There is no God

[Lullaby Chainer]

If you believe in a blissful Heaven, God, and our Earth; I have a question for you.

Why does God choose to put us on Earth if we could all just live in Heaven, which, according to the premise, is a much better place than Earth?

If you believe in a Hell with suffering.

Why does God choose to test us on Earth when we could all just live in Heaven, which, according to the premise, is a much better place than Earth or Hell?

Is God fulfilling a need? If so, why does a god need to fulfill a need?

Please try to answer these questions directly. I'm ok if you preach to me, but make sure you stay on topic. I know it can be tempting to stray when you are trying to enlighten a sinner in the ways of God.

God creates a being.
God is omniscient.
God knows exactly what will happen to his being.
God alone creates the being.
God choices to create the being just as they are.
God knows what will happen to this being after creating this being any way he chooses.
God chooses the exact way he intends to.
God now knows exactly what will happen to his creation.
God is aware of the other choices he could have made.
God is aware of exactly what would happen if the other choices were made when creating the being.
God knows the ultimate outcome for the being he creates as a result of the way he chooses to create the being.
God chooses to allow Hell and Heaven.
God chooses to allow creations to go to Hell.
God knows in advance where his creation will go as a direct result of how, where, when, his creation is created.
God wants us to choose to worship him.
God already knows if we will worship him or not.
God chooses not to make himself more evident to everyone.
God knows that this choice will lead millions to suffer forever in Hell.
God wants us to worship him.
God is a god.
What need could God possibly have that would justify the countless millions who will be sent to Hell?
Does God really need to make the test of life so hard?
What need is God fulfilling by doing so?
Does God really need to be so elusive?
What need is God fulfilling by doing so?
Does God really need to create a desire to sin?
What need is God fulfilling by doing so?
Does God really need to punish his creations who cannot pass the test of life, who were created just as they are by God alone?
Does God see justice in an infinite punishment for a finite sin?

My essay - Against Christianity and other religions

This is my essay on the existence of God. Please dissect it all you want. I'm always happy to learn new faults in my essay so that I may improve it.

First off, I am an Atheist and a hardcore one at that. I despise religion with a passion but I can respect any argument you wish to impose. I will address absolutely all religious comments even if all I have to say is, "That's a good point. I can't argue with that."

I'll start off by providing the bases of why I choose Atheism over religion. Note that I focus on Christianity. This is only to save time and I assume most, but not all, of the religious viewers of this thread will be Christians

The below paragraphs intent is not to single out religion over Atheism. It is constructed towards any and every environmental belief. It simply encourages people to seriously consider their belief system without letting your environment get in the way. This includes Atheism. Basically, there's nothing wrong with sticking with the beliefs that you were raised with, it is simply wise to consider your beliefs from an environment-blind perspective. This is what I myself did when turning to Atheism. I was brought up on Christian beliefs and I never gave it a second thought for some time. I eventually decided to consider all of my choices instead of allowing myself to be brain washed, with no offense to anyone. I looked at all of my options, including Christianity, other religions, and lack of religions. The paragraph below is really just me preaching against becoming brainwashed. I'd also like to make it clear, I'm not saying those who stick with there environments beliefs are brainwashed. I'm aware many of you have seriously considered their religion at one point in time.

Consider this; when you were born, you had know idea of who or what the godly figure of your religion is. You are told this by your environment. In other words, you family, friends, church, or neighbor are the key source in determining the religion of most people. It is nearly un-heard of that a young child would deny the teachings of its environment until they are old enough to consider their options for themselves. I was a Christian until the age of thirteen. With this in mind, we can assume that one of the biggest factors in determining the religion of an individual unless they reconsider their options later on. MOST people stick with what they've been taught and if this applies to you, let me ask you this... How is it that you are so confident in your religion when the only reason you are of affiliated with your particular religion because of the environment you were born into? If you were born in China wouldn't it be likely that you would be a Buddhist? And wouldn't you be just as sure your religion (if Buddhism can be considered a religion) is the truest religion out there? If you "A" were born into a Christian family and was taught Christian beliefs and than at the same time, the same you or you "B" was born in China and was taught Buddhist beliefs and than both you "A" and you "B" were put in a room, would you both not be completely convinced that your religion was the correct one and the other wasn't correct as you? Do you really think your faith is greater than the faith of another individual? I'd have to say it would be naive to think so.

