J.W.]

 

 

I would disagree with you on your first premise, that there is no evidence for God. Secondly, I don't believe you have given adequate evidence that everything has just existed as a cycle. I think there is plenty of evidence to counter that claim.

 

Regarding Paschal's wager, I find that many people who refer to it have not read the Pensees from which it comes. Have you read Paschal's full argument from the Pensees to fully understand his argument? I think he gives plenty of proof there. Maybe you could go through and show me your refutation of them before concluding that there are no proofs for God's existence. He refers to the wager in light of the proofs, not in the absence of them.

 

LNC

 

Im glad you have been giving my words some thought LNC, but you are trying to tackle too much at once. If we focused more narrowly we could be more clear.

 

1. There is no evidence that everything sprang from nothing-- none. I know people like to twist the big bang into god, but that doesn't fit the scriptures.

 

2. Talking of Pascal's wager-- Im simply saying it is silly to buy insurance for something not even proven to exist. What if Im wrong? I will ask why he hid himself and expected me to chase him? No one that loves us would do that under penalty of eternal torture for failure.

 

3. The cycle [big bang and big crunch] is self evident by the fact that we are here. If you believe that things do not just appear from nothing-- then they have always been. If things can not just exist than god can not just exist. Now take that and put it with what we do know [that the universe is expanding] and you will see that things have always existed, did not come from nothing, we are expanding, so there MUST be a cycle.

 

You really should read some Hemingway- I would recommend For Whom the Bells Tolls. Is it God who gives the Bulls the freewill to gore the bullfighter? Is it God who allows innocent people to be mobbed and thrown over cliffs? Is it God that allows political systems to plague mankind with warfare? Is it God who does not warn the child stepping on the land mine? Where is God? I forgot-- he is immaterial, does not interfere with our affairs, allows suffering, allows animals to attack men, and has designed everyone so that they will die? If we were born for eternal life then death is pointless-- absolutely pointless

[agnosticator]

You have been deceived by the world and all its "logic." You think it is true, when actually Gods ways are higher than this world's ways. To solve your cognitive dissonance problem pray that Jesus would help you sort out the lies that you have come to believe to be true and real. I used to think I was brainwashed too, I have since changed my mind. I know that Jesus cannot and will not lie.

 

What about the world is a lie? Define "truth", and define "lie". I don't think you know the difference.

[LNC]

Who says we can't ever solve it. Even if your right, and based off our current knowledge of physics, a god is needed, you only get a first cause. How in the blue hell do you get from being a deist to a theist. I can't see it.

 

I don't see things like survival to be objective. Also LNC, you have yet to explain how, if there is a objective morality in the since that your fighting to prove, then how is it, that cultural, and in some cases view morality different, or how different things can bother one persons conscience and some others not be bothered by the same thing.

 

The first cause argument is only one of a series of arguments that a theist will use to make the case for the existence of the God of the Bible. Others would include the fine tuning argument, the moral argument and the evidence for the resurrection.

 

Regarding morality, you are really conflating two issues here. The first is the existence of objective moral values (ontology) and the second is how we know what those moral values are; and really, there is a third point which is whether a person follows or obeys those moral values. The fact that people may recognize different moral values does not impact the idea that objective moral values exist. We could all do math differently (I add two plus two, you at one plus three, someone else adds up all four ones), but that doesn't mean that the principles of math don't exist. Even if someone came along and said that two plus two really equaled five, it wouldn't negate that math exists, it would just mean that they misunderstood the rules of math or applied them incorrectly.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

The fact that people may recognize different moral values does not impact the idea that objective moral values exist.

 

LNC

You don't really believe this, do you? With math, the answers are the same. With this example of morals, the answers are different from society to society and from time to time.

 

Objective morality can be contemporary or absolute. We have laws = "objective" morality in a contemporary sense, and these are different from other's laws that exist at the same time (e.g. Sharia). Objective, but not the same - not absolute.

 

Also, laws in the present and laws in the past were different. Crimes were different, slavery being a good example, but there are many more.

 

So Our objective morality precludes slavery, but the objective morality of the ancients supported slavery. Both are objective (laws that are external to the individual), but certainly not "absolute".

