Proof that God does not exist...

[iahag]

Quote by: 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

I see...

So good sir, would you care to explain the all of the fundamental particles listed on this page.

I strongly suggest you read some books.

Am I the only one who feels sorry for people who have clearly been indoctrinated from birth? Its funny, they will condemn you until they realise just how complex the world we live in really is.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: iahag You obviously havent read my other posts.

I re-read you very first post, that initializes this thread, and re-post your own concept for God's non-existence. Here, it is :

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.

That is not quite correct, since (according to mathematical notions) :
- infinity works in both directions, upkeeping a balance intact, perfectly

Therefore :
God is dead - iahag
iahag (along with assumptions) is incorrect - Rainbow
:-)

[iahag]

Well I would tell you why your negative infinity argument is futile, but I cant be bothered. Theres no reasoning with people who make sweeping generalizations about where I stand on the issue of god just because Im arguing one side of the debate. Hell Im not even arguing, Im merely asking how theists 'rationalize' this and providing possible counter feedback.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: iahag Well I would tell you why your negative infinity argument is futile, but I cant be bothered. Theres no reasoning with people who make sweeping generalizations about where I stand on the issue of god just because Im arguing one side of the debate. Hell Im not even arguing, Im merely asking how theists 'rationalize' this and providing possible counter feedback.

I have neither made and/or created any mathematical notion, nor I am a mathematician. I merely applied mathematical notion of infinity - used as an argument, by yourself - instead, which can be used as a "positive" value, as well as a "negative" one, respectively.
Therefore, polemizing on my alleged "negative" infinity is incorrect assertion and/or statement, since it is not my paternity but the result of complex works made by others for years, instead.
(Battle and/or wrestle with those guys, then.)

Do you think any potential counter-feedback is going to replace and/or reverse mathemathics with some revolutionized works ?
I am not interested in your concept for the world we live-in, but arguments you use in order to support it, what summarizes it as : syllogism.

[iahag]

I am not interested in your concept for the world we live-in, but arguments you use in order to support it, what summarizes it as : syllogism.

Im glad we agree on something

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: iahag I see... So good sir, would you care to explain the all of the fundamental particles listed on this page. I strongly suggest you read some books. Am I the only one who feels sorry for people who have clearly been indoctrinated from birth? Its funny, they will condemn you until they realise just how complex the world we live in really is.

You can say that again. I'm with you there.

[iahag]

Quote by: zauhiyq You can say that again. I'm with you there.

Funny we should percieve each other in identical ways. Actually thats wrong, I dont consider you indoctrinated or 'wrong' if there is such a thing anyway. However, when people like the person above me try to justify scientific discoveries with there theistic nonsense (which isnt in the bible), then I would call them indoctrinated.
The core difference between me being fed bullshit since I was two years old and the guy above me being fed bullshit since he was two is that Im encouraged to question everything, justify everything fed to me by myself, and realise when something is merely a theory and when something is a rigorous proof (which only exists in maths).
Well I could talk shit to counter shit till Im dead ... So Im gonna stop, just wanted to point out why I dont consider myself indoctrinated.

ps: If anyone else who trys to make the claim, directly or indirectly, sarcastically or not sarcastically, that I think I know whether fuzzbot and friends exist or not, then Im going to stick my head through the plaster wall in front of me.

[Mocca]

Quote by: 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

You know, the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest electrons don't orbit the nucleus. Quantum Mechanics. Get with the program, this is 1925's stuff.

And the rest of your post is just a theoretical proposition with no evidence to support it.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: 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

I will gladly start a thread on the Kalam argument, but here I will respond to some of these points. Like God, the IM does not depend on the the existence of an 'actual infinite,' which also may easily exist depending on the logic you use. Would the absence of an 'actual infinte' than disprove the existence of God?

Statements you cited on the nature properties of our universe, which of course is finite with a likely beginning and an end, would only apply to a universe. The IM is the source of the universe and likely other universes in the infinite time and space of the IM. The argument for the IM is based on what we know of the natural universe around us. We have no evidence of a supernatural cause for the universe, and within the universe all the evidence of cause and effect is decidedly natural.

The IM does not have a beginning or an end in time and space. It is the birth place, home and burial place for universes due to the same natural concequences of cause and effect that tikes place in our universe that results in the birth life and death of galaxies, stars and planets, and then of course life on the planets.

[Kuroko]

You know.

I am seeing this alot and have already seen this a number of times.

But, why is it people whome argue the non-existance of god take the stance of "If god exists why do so many people die for X and X religions in the name of god, why is there so much suffering" etcetera.

I have the perfect arguement for this, and it goes along the same mind-frame so it's pretty much especially designed for these people.

What scenario's you have just described are perfect not for the arguement over the non-existance of god, but instead over the existance of evil, indeed of even the devil.