At this part.. many Christians defend themselves by telling me those other people of other religions don't always go to Hell because they don't know any better. But honestly, that's not the point. We're questioning if you religion is true, not if its OK for those other people to be doing what they're doing.

So, to have faith in your religion you must not only have faith in the existence of a god, but that you somehow landed yourself into the correct religion out of so many. The most common factor in religions is faith. Faith seems like a big chance to rely on if there is so many different faiths, all equal in degree, but all very different too. Many Christians would than tell me that they have more than faith. They see miracles happening every day and many of the things in the bible have come true. But the flaw in that is simple. You are stilling relying on faith that your religion is the cause of what could possibly be many other things... like science or natural cause and effect. Don't people die just as miraculously? Do you deny that things might just happen because it in nature to happen? That's still relying on faith. But than, one might tell me they have felt the presence of God. Just as many theists have personal evidence that the being they worship exists, so many atheists have personal evidence that such beings do not exist. That evidence varies from person to person. Furthermore, without wishing to dismiss your evidence out of hand, many people have claimed all kinds of unlikely things -- that they have been abducted by UFOs, visited by the ghost of Elvis, and so on.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Before I continue, nearly every time I start to debate what is below, Christians ask me why I can talk about God if I don't believe he exists. The thing is, people talk about things all the time even though they know it doesn't exist. Santa Claus for example does not exist but we know a lot about him. We even know what he looks like and what he wears and even the name of his reindeer. But when someone talks about, elves for example, that doesn't mean they believe in them or that elves exist. It is pure purposeful to refer to something you don't actually think exists especially when you're debating why it doesn't exist. If I wanted to prove to a child that Santa Claus doesn't exist (and I wouldn't) it would be unfair to disable me by tell me that I can't talk about how Santa couldn't possibly visit every child in the world on Christmas because I don't believe. So, just try to keep that in mind.

Early mankind guessed wrongly about so much in the world that it is ridiculous to think that they guessed correctly about the origin of mankind. Christianity for example has many flaws and implies that its creator was no god at all but a creation of mankind's ignorance in explaining the world around them.

According to popular belief, God is said to be an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being. Anything less would not be defined as the Christian God we know. But it is also a claim that God gave us free will and the ability to make choices. Now, I won't get into scientific evidence against free will for that may just veer this discussion in the wrong direction. But there is a fundamental flaw in this logic. A omniscient God knows all that is going to happen which means.. it will happen. In other words, what is going to happen.. will happen, and God just so happens to know what will happen. Before God created the world we live on, he knew precisely how things would play out. He knew that creating the fruit in the Garden of Eden would be eaten by Adam and Eve. He knew that Adam and Eve would eat this fruit before he even made them and that man-kind would be cursed. He also knew that by creating Lucifer, the angel would rebel and eventually bring about Hell. He also knew, even before he started creating everything, that millions and millions, if not billions, of people would be cast into Hell to suffer forever. The most common response to this is that God gave us free will and the choice to make our own decisions. But God created us.. and he created us just the way we are, after all, he is a God. He knew that by creating us the way he did, we would ultimately be sent to Heaven or Hell. He knew, even before creating us, that by creating us with certain flaws and in a certain way, which is the exact way we all are, we will make certain choices and he knew that by creating each of us in the way he did, we would already be destined to spend eternity in Heaven or Hell. Not only did he allow for the creation of Hell, he knew it would be created and this perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God allowed it knowing that many people would have to suffer for the rest of eternity in Hell if they don't pass regulations. God created the test (our lives) the passing grade (Heaven or Hell) the participants (us), and the IQ of the test taker (he creates each and every one of us in a certain way already knowing that by creating us that certain way we would be sent to Heaven or Hell, or.. pass or fail the test.)