[LNC]

I have plenty of physical support on different aspects of what I have presented [not the theory as a whole]. My support is backed by the science, but my hypothesis is not. That said I have shown positive "proof" of what Im talking about. Objective morality is not backed by science, temporarily suspending the laws of nature is not backed by science. No proof what so ever to support a God is backed by the scientific community.

 

Where is the proof for God? I will not consider a God until there is a reason to believe in one. It has to be based on facts-- not fallacies, not feelings, not something "beyond our normal sensibility". It has to make sense. What is the proof? An inconsistent bible/torah/koran?

 

Even in the philosophy realm theist have serious problems. Ever hear of the "Problem of Evil"? Its called a problem because it is yet to be solved. Its not even sound philosophy.

 

The "object" morality you see is a collective mental projection from society. It also happens to promote survival.. That's all it is.

Mine explains why cannibals eat people and consider it okay.. "it promotes survival". Yet society can't live with cannibalism because thats anarchy so society bans it. So this also makes sense in the context I said it. Since there is no "objective" morality it will change slightly between cultures--- but eventually natural selection will promote the society with the best rules and those rules will usurp everyone--- eventually--- we are not there yet

 

 

I don't think you have given any conclusive scientific evidence to support your view, you have merely made assertions that seem unsupported and unsupportable by science. No one is saying that objective morality falls into the category of science, but then again, no one is saying that science is the only avenue to knowledge either. We can achieve knowledge apart from science. I don't make an argument for the temporary suspension of laws of nature. I don't believe that God works that way. However, I don't believe that the laws of nature are fully understood, nor is it clear that the laws of nature cannot be counteracted by a superior force. For example, gravity is overcome by a superior force all the time, in fact, every time you or anyone else stands up, flies on a plane or even jumps, gravity is overpowered. It is not suspended, merely overpowered. If God is a superior force than nature, then he can overpower the laws of nature as well as we can.

 

I have given arguments that present evidence for God's existence, but I don't have the burden of proof here, you do as you have made the positive claim.

 

I am familiar with the problem of evil, and it is not just a problem for theists to answer, but also for non-theists. If evil is truly a problem it means that objective morality exists; however, for objective morality to exist it must have transcendent grounding and that can only come from God. Otherwise, you really aren't dealing with a problem, but merely an illusion. So, I think that the problem of evil does not argue against God's existence, but actually for God's existence and there are good and coherent answers to this issue from a theistic perspective. I am actually teaching a class on it this weekend.

 

If morality is merely a collective "mental" projection as you say, could you please explain what you mean by mental and how it is projected given your viewpoint? It seems what you are really saying is that it is a useful fiction, and if so, that means that evil is also a useful fiction but not a reality. You seem to be saying that cannibalism is bad because it promotes anarchy, but who says that anarchy is bad? Natural selection is a process and promotes nothing. What you are implying is that survival is somehow good, but then how do you explain that over 90% of all species have gone extinct? Why didn't natural selection work for those species? Have the surviving species just gotten "lucky"?

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

1.What about what the mind is capable off, God is capable of way more then a mind of our sort. Larger ability can, and in the case of god, would, equal complexity. Also how many minds, are divided into three parts yet are one.

 

2. I don't know enough about physics to really be of service on this one so I will wait for JW.

 

3. Its a absurd idea in itself, but compared to the idea of a theistic god, not much more absurd.

 

1. You are saying something different here. Because God is capable of performing tasks that to us might seem complex, doesn't necessitate that God be complex. A mind is not complex, it is very simple, consisting of no moving parts, in fact, no physical parts whatsoever. You are mistaken in saying that ability necessitates complexity. BTW, God's mind is not divided into three parts. God is three persons, but one in essence. Thomas Aquinas described it as Divine Simplicity.

 

2. No problem.

 

3. How do you come to that conclusion? It sounds like it is based upon a faulty understanding of God based upon #1.

 

LNC

[bdp]

Justyna is delusional and LNC is boring.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

I am familiar with the problem of evil, and it is not just a problem for theists to answer, but also for non-theists. If evil is truly a problem it means that objective morality exists; however, for objective morality to exist it must have transcendent grounding and that can only come from God. Otherwise, you really aren't dealing with a problem, but merely an illusion. So, I think that the problem of evil does not argue against God's existence, but actually for God's existence and there are good and coherent answers to this issue from a theistic perspective. I am actually teaching a class on it this weekend.

