Proof that God does not exist...

[Atlas]

Here is a question for all you believers out there:

Is almighty god powerful enough to create a rock that even he could not destroy ?

Kind of idiotic, but it does make you think...

[Fonceai]

Ahhh...

I wondered how long it would take.

One of the two contradictory questions about God...

It's original wording is, "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift"

I'm going to start this as a new topic in the Philosophy section.

[Lotharia]

Quote by: Paul.T ...how do you non believers explain the Earth and all of the beauty contained within it. How do you explain Life. Who created the human race ...

The correct answer is: "We don't know." That is a perfectly honest and correct answer if you don't know!

Making up fantastic stories about supernatural beings in the sky -- now that's whack.

[Atlas]

Quote by: Fonceai It's original wording is, "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift".

I changed it a bit to exclude smartass gravity related comments...:)

Wonder what is the second question...

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: agustine To iahag. This is simply a category mistake. Within the substance of your argument you have blurred the distinction between being and becoming, between actual and potential, between necessary and contingent. I think your confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the law of causality. The law of causality provides that all things that begin to exist require a cause. However, the most ardent of atheists agree that something must be uncaused. In the Thomistic sense, something must exist necessarily. This notion of necessary existence is what prompted Sir Fredrick Hoyle to posit the Steady State Model of the Universe which we now know the evidence contravenes. The motivation underlying the Steady State Model is clearly influenced by the principle of necessary existence, the problem resulting from positing an infinite regress and the requirement of absolute origin. Leibnitz, in discussing the law of causality said, "All things that exist must possess an explanation of their existence either in the necessity of their own nature or by an external cause." The Judeo/Christian notion of what we refer to as God clearly contemplates that the reason for His existence is found within Himself. Try to imagine an absolute state of non-being. The exercise itself is tantamount to contemplating a one-ended stick.. It cannot be done. Even more disturbing is the absurd idea that a finite entity has the capacity to create itself. The systemic contradiction contained therein precludes such an absurd thought. The contingent entity would have to precede itself in order to cause itself. The converse leaves us with the most radical idea that nothing can bring something into being. I do not think anyone is prepared to accept that proposition insofar as it would undermine the successful ontological commitment in the history of science, namely ex nilho nilho fit, out of nothing, nothing comes.... I think the premises and thus the conclusion of the Kalam Argument are indisputable: 1. All things that begin to exist require a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the universe requires a cause. If you affirm the premises, which are based upon observation, then you would agree that the conclusion would necessarily follow. God Bless Augustine

The Kalam arguement has been refutted repeatedly in many ways and angles. I did so on this debate site without any problems. The overly simplistic infinite library or hotel goes down the tubes real quickly simply presenting the situation of an infinite library and hotel that is EMPTY which is the logical beginning. Now try and fill them.

It is actually quite simple. I simply propose an Infinite Matrix (IM) in time and space. The IM is infinite in all aspects, such as the energy/matter relationships and laws of the IM that naturally result in universes beginning, existing and dieing in the Matrix

The universe as we know it likely did have a beginning, but the Infinite Matrix that the universe is a part of is infinite in time and space. The natural cause the universe, and, ah . . ., the ultimate ending is simply a product of the nature of the Infinite Matrix. Likely one universe among many in space and time.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: iahag

Is that a sort wizzard-motivated-and-developed-by diagram ?

Does it make sense to get educated, really ?
According to that diagram, I am below an idiot level :-)))

I checked my the latest IQ results, and it seems to stand - in comparison to that diagram - in completely opposite direction.
Are you sure these numbers correspondent with the real values, vectors, etc. ? Otherwise, I feel depressed :-)))

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: Isherwood Source Is that what you're looking for?

I rest my case. You haven't a clue. and that is sad. a simple word like god is a german word. It doesn't go back to sanscrit. Christ does, but not God. I mean really. we were talking about YOU. Remember? YOU haven't a clue as to who are what god is. Next, the most intelligent thing would have been to deal what the word is translated from. Then what is Elohim from. And for the other readers, Gods is not translated from YHWH so can it. Nor does the bible say YHWH created the heavens and earth. So where does Elohim come from? The point is sick people want to keep dealing with God. It's a personal belief, but it holds no ground with the facts. So their brain stops functioning when it come to a simple matter like the word God. the closest you'll get is to the German word gut, meaning good, or the name in the bible Gad. God in the bible has a split personality, bigtime! It's not the same being. But people can't see it because of a sick personal issue or belief when associating with the term God. Why is God in the singular when Elohim is plural? What do you really want to deal with?