Some Christians would than tell me that we would just be robots without the ability to commit a sin. Than what the fuck is Heaven? Can we commit sins in Heaven, if not, according to those Christians, we would be nothing but robots in Heaven. So why does this perfect benevolent being let things like Hell and sin exist if everyone could just be in Heaven? He wanted us to worship him? And to choose to do so without clearly letting us know, hence faith? Not only that but, he already knows that by the way he creates us he knows precisely the consequences of the flaws he puts in us and knows before creating us that we will pass regulations or not. Are you Christians just the lucky ones that God decided to create a certain way that would consequentially lead you to Heaven and its just too bad that I was created in a way that God knew would send me to Hell forever? How in the world does a finite sin that God not only allows, but creates the sinner in the exact way they are, deserve a infinite punishment? Do you realize how long infinity is? It can't even be defined by time. How can a perfect being allow all of this?

Let me explain something to you.

According to your own doctrine.. God is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, perfect, all-mighty being.

This god, is capable of anything, anything less would not make him a god. Now lets see here, god is capable of anything, but he creates a world of suffering. Now, don't tell me its our own fault, that we would just be robots if we couldn't sin.

The classic retort by theists to the problem of evil is that God gave humanity free will. The usual reason given for this is that he didn't want to create mindless robots, and the consequence of this decision is that evil is the responsibility of man, not God. I will attempt to prove if the omnimax God exists, then the moral responsibility for evil lies with him whether or not he gave us free will.
Let's consider the Xian description of post-judgment eternity in heaven. This will apparently be a place of moral perfection where there will be no evil - indeed there can't ever be any evil there. Now either the inhabitants of heaven will have free will or they won't.
If they have free will then that's proof that it's possible for free will and moral perfection to co-exist. That means that having free will is not the reason for evil - which means that the ultimate responsibility for evil is back on God's shoulders.
On the other hand if they don't have free will then the theist's logic falls completely apart. He is left in the absurd position of arguing that God gave us free will because he didn't want mindless robots serving him in order to ultimately have mindless robots serving him for all eternity. If God ultimately wants mindless robots then why bother giving us free will in the first place? In that case, he's still responsible for all the evil caused by giving us free will.

I hear crap about "its our own fault life sucks, God let us make choices". Well guess what.. not everyone is as fortunate as you are. Some kids are born and will know nothing but pain. They didn't CHOOSE for this pain, they were born into it. And this exact pain is what drives these already suffering children to sneer at the very idea of "God". Why should they believe? Cause its a nice thought? Heaven? Well according to most doctrine, these hateful, god-sneering, "non-believers" after a lifetime of suffering will go straight to Hell.
And like I said.. God supposedly created everything. He is capable of anything. But he chose to create things in such a way that would cause such inevitable suffering. And we know a perfect place without sin is possible. I believe you call it Heaven. But this supposedly "benevolent" god chose to make so many suffer. Not only that, but allow ETERNAL suffering in Hell. And for what? So that he can see us miraculously maintain faith and worship him by our own will? At the cost of so many? When he doesn't even give the slightest clue of his existence to the rest of us. And KNOWS we aren't going to believe. Yet, he chooses to let things happen as they are. He CHOSE to create this world just as it is when he is capable of ANYTHING. He is CAPABLE of providing a sinless, eternally blissful place, called Heaven. Yet he didn't create the world that way. He knows what suffering with become of his creations. He knows some of his creations will fail the test of life and be sent to Hell to suffer for ETERNATY. He is capable of Heaven. He capable of ANYTHING. What kind of sick god do you worship?

Why did God create disease? Is that our own fault too? Why did God create natural disasters that would kill millions, again, must be our own fault? Oh wait, I know, he just wants to test our faith by putting us through a world of suffering. Why would a god, who is supposed to be unselfish, have the desire to test the faith of his creations by putting them through a world of suffering, when we already know god is capable of much more, hence Heaven? Why does this god want to test the faith of little Betty who will be kidnapped, raped, tortured, and eventually killed, by not only letting this happen, but by not even answering her prayers for help? Don't tell me its our won fault, little Betty didn't choice to be kidnapped raped tortured and killed. Little Johnny didn't choose to be born with a disease that will slowly disintegrate his bones that will bind him to a motorized wheel chair, a distorted face, poor speaking capabilities, embarrassment from soiling himself, constant agony, and the knowledge that he will die at a young age. And what does God expect? That little Johnny will just forgive God and accept that God just likes testing his faith? Oh and, if he didn't pass the test of faith, he would have just sent him to suffer forever in Hell? I would hope, even if little Johnny disbelieved and even scorned the very idea of God, God would allow him in Heaven nonetheless. But even so, if God was going to just allow him in Heaven no matter what, why did he have to test his faith? What sick "need" does a god have that would allow him to do this?