 

I would say evil is really a label on things that are of the most harm and damage to others. Its a adjective, to describe a perceivable thing. What about a non theistic god btw? Since evil is truly a problem, it means it causes harm and becomes apart of our morality. And are morality tells us to try to avoid it for our survival(which is a goal that not many species achieve). But perception is innately relative. So there you have the different ideas of what morals should be.

 

If morality is merely a collective "mental" projection as you say, could you please explain what you mean by mental and how it is projected given your viewpoint? It seems what you are really saying is that it is a useful fiction, and if so, that means that evil is also a useful fiction but not a reality. You seem to be saying that cannibalism is bad because it promotes anarchy, but who says that anarchy is bad? Natural selection is a process and promotes nothing. What you are implying is that survival is somehow good, but then how do you explain that over 90% of all species have gone extinct? Why didn't natural selection work for those species? Have the surviving species just gotten "lucky"?

 

LNC

So is our perception of reality a fiction? Evil is a description of the worst things we perceive. Also our developing moral sense, would have to be changeable to deal with new circumstances. It would also have to be based in effectiveness. Its not a effective to murder and rape, so its becomes apart of morality to not do that. Survival is a goal, and not all achieve it. That is the whole point of natural selection, it picks out the strongest or best characteristics(physical and otherwise) and those traits continue on. To borrow a more spiritual term, its a process of refinement.

 

Are you a creationist LNC, it seems to me, the moral argument particularly only really works in a creationist mindset. We would have needed morality to survive under natural selection, so that is why I ask.

[bdp]

 

for objective morality to exist

 

It doesn't.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

Regarding morality, you are really conflating two issues here. The first is the existence of objective moral values (ontology) and the second is how we know what those moral values are; and really, there is a third point which is whether a person follows or obeys those moral values. The fact that people may recognize different moral values does not impact the idea that objective moral values exist. We could all do math differently (I add two plus two, you at one plus three, someone else adds up all four ones), but that doesn't mean that the principles of math don't exist. Even if someone came along and said that two plus two really equaled five, it wouldn't negate that math exists, it would just mean that they misunderstood the rules of math or applied them incorrectly.

 

LNC

You misunderstood me, the math example is good because its a perfect description of what I am saying. I can do a different problem then you, but we are both doing math.

 

I may have a different view of morality then you for example, but we are both exercising in ways that are different are objective sense of not causing harm.

 

I may feel the need to do 1+3 while you do 2+2. But it doesn't mean that there is no base concept of mathmatics. The same goes for morality

 

If someone says something different about math like 2 plus 2 equals five, they are mistaken yes. But then again there is things done that are considered by all or at least all that are sane as evil. Its the same in that regards as well.

 

BTW:Read this with post 242 in mind. Because the ideas overlap.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

1. You are saying something different here. Because God is capable of performing tasks that to us might seem complex, doesn't necessitate that God be complex. A mind is not complex, it is very simple, consisting of no moving parts, in fact, no physical parts whatsoever. You are mistaken in saying that ability necessitates complexity. BTW, God's mind is not divided into three parts. God is three persons, but one in essence. Thomas Aquinas described it as Divine Simplicity.

I agree with you on the nature of the mind. So I guess every mind is equally complex. Even when they can't do the same thing.(Your idea, not mine). Doesn't that mean the slow kid in class has the same mind then as the smart kid? I would say no. Why is that. They are able to do different things. What makes minds able to do different things, that is complexity. Wouldn't you say we don't have a mind like god. We can't do what he can. We have different minds. Are minds and consciousness are both immaterial. Then what makes two immaterial things different. Complexity and capability. You need to be more complex, to do more. We can do more then a sponge for example. A immaterial being, is still a being, and can do more then us. So it has to be more complex, otherwise it can't do more.

3. How do you come to that conclusion? It sounds like it is based upon a faulty understanding of God based upon #1.

 

LNC

Various reasons, many of which I feel are valid reasons for my agnostic atheism, like the problem of suffering, evil, and the incoherence of god as a concept. Also some study in the development of religion(God as a explanation) in society(nothing offical I am a laymen in the worst way).