Care to try again? leave everyone elses confusion out, because the source you used is definitely confused. It won't teach you anything. Has it?

[zauhiyq]

I want everyone to know Isherwood went to Dictionary.com
to try and tell me the meaning of God.

What is the origin of the word God?
Ultimately, the origin of the word god is uncertain but it appeared in various spellings in Old English c. 825 and had cognates in the Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Dutch, Old High German, Old Norse, and Gothic languages. There are two Aryan roots - one meaning 'to invoke' (Sanskrit) and the other meaning 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' and 'to boast' (Greek). The word was first used in a non-Christian sense to refer to a superhuman person who was worshipped and believed to have power over nature and the fortunes of man. The words for god were originally neuter, but when Germanic tribes adopted Christianity, God became masculine in form. In the Old Testament various names for God are used: YHWH, Adonai [my Lord], Jehovah, and Yahweh. The most common name for God in the Old Testament is Elohim, a plural form, but used as a singular when speaking of God. The spelling god is first seen in print around 900.

Isn't this sad? How is the origin of the word God uncertain? That's plain stupid. And then it says the word G - O - D is found in various spellings in Old English. My gracious, it's a 3 letter word. Exaclty what word was spelled in various ways????? Hello???? Weak source!. Why doesn't it list the cognates in the Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Dutch, Old High German, Old Norse, and Gothic languages???? This is so funny. Let me explain something to you son, I don't think it's still talking about the word God when it says there are two Aryan roots - one meaning 'to invoke' (Sanskrit) and the other meaning 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' and 'to boast' (Greek). Did you not realize that? God is not a Sanskrit word. Do you know any Sanskrit words? We already know Thoes is God in Greek, so what the hell? Are you dead or just sleep? Wake up!!!! And God was never used to refer to a super human person, it was used to refer to a man, then men who get jealous, angry, rule, control, kill and diseave. Rarely steps in to do things himself, so what kind of person is this? Then it tells you the words for god were originally neuter,but it doesn't tell you this is an Egyptian female and that this is where the word nature comes from. The word God doesn't come from this. See how silly references can be? when you are ready to ready deal with what I'm looking for, you'll be a changed man. I'm looking for those you have done some research. Those who know they have been duped and are ignorant to the word God. A whole new class awaits you. So far you holding on to that word like it means something and it doesn't.

you want to try a different source so I can eat that one up too?

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: agustine To iahag. This is simply a category mistake. Within the substance of your argument you have blurred the distinction between being and becoming, between actual and potential, between necessary and contingent. I think your confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the law of causality. The law of causality provides that all things that begin to exist require a cause. However, the most ardent of atheists agree that something must be uncaused. In the Thomistic sense, something must exist necessarily. This notion of necessary existence is what prompted Sir Fredrick Hoyle to posit the Steady State Model of the Universe which we now know the evidence contravenes. The motivation underlying the Steady State Model is clearly influenced by the principle of necessary existence, the problem resulting from positing an infinite regress and the requirement of absolute origin. Leibnitz, in discussing the law of causality said, "All things that exist must possess an explanation of their existence either in the necessity of their own nature or by an external cause." The Judeo/Christian notion of what we refer to as God clearly contemplates that the reason for His existence is found within Himself. Try to imagine an absolute state of non-being. The exercise itself is tantamount to contemplating a one-ended stick.. It cannot be done. Even more disturbing is the absurd idea that a finite entity has the capacity to create itself. The systemic contradiction contained therein precludes such an absurd thought. The contingent entity would have to precede itself in order to cause itself. The converse leaves us with the most radical idea that nothing can bring something into being. I do not think anyone is prepared to accept that proposition insofar as it would undermine the successful ontological commitment in the history of science, namely ex nilho nilho fit, out of nothing, nothing comes.... I think the premises and thus the conclusion of the Kalam Argument are indisputable: 1. All things that begin to exist require a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the universe requires a cause. If you affirm the premises, which are based upon observation, then you would agree that the conclusion would necessarily follow. God Bless Augustine

I think you are confusing the word god with cause. lol

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: Fonceai Ahhh... I wondered how long it would take. One of the two contradictory questions about God... It's original wording is, "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift" I'm going to start this as a new topic in the Philosophy section.

Before you do that, answer me this: What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am interested in the explanation of your answer.

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: Lotharia The correct answer is: "We don't know." That is a perfectly honest and correct answer if you don't know! Making up fantastic stories about supernatural beings in the sky -- now that's whack.