[Fangrim]

I don't know how, but you have written an essay that is mine, and the essence of the essay is mine as well. Yes, you extended a few thoughts a little more than I have, and of course there are typographical errors that I wouldn't have made (I'm a grammar freak) but in its near entirety you have written something that I could have written. It's wonderful, and it pleases me deeply to find that someone thinks exactly as I do. I am a Christian, but more and more I doubt my beliefs as I go through my teen years. I developed my ideas about free will, God, and the injustice of Hell independently, without any website or book or such source, but what you've written here is what I believe. Landing in the "right" faith, the factors of environment, the irrationality of no immediate Heaven, the fallacies of free will and God's supposed traits. I still believe in God because I desperately still wish it to be true, but I don't know when I'll finally "go over." A decade? Probably sooner. I don't think this was the response you were looking for. I post regardless. Thank you for the essay.

[Jack]

For some of us, Fangrim, it was a slow process. I didn't just wake up one morning and say, "You know, I don't believe in god anymore." I went from absolute conviction to being completely non-theistic over the course of about 10 years, from my early 20's until I was nearly 30. It was a gradual process. I read, thought, talked to others on both sides of the fence. I looked around me at the world and at those who claimed to speak for god and finally decided I just couldn't accept any of it anymore. It was exactly like my early belief in Santa. After a few years, you're nearly embarrassed to admit you ever took it seriously.

But it wasn't just an abandonment of faith. It was more that faith was replaced with logic and free thinking. I realized that non-theistic concepts simply made more sense and explained the reality I perceived better than religion ever did. So in a sense I challenged my concept of god to stand up to logic...and god blinked. Those childish, cozy feelings religion once gave me were replaced with a practical, factual reality. Everything I've learned since has only reinforced my opinion that I did the right thing to give up wishful thinking and replace it with just plain thinking.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

For most Christians, they will avoid this thread altogether. Religion isn't just a belief to them, it's a lifestyle. Those are hard to shake off and sometimes we voluntarily don't want to.

[Kuroko]

I am not religious.

I am not a theist. I am a science lover and I believe in what I can understand. I was raised christian, at about seven years old I realised the possibility that religion was started as a form of control, or even as a relief from the fear of death.

A seven year old kid.. I became afraid of death. Fearfull of mortality and despised the upbringing which did not allow questioning.. and so I loved science more.

But I can answer your questions.

As I said I am not a theist, I am an absolutist, a theist has a belief, an absolutist has only knowledge.

Let me begin, free will. I think therefor I am, Man was created in god's own image, this is no the physical sense, this is the mental sense, the psychological sense.

Free will rules out predicability. God knows all you say? the answer and the outcome?

God knows every thing he created, what else is there to know, but the essance of free will removes the ability to predict all together, you can coax, you can force, you can imagine, you can empathize. But you will NEVER be able to FULLY predict free will.

God, omnipotent, would know all that HAPPENS in the universe created by god. would therefore know all that has happaned in the universe created by god, thus would know every thing within the universe of god.

The decissions we make, being that we can make our own decissions just can god would mean that our choice, to do or not do, to be one way or the other on any situation means we can be observed.. judged...

I ask, if you were god, how would you test beings who have the ability to do right or wrong, who have the SAME decission making process as yourself? how would you judge yourself?

earth seems a logical choice to me, Test free will on how it works with other free wills, right and wrong are percieved by the other beings with free will.

I do not believe in christianity, but god, god is what I named the universe. and I believe in the universe... I mean the evidence the universe exists is overwhelming. But heaven and hell? this is an interpritation I think is taken out of context, to fighten and entice people from or to do good or bad.

Heaven would be heaven if we lived an infinity in the lives we create by doing many right decissions.
Hell would be hell if we lived an infinity in the lives we created by doing wrong things.

So you get an infinity of exactly what you deserve.