 

It also seems more likely do to what see and experience to say this world is natural then supernatural.

[Guest Valk0010]

God's mind would be different then ours like, but its imaterial like ours is, so the only way to determine anything about it is from what its capable off.

 

Btw what is exactly this objective morality you talk about it, is it defined by the judeochristian ethic somehow. But wouldn't you say that is only one of varying views on morality.

 

Essentially define objective morality for me.

[Guest I Love Dog]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

 

Silly boy, there are thousands of gods!: http://www.godchecker.com

 

Of course, they are all imaginary: http://www.godisimaginary.com

 

The Canaanites(Hebrews) who dumped all their other gods except Yahweh(the Christian/Jewish/Islamic god) was one of the 70 sons of El(Eli) and was assigned to the Israelites.

 

The Canaanites had many gods:

 

* Anat, virgin goddess of war and strife, sister and putative mate of Ba'al Hadad

* Athirat, "walker of the sea", Mother Goddess, wife of El (also known as Elat and after the Bronze Age as Asherah)

* Athtart, better known by her Greek name Astarte, assists Anat in The Myth of Ba'al

* Baalat or Baalit, the wife or female counterpart of Baal (also Belili)

* Ba'al Hadad, storm god, perhaps superseded El as head of the Pantheon

* Baal Hammon, god of fertility and renewer of all energies in the Phoenician colonies of the Western Mediterranean

* Dagon, god of crop fertility and grain, father of Baal or Hadad

* El Elyon (lit. God Most High) and El; also transliterated as Ilu

* Eshmun, god, or as Baalat Asclepius, goddess, of healing

* Kotharat, goddesses of marriage and pregnancy

* Kothar-wa-Khasis, the skilled, god of craftsmanship

* Lotan, serpent ally of Yam

* Melqart, king of the city, the underworld and cycle of vegetation in Tyre

* Molech or Moloch, putative god of fire[5]

* Mot or Mawat, god of death (not worshiped or given offerings)

* Nikkal-wa-Ib, goddess of orchards and fruit

* Qadeshtu, lit. "Holy One", putative goddess of love, modernly thought to be a sacred prostitute, although there is no evidence of sacred prostitution in ancient Canaanite cities

* Resheph, god of plague and of healing

* Shalim and Shachar, twin gods of dawn and dusk

* Shamayim, the god of the heavens

* Shapash, also transliterated Shapshu, goddess of the sun; sometimes equated with the Mesopotamian sun god Shemesh[6] whose gender is disputed[7]

* Yahweh, son of El and brother of Baal, sometimes is known as being married Asherah. and Christians, Jews and Muslims think he is "real"

* Yam-nahar or Yaw, also called Judge Nahar

* Yarikh, god of the moon and husband of Nikkal

[Guest Valk0010]

Btw its post 241 not 242

[Sconnor]

1.What about what the mind is capable off, God is capable of way more then a mind of our sort. Larger ability can, and in the case of god, would, equal complexity. Also how many minds, are divided into three parts yet are one.

 

2. I don't know enough about physics to really be of service on this one so I will wait for JW.

 

3. Its a absurd idea in itself, but compared to the idea of a theistic god, not much more absurd.

 

3. How do you come to that conclusion? It sounds like it is based upon a faulty understanding of God based upon #1.

 

LNC

 

Oh yeeeeeees!!!! LNC understands god. LNC knows god’s will and character.

 

But in reality, you’re nothing but a douche, who claims to know god from your own idiosyncratic interpretation of your book of fiction: the bible, coupled with conjecture and flights of fancy.

 

You don’t know god.

 

--S.

[J.W.]

I don't think you have given any conclusive scientific evidence to support your view, you have merely made assertions that seem unsupported and unsupportable by science. No one is saying that objective morality falls into the category of science, but then again, no one is saying that science is the only avenue to knowledge either. We can achieve knowledge apart from science. I don't make an argument for the temporary suspension of laws of nature. I don't believe that God works that way. However, I don't believe that the laws of nature are fully understood, nor is it clear that the laws of nature cannot be counteracted by a superior force. For example, gravity is overcome by a superior force all the time, in fact, every time you or anyone else stands up, flies on a plane or even jumps, gravity is overpowered. It is not suspended, merely overpowered. If God is a superior force than nature, then he can overpower the laws of nature as well as we can.