Now, if the innactions of god were enough to disprove god, then these actions could be said to be the work of evil, and for there to be a devil that means there must be a god.

The bible makes mention that to those who don't want to hear but say they do it's words will seem obscure. I want every one to remember that horific things done to people are usually done by other people... therefore leave god out of that equation.

On the statement that god seems too human.. may I remind you we were made in his image, not the physical sense, get the literal meanings of the words out of your heads. The ability to make up our own minds, to imagine, to believe or disbelieve.

[Castle]

No doubt this has already been said, but I'm too lazy to read through 8 pages of posts, so I apologize for the redundancy.

Quote by: iahag What/who created god?

That which has no beginning does not require a creator. It simply is.

[iahag]

That which has no beginning does not require a creator. It simply is.

Would you please define beginning.

[Castle]

Quote by: Iahag Would you please define beginning.

X has a beginning if there was a point in time in which X did not exist prior to a point in time in which X did exist.

[iahag]

So you postulate that God experiences time yet he was here forever (in this case did time have a beginning?, if so, was god was created at the point time came into existence or prior to that?) or you postulate that god does not experience time at all, and so by your very definition of time, did not have a beginning and will not have an end or a middle.
[assuming you define 'end' and 'middle' in similar ways to you did beginning]

[Castle]

Quote by: iahag you postulate that god does not experience time at all?

Accurate enough, although we'd also do well to note that although God exists in timelessness (he must, as He created the universe, and therefore doesn't exist in it), He can move into the universe (as evidenced by Jesus, burning bush, Sinai, etc.)

[Kuroko]

Castle, let me refraise your statement not for you but instead using the same purpose (I have used this before and it is different to your own so please don't believe me to be a thief of convictions and beliefs).

God, the one who created the universe and the rules and laws within it, and the stupidest and most obsurd idea I have EVER heard is that God, the creator of the universe and the rules of it (which is, that which exists had a begining and has an end to that existance) is bound by the very laws he created. That is obsurd like I have never heard obsurd before.

[luke virtual kh]

• Only natural things exist.
  
• God is not a natural thing.
  
• Ergo, God does not exist.

[Castle]

Quote by: Kuroko God, the one who created the universe and the rules and laws within it, and the stupidest and most obsurd idea I have EVER heard is that God, the creator of the universe and the rules of it (which is, that which exists had a begining and has an end to that existance) is bound by the very laws he created.

I'm not so certain there. My understanding is that certain things do bind God, like morality (God can only do 'good things'), perfection (God cannot, say, cease to exist), and logic (God cannot, say, both exist and not exist at the same time). I would agree, though, that the laws of the universe (all of the above are part of God's nature, which is different) cannot bind their creator.

Quote by: luke virtual kh 1) Only natural things exist.

Support?

[Kuroko]

I'm not so certain there. My understanding is that certain things do bind God, like morality (God can only do 'good things'), perfection (God cannot, say, cease to exist), and logic (God cannot, say, both exist and not exist at the same time). I would agree, though, that the laws of the universe (all of the above are part of God's nature, which is different) cannot bind their creator.

I hate to have to argue against you but I must defend my statement. (we share a common goal with our statements).

I'm not so certain there. My understanding is that certain things do bind God, like morality (God can only do 'good things')

I believe you are misinterpreting one thing ^_^.
God can only do good things.
Every thing which God does is good.
Which implies choice and also sounds the most correct.

perfection (God cannot, say, cease to exist)

How does this encompase perfection?

and logic (God cannot, say, both exist and not exist at the same time).

I will use an annalogy here.
If there were a peanut on a table, and I ate the peanut, would the peanut cease to exist?

Yet the peanut did cease to exist on the table.
Expand, table now means universe, peanut equals yourself and the eater of the peanut equats to god while the action of eating now equates to the will of god, the choice of god to allow the existance of a peanut to exist on the table or not exist on the table has no say over weather the peanut exists, and yet, in accordance the peanut does NOT exist on the table yet still exists.

Existance is one such law applicable to this universe, to be one must exist.

I would agree, though, that the laws of the universe (all of the above are part of God's nature, which is different) cannot bind their creator.

Apparantly you agree with me, therefore, removing the laws of this universe which was created by god, it is possible to exist AND not exist.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: Castle Support?

Arguments for naturalism.

1. Scientific precedent. Science succesfully fills gaps in knowledge, often replacing supernaturalist views but never vice versa, and it's explanations and methodology are completely naturalistic.
   
2. Naturalism provides better explanations of phenomena with fewer ad hoc assumptions.
   
3. Absence of reliable evidence for the supernatural and abundant evidence of the natural.
   
4. Our observationally confirmed slowly evolved brains and lives support naturalism as slow evolution is required in an naturalistic universe, but things would probably be otherwise if supernaturalism were true.
   
5. Weighing up the evidence in a critical (not faith based) manner one concludes that supernaturalism is an implausible alternative to naturalism.