Thank you. You are wide awake in my book.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: zauhiyq Before you do that, answer me this: What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am interested in the explanation of your answer.

Before I do something I did yesterday or the day before?

Your question initially appears relevant, but it is not a question regarding a fundamental paradox.

[iahag]

Quote by: Rainbow Is that a sort wizzard-motivated-and-developed-by diagram ? Does it make sense to get educated, really ? According to that diagram, I am below an idiot level :-))) I checked my the latest IQ results, and it seems to stand - in comparison to that diagram - in completely opposite direction. Are you sure these numbers correspondent with the real values, vectors, etc. ? Otherwise, I feel depressed :-)))

I have no idea what your babbling on about. Use proper english and specify what precisely your apparently opposite to if youd like an educated reply.

[agustine]

To zauhiyq. I am sorry my friend but you are incorrect. I am positing God as an explanation in the first cause. Its interesting, with respect to the first cause, upon the advent of General Relativity, Mr. Einstein introduced, what he later called his greatest blunder, the cosmological constant in order to yield a static universe, insofar as his theory predicts a finite, bounded and expanding universe, which we now know to be true by observation. Admittedly, he posited the cosmological constant in order to avoid the theistic implications of his theory. Cosmologist and Physicist Dr. Arno Penzias, who, along with Dr. Robert Wilson, won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the cosmic background microwave radiation, the very echo of the Standard Cosmological Model otherwise known as the Big Bang, in commenting on his discovery and the fact that based upon the empirical evidence it is reasonable to deduce an underlying teleological construct for the existence of the universe, Dr. Penzias said "the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole" I hope I have been clear regarding the intention of my argument.

God Bless

Augustine

[agustine]

To shunyadragon. I have never seen a viable refutation of the Kalam argument.

Augustine

[agustine]

To shunyadragon. I am sorry but your Infinite Matrix is merely a metaphysical proposition, not one that can be, on the basis of the existing evidence, extrapolated into reality. Quoting the great Mathematician David Hilbert, "the actual infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." citing “On the Infinite,” in Philosophy of Mathematics, pp. 139, 141. Infinites as understood within set theory are merely potential and not actual. Not withstanding Mackie and Oppy, one of the most conspicuous problems with logical operations involving transfinite numbers is the fact that they yield self-contradictory results, which a priori brings into doubt the truth quotient of the actual infinites. The various multiverse models that have been proposed, although also metaphysical propositions, have certain characteristics in common; one of which is the necessity of an absolute origin. A singularity appears to be unavoidable. Quoting Physicist Paul Davies, "If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space–time, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space–time itself." citing "Space–time Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time, pp. 78–79. Unless you are willing to forgo the most successful ontological commitment in the history of science, to wit: ex nihilo, nihil fit, excepting of course Quentin Smith, see Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause”, Philosophical Topics, pp. 169-191, which is and of itself quite radical, I submit to you that I find no defect in the Kalam argument. Now you commented that the Kalam argument has been refuted, yet you did not offer a refutation, nor did you even allude to a specific refutation. All that you did was offer an alternative. Accordingly, I repeat, I have never seen a viable refutation of the Kalam argument. I anxiously await the forthcomming refutation.

Thank you my friend..

Augustine

[Rainbow]

Quote by: iahag I have no idea what your babbling on about. Use proper english and specify what precisely your apparently opposite to if youd like an educated reply.

Off Topic
You have submitted that diagram yourself.
(Is that my fault and/or dilemma you have problems with understanding and/or comprehending expressed thoughts with a reference to that diagram ?)
Yet, you have complaints ? :-)

On Topic
That diagram your have posted carries absurdal data.

Answering to this thread's main topic

Quote by: iahag In our universe as we know it, for things to change we need to be 'moving' in time. Lets extrapolate this to worlds such as a God's perhaps. Theists maintain that things just dont 'appear' out of nowhere. This is a common argument for God (out of ignorance). So by that logic, I can say that god did not just appear out of nowhere, I can further this and say that God MUST have experienced some form of time during his existence to be there. Why? Because infinite does not exist in any world ever. You cannot maintain that god's presence has been everywhere forever. key assumption(well I consider this absolute fact, a logical inevitability): Everything anywhere that is in the real universe is universally balanced. Infinite implies irrational imbalance.

Off Topic
N/A
(I believe that answer to the issues you brought, goes well beyond this thread, Volcanvo forum itself, etc.
Complaints ?
Look back into your own life. That may give you some clues.)