I would also argue, that the greatest way to do this, is to test all these beings by putting them through the same life and seeing where they end up based on thier decissions.

I am not going to try and prove to you there is a god, I'm already doing that in another thread, I am trying to give you another outlook on the very narrow one you have now (I don't mean that as an insult, I mean that your view is the same as christians in the forms of punishment and reward and you have to admit, christians are pretty narrow minded).

I suggest you read the "does god exist" thread, where my chief point about wether or not god exists is simple.

0 = 1

Assuming the universe was completely void at the begining, then where did the first matter come from? how do you get some thing from nothing?

Assuming that matter was there from the begining, then the question of "if god created us then who created god" goes out of the window, as if matter can exist from the begining then so can god. my point then is, if matter existed from the begining, where did it come from, and where did the begining come from?

thermodynamics has quite a few laws, one of which says that matter and energy are constant in that they cannot be destroyed, they can only be converted between the two stages and that therefore it is impossible to create some thing from nothing as well.

[dreamer]

If you block the mind with imagination you have no god . Dreamer

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: dreamer If you block the mind with imagination you have no god . Dreamer

To me, it seems the other way. May you elaborate?

[Jack]

Assuming the universe was completely void at the begining, then where did the first matter come from? how do you get some thing from nothing?

The beginning of what? The point of infinite existence is that there is no beginning point, no end point. If the universe were completely void, it wouldn't be "the universe" now would it? It would be nothing. The universe is simply the name we give all the matter that forms stars, universes, galaxies and so forth. Human is the name we give the matter that forms us. Our naming conventions do not impart reality beyond our ability to comprehend it. Getting something from nothing is a question for theists to answer. Science does not propose that.

[Cole]

God chooses to allow creations to go to Hell.
- If people choose they do not want to be near God, such as yourself, God respects that and puts you in a place where there is no God.
God knows in advance where his creation will go as a direct result of how, where, when, his creation is created.
God wants us to worship him.
- And he allows us to choose to not to.
God is a god.
What need could God possibly have that would justify the countless millions who will be sent to Hell?
- He gives them choice, people who don't want to be near God go to a place where there is none. Hell is not a place of evil, but a place with an absense of God.
Does God really need to make the test of life so hard?
- Personally I think that life is here so we build character, learn, and experience hardships so then, when we earn our way into the ultimate paradise, we will enjoy it, not overlook it and take it for granit.
Does God really need to be so elusive?
- Yes. We are supposed to have faith, we are not supposed to know.
Does God really need to create a desire to sin?
- Free will, would you rather not have it? That's human nature and I would think that people here would be intelligent enough to know that.
Does God really need to punish his creations who cannot pass the test of life, who were created just as they are by God alone?
- People have free-will. We act as we want, and we make choices. Those choices are the sole basis on which we are determined to be damned (when we make choices without God's love and basis.) and when we are determined to be saved (when we make choices that favor's the creations of God and God's kingdom.
Does God see justice in an infinite punishment for a finite sin?
- We are here such a little time, and if we can't be loyal to God in 70-80 years out of an eternity, why do we deserve being with God. Everytime you kill, everytime you steal, everytime you cheat, everytime you lie, you are defying God's will and pushing yourself away from God. Once you are at a certain point, you push yourself into the locking position, Hell, which is so far away from God that he cannot help you anymore.

I'm a very open Chrisitian, I have been pushed off the edge and have heard every argument possible that I'm wrong, but somehow I stepped back up and have the strongest faith I've ever had. Ignorance is bliss and many Christians will avoid this thread as they do not want their faith broken. Those people aren't real Chrisitians and you guys shouldn't be stereotyping people like myself as one's such as them.

Let's just say this: If you're right, I've wasted a Lifetime, if I'm right, you've wasted an eternity.

[Fysk]

Let's just say this: If you're right, I've wasted a Lifetime, if I'm right, you've wasted an eternity.

That sounds remeniscent of Pascal's Wager. If you get down to the practicalities, however, no matter which one of you is right the other one has effectively wasted all the time they're going to get, which is as much of eternity as they'll ever know.

Hell is not a place of evil, but a place with an absense of God.