 

That is an interesting way to look at the laws of nature LNC. It is pretty crafty. However, I don't think you have recognized where I have used science. I did show how E=MC2 explains that energy is moving mass. I did present the big crunch, and the big bang, evolution, and natural selection. I even [used my imagination] demonstrated how it could be responsible for what people call "morality" [we will get back to that].

 

I have given arguments that present evidence for God's existence, but I don't have the burden of proof here, you do as you have made the positive claim.

 

That is bogus. Something needs to be demonstrated to actually exist. If that rule is not in place, juries will have a hell of a time ignoring- beyond a reasonable doubt- that a pink elephant walked in the room and murdered somebody. It could have happened you can't prove one doesn't exist. You have to have a standard for reality--- that nothing is real unless demonstrated to be so. I do understand that there are aspects of reality that we do not know of [it usually does not effect us directly]. What if? What if? What if? How about why hasn't? Why hasn't God made himself apparent to everybody?

 

I am familiar with the problem of evil, and it is not just a problem for theists to answer, but also for non-theists. If evil is truly a problem it means that objective morality exists; however, for objective morality to exist it must have transcendent grounding and that can only come from God. Otherwise, you really aren't dealing with a problem, but merely an illusion. So, I think that the problem of evil does not argue against God's existence, but actually for God's existence and there are good and coherent answers to this issue from a theistic perspective. I am actually teaching a class on it this weekend.

 

I have stated clearly that I do not believe in good or evil [as an actual absolute part of reality]. I have to use the term 'evil' to make sense [in context] of your division of the world into right and wrong. Im simply saying-- the random carnage that all life produces [including galaxies running into and destroying the current order of eachother] can not be adequately dismissed by any argument of order coming from an omni-everything God.

 

If morality is merely a collective "mental" projection as you say, could you please explain what you mean by mental and how it is projected given your viewpoint? It seems what you are really saying is that it is a useful fiction, and if so, that means that evil is also a useful fiction but not a reality. You seem to be saying that cannibalism is bad because it promotes anarchy, but who says that anarchy is bad? Natural selection is a process and promotes nothing. What you are implying is that survival is somehow good, but then how do you explain that over 90% of all species have gone extinct? Why didn't natural selection work for those species? Have the surviving species just gotten "lucky"?

 

"Morality" you could say, is a collective subjective opinion [the mental projection of subjective feelings]. Sure, there are a lot of people with the same view- but many with a completely different view point. It is "projected" by person[1] assuming person[2] will act within the boundaries of what person[1] is comfortable with. The thing is person[2] makes the same assumption- and they do not agree with eachother on all aspects. Society as a whole does this and where the "projections" overlap you find the "collective mental projection" or ei "objective morality". The ethos... but you see that the collective can change so it is not absolute.

 

Im not going to defend cannibalism, but it is not "bad". It is just not as effective as promoting survival [as a general rule] so the practice has severely declined. The mental projection of "cannibalism is bad" has won the day. Its all chaos though and doesn't matter either way except to what promotes survival. What promotes survival will win. "Morality" is a phenomenon of social interaction that promotes survival. People will usually over rule bad behavior for survival reasons-- examples: Stealing bread is not as bad if a man is starving, its okay to severely harm someone to stop them from killing someone else, and have you ever seen the movie "alive"- its based on a true story. People in a plane crash, over time, chose cannibalism as opposed to starving to death. Some chose to die by starvation but most ate away. They didn't consider it wrong because they needed to do it to live. That is the way of the world LNC. Ultimately those who do not do what is necessary to survive are dead-- and so is their mental projection and collective morality.

 

Any more on that subject is a book, and I expect to get paid for it.

[EdwardAbbey]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

--puts apologist hat on

 

Without god how can we ground our morals

 

There is testimony to the power of god

 

the first cause has to be theistic, a diest god is self refuting

 

All other gods are contradictory

 

--takes apologist hat off

 

You and your apologist hat are dead wrong !