On Topic
Before we proceed to a debating stage, I would like you to expand your material(s) into some detailed and/or precized informations.
Since you raise the issue on a particular subject, then define it, please.
(No stereotypes, please.)

Do you know what/who God is ?
How do you know God resides in the world we live-in, along with its constant presence ?
Can you provide a data on the very first atom's creation ?
How do you know that there is the only Universe we reside-in, right now ?

You provide not enough data in order to support your claims, except for :
- assumptions, speculations, etc.

Despite of technological and scientific progress along with efforts made so far, but we still have no clue on the world we live-in, yet you state and/or claim God's non-existence ?
I do not want you to feel offended, but (unfortunately) you present an immature approach on a subject you raise.

God is dead - Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is dead - God.

[knowman]

Think About It

Think about an Atom and the Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons that circle around its Nucleus.
In the beginning God “the nucleus of this Atom” created the heaven “the area between this nucleus and the under side of this planet, we call Earth.
At that time it was void and without form, and the surface of this planet was covered in total darkness, the Spirit of God was inside only reflecting back in upon itself, until He decided to create other spirits, as He was alone so far in His doings.
God created His first Spirit, the Proton, the positive, the Christ, and by doing so He also created a second most beautiful spirit the Electron which went it’s own way being cast outward from the nucleus, “leaving God’s love, called Gravity” and in searching for it’s own path, penetrated the under side of the surface of what we call Earth, the moment it came through to the surface it let God’s light out, but it also let darkness into His heaven and He saw darkness for the very first time.
God also created a balancing Spirit called a Neutron, known now as the Holy Ghost or a neutral Spirit, this Spirit is the Knowledge of good and evil, its the area where the protons and neutrons accomplish their tasks.
It was this way that after much time passed that Adam was created and everything else that was or would be created was created, Adam was patterned after the proton, and Eve was patterned after the electron.
He called His first Electron Lucifer, because he was a loose sphere and was the cause of life on the surface of our planet and the beginning of the flesh.
And when it is said “the evening and the morning were the first day He meant Age as there’s is Seven Ages, and we are mid way into that seven Ages, it took us that long to go from spirit to dense body, and it will take about that much time to go back to Spirit which is His plan.
We were created to perform a mission and when that’s done we will go on to the next mission.

Knowman

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: agustine To zauhiyq. I am sorry my friend but you are incorrect. I am positing God as an explanation in the first cause. Its interesting, with respect to the first cause, upon the advent of General Relativity, Mr. Einstein introduced, what he later called his greatest blunder, the cosmological constant in order to yield a static universe, insofar as his theory predicts a finite, bounded and expanding universe, which we now know to be true by observation. Admittedly, he posited the cosmological constant in order to avoid the theistic implications of his theory. Cosmologist and Physicist Dr. Arno Penzias, who, along with Dr. Robert Wilson, won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the cosmic background microwave radiation, the very echo of the Standard Cosmological Model otherwise known as the Big Bang, in commenting on his discovery and the fact that based upon the empirical evidence it is reasonable to deduce an underlying teleological construct for the existence of the universe, Dr. Penzias said "the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole" I hope I have been clear regarding the intention of my argument. God Bless Augustine

My point is the term. term "God". Doesn't have a role in this. We use term out of ignorance and it is no excuse. Like when we were calling the people discovered here by Columbus, "Indians", because he thought he was in Indian. When we should have been calling them Native Americans or what ever their tribal names were. Even in our history curriculum they were referred to as Indians just 10 to 15 years ago. People still use the term God without a clue or understanding to what it is, who it is, where the term came from or how it was meant to be used, etc.
When it comes to the term, much of the influences surrounding it is already rooted in ignorance. God or Cause, which is it?

[iahag]

Quote by: Rainbow Off Topic That diagram your have posted carries absurdal data.

Lets forget about the diagram, Im not even sure of its validility. It just got caught up in one of my rants.

Quote by: Rainbow Off Topic Do you know what/who God is ? How do you know God resides in the world we live-in, along with its constant presence ? Can you provide a data on the very first atom's creation ? How do you know that there is the only Universe we reside-in, right now ? You provide not enough data in order to support your claims, except for : - assumptions, speculations, etc. Despite of technological and scientific progress along with efforts made so far, but we still have no clue on the world we live-in, yet you state and/or claim God's non-existence ? Nietzsche is dead - God.

You obviously havent read my other posts.