In that case, is Hell really a punishment? If someone goes through life Godless and perfectly happy about that, if they feel they don't need there to be a God, is a life without God really that bad from their perspective? Or is it just from the perspective of the people up in Heaven, and those that wanted to be good Christians but failed at it and went to Hell anyway?

Assuming the universe was completely void at the begining, then where did the first matter come from? how do you get some thing from nothing? Assuming that matter was there from the begining, then the question of "if god created us then who created god" goes out of the window, as if matter can exist from the begining then so can god.

It doesn't mean that God does exist though. Granted, it doesn't mean that the scientists are right either, but those arguments can go round and round in circles without ever proving anything for either side.

I ask, if you were god, how would you test beings who have the ability to do right or wrong, who have the SAME decission making process as yourself?

I think the point of the argument is why does God need to test anyone - what's in it for Him? I'd be irritated to think that millions of people are going to Hell if there wasn't a damn good reason for setting everything up that way. What does an ultimate being need to prove?

[dreamer]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer To me, it seems the other way. May you elaborate?

IT Depends on how you think from the beginning, some people are never told of god and never have to use there imagination on that ideal. But if you are really open minded and think what is imaginable, anything is possible.Dreamer

[Jack]

God is a god.

And the point of this thread is; what is a god? A being created by superstitious men to explain the unknown.

We are supposed to have faith, we are not supposed to know.

This is why it's so hard to debate theists. No matter how unreasonable, how fantastic the object of passionate belief may be, reason and logic cannot overcome it unless the person having that faith is willing to alter their values and substitute common sense and reality for faith. Your statement is why we refer to theism as "blind faith".

Ignorance is bliss and many Christians will avoid this thread as they do not want their faith broken. Those people aren't real Chrisitians and you guys shouldn't be stereotyping people like myself as one's such as them.

We've discussed this many times here. It hardly argues to the genuineness of your beliefs that even those who supposedly believe in the same god cannot agree on the particulars.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Isherwood The beginning of what? The point of infinite existence is that there is no beginning point, no end point. If the universe were completely void, it wouldn't be "the universe" now would it? It would be nothing. The universe is simply the name we give all the matter that forms stars, universes, galaxies and so forth. Human is the name we give the matter that forms us. Our naming conventions do not impart reality beyond our ability to comprehend it. Getting something from nothing is a question for theists to answer. Science does not propose that.

I didn't think athiesm bought into infinites. The universe is expanding, which means there is nothingness(?) to expand into, to push back or so I'm told. Supposedly it will eventually expend itself and contract back into....??? Some kind of macrocosmic black hole? All this suggests the existence of That Which Is and That Which Is Not. Space and time and dimensions of existence we can't fathom constantly in flux struggling to Be. Like the guy's head in Harry Potter V: aging and reversing. When the universe contracts does time flow backward? Is the chicken and the egg really irrelevant? Have we lived this moment over and over again? Do we make all the same mistakes? Or like a reversible reaction does life become less dramatic and finally reach a stagnant equillibrium?

If you can buy all of that, God isn't all that much of a stretch.

[Jack]

If you can buy all of that, God isn't all that much of a stretch.

Actually, god would be a huge stretch. Every thing I consider, from the nature of matter to the infinite, still obeys the rules of nature as we understand them. God does not. Theism is an embracement of the supernatural. I do not see any evidence of anything supernatural. Unexplained, yes; supernatural, no.

[Kuroko]

Getting something from nothing is a question for theists to answer. Science does not propose that.

So because a theist believes in god thier beliefs are automatically void of credibility. Yet you yourself say that science does not propose that matter can exist from nothing.

So you say, matter has always existed and I ask, what then was the source of matter? energy which is directly transferable to matter is the only answer, so where then came the energy?

Free will is also a contradiction to science itself, you chose to be an athiest, you figured in your own head that the basis of religion is incorrect and the basis of god is too, this was a conclussion brought up by you. Now often athiests believe they make thier own fate, thier own destiny ruled by no one but themselves. I believe this also and the ability to believe this is also proof of there being a god. Let me explain.

If you believe you make your own mind up and that you rule your own destiny not by the design of some one or some thing else, then you would also say that this has nothing to do with your physical build (I mean, that individual atoms and molecules aligned in an exact way as yourself).?

[Jack]

So you say, matter has always existed and I ask, what then was the source of matter?

Don't you see the contradiction in that question? If matter has always existed, it has no source. Let's change one word and see how it reads.
So you say, god has always existed and I ask, what then was the source of god?
See, now we have the age old atheist's question; what is the origin of god?
Since I don't believe in gods, that question holds no fascination for me, but it's been asked of theists for hundreds of years. Theists believe that god has always existed, everything else was created. The only difference between god and matter is that matter behaves in a way consistant with what we've discovered about nature. God does not. You don't need faith to grasp the concept of matter. You do to accept the notion of god.

Now often athiests believe they make thier own fate, thier own destiny ruled by no one but themselves.

Not this one. Fate and destiny imply a preordained future. I accept no such concept. It's not just that god does not guide my life, no one thing guides my life. It unfolds moment to moment as a result of a million influences.

If you believe you make your own mind up and that you rule your own destiny not by the design of some one or some thing else, then you would also say that this has nothing to do with your physical build (I mean, that individual atoms and molecules aligned in an exact way as yourself).?

I'm not exactly sure what the question is here, but the creation of my body followed the same natural processes as the creation of every other human's body. Once my atoms, cells and such return to nature, perhaps they'll become part of a tree, or a desert. I don't know nor do I believe there's any control over that process save the natural laws.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Quote by: Isherwood The beginning of what? The point of infinite existence is that there is no beginning point, no end point. If the universe were completely void, it wouldn't be "the universe" now would it? It would be nothing. The universe is simply the name we give all the matter that forms stars, universes, galaxies and so forth. Human is the name we give the matter that forms us. Our naming conventions do not impart reality beyond our ability to comprehend it. Getting something from nothing is a question for theists to answer. Science does not propose that. I didn't think athiesm bought into infinites. The universe is expanding, which means there is nothingness(?) to expand into, to push back or so I'm told. Supposedly it will eventually expend itself and contract back into....??? Some kind of macrocosmic black hole? All this suggests the existence of That Which Is and That Which Is Not. Space and time and dimensions of existence we can't fathom constantly in flux struggling to Be. Like the guy's head in Harry Potter V: aging and reversing. When the universe contracts does time flow backward? Is the chicken and the egg really irrelevant? Have we lived this moment over and over again? Do we make all the same mistakes? Or like a reversible reaction does life become less dramatic and finally reach a stagnant equillibrium? If you can buy all of that, God isn't all that much of a stretch.

Very well done - I like your thinking on this topic.

The universe is expanding, that is to say the space between each of the planets is getting larger, and no doubt the universe will contract also. Just like the earth moves away from the sun and then closer to the sun. The only difference is that space has no center, and no outer edge.

So how can nothingness expand? In my theory it is consciousness that is expanding, in others words all the thoughts generated become that non-visible space.

But what about time - is time growing, expanding, needing more room for the past? If so then if it contracts then time would go backwards and until it all conflicts at the start place in another big bang. which makes one wonder how many big bangs have already taken place before the last one?

But one of the arguments is that everything is accepted by faith, even a scientific theroy, and so form that factor they assume that faith in God is the same as faith in Darwin or "whatever". A topic already beaten to death a few times here at this forum.

To have faith in the concept that anything is possible because of a scientific theory based on the endless calulations in math, is no different then beliving in the All Mighty God. However we have evidence of math and it's openended potentials, and so what the O.P. is asking ( in conformity with nearly 80 percent of the topics here) - what is the evidence for the claims made by religion about their God? Can we show evidence that math can produce a falsehood or that it can prove "anything" no matter how silly the objective might be? Can we show failures with the theory of evolution - where it does not make good sense? Yes and yes.

Does a child really NEED to believe in Santa to be phycholically fit? Or to fill some lacking, or to mask some failure or shortcoming?

Around and around we go, where this debate will end nobody knows. It is one big circle.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Cole Let's just say this: If you're right, I've wasted a Lifetime, if I'm right, you've wasted an eternity.

Ah.. Pascal's Wager. Here's why it simply does not work...

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.

Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.

Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.

Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:

One does not know whether God exists.
Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.
Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.
There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.

The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.

Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that God would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.

Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.

In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not