God Does Not Exist

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Odd, religion is sooo demographic. Obviously some fetuses need a life that would be impossible to end in faith, while others fetuses need a life which can only lead to faith from the beginning of their upbringing to the end. Does that really make sense to you? Right, it's far more valuable to already think you know everything than to know you don't know everything. That way, we can forget about the improvement of human life in favor of reserving our place in a imaginary second life with a supernatural being that loves us as said by a very old religious book out of the many hundreds of religious books. Screw the earth! Jesus is coming to destroy all and we'll ascend to a new life in Heaven! Screw the progress of science and medicine! Our time here is meaningless when we get to live eternally in bliss in our second life. God's plan is absurd and repulsive. He chooses to remain elusive so that he can test the faith of his own creations. This elusiveness is precisely what leads millions of people to suffer for billions and trillions and billions of years plus an eternity in Hell. That's part of God's plan? To torture countless millions of people? Why doesn't he come down here as our father and teach us right and wrong. Why doesn't he show us the way? Face it, if you had a father that never showed himself to you, and you had no solid proof that he existed, but a homeless guy on the street (who's credibility you have no clue about) told you what your father wants you to do and if you didn't do what he said you would be taken to a tool shed where you would would be chained up and tortured with knifes and hot iron.. you would immediately claim that your father was mentally insane and REPULSIVE. Or the homeless guy is mentally insane. That's how it's like for non-believers. That's what it feels like for me. Face it, God isn't real. That's why the Bible has to threaten others with Hell. If God were real, and good, he wouldn't be the elusive father in my above example. That's sick, disturbing, and repulsive. Tell me, what finite sin deserves infinite punishment?

:::Cries:::
Why do you have to be so blunt?
Why do you have to use coherent logic to put down religous dogma?
Why do you use common sense to shut down the argument of religous psedo-justifications of Hell and infinite punishment?
Why? WHY!?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Fonceai Part a) fails. I agree that God would know and God would be able to stop, but where it fails is on the word want. That's assuming motivation, and thus defining God.

Suffering = bad.
God = omnibenevolent
Why would an omnibenevolent god inflict suffering upon those he loved?

Quote by: Fonceai Part b) fails. It's not that God is incapable of proving his existence. It's that God chooses not to. By saying "could" you imply inability, not indifference or some other sort of choice.

Again, an omnibenevolent god would not be indifferent.

Quote by: Fonceai Part b) fails. This, again, is assuming motivation on behalf of God. As counterproof, further Christian mythology tells the story of what happened to Jesus after his death. He went to Hell. After all, he was full of the sins of all humanity for all humanity's existence. In Hell, Jesus gathered together all of those who were sent to Hell not because they were sinners but because they could not live according to the true Gospel of Jesus. This, in addition to the fact that God allowed his own son to go to Hell, doesn't jive with your third claim.

Surely the fact that God did let his son go to Hell works in favour of Castle’s argument. Why would an all-loving god allow this to happen?
_____

The incompatibility between suffering and God hinges on the god in question being both omnipotent (able to stop the suffering) and omnibenevolent (willing to stop the suffering). Note, omnibenevolence is not actually a concept which is heavily touched on in the bible, but it is a feature of the generally accepted model of the Christian god.

[Kuroko]

I would like to point out, that the god portrayed does not represent god in general. From an arguement point of view, there needs to be a highlight that the christian sense of god is the one being questioned.

Much of these arguements including the one's focused arround theists version of god can be countered by the logic that if YOU were god wanting to test the faith of your creations would you REALLY give them certain truth?

I mean.. where the HELL is the test of faith in that?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Kuroko I would like to point out, that the god portrayed does not represent god in general. From an arguement point of view, there needs to be a highlight that the christian sense of god is the one being questioned.

That was made clear in the OP.

Quote by: Kuroko Much of these arguements including the one's focused arround theists version of god can be countered by the logic that if YOU were god wanting to test the faith of your creations would you REALLY give them certain truth? I mean.. where the HELL is the test of faith in that?

The question really is why the hell an all-loving god would want to test his creations' faith in the first place, in full knowledge that many will fail and be condemned to Hell.

[Fonceai]

The Bible really never claims god is all-loving. That's why the "omnibenevolent" argument fails. It's attributing a personality characteristic to God that isn't based on Christian documentation.

Jesus going to Hell, for example, is proof that God isn't all loving.

That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. That means that clearly God isn't all loving.

As I wrote, I agree with the conclusion, I just think those examples are too weak.

[Kuroko]

The question really is why the hell an all-loving god would want to test his creations' faith in the first place, in full knowledge that many will fail and be condemned to Hell.

Does it really stand to reason that a truelly free willed creation would be predictable? indeed there would be a percentage of people who would go to "hell" however that is a choice.

And that I think is what Hell is, there is a stigma of hell, and of heaven perhaps, I would imagine hell is a choice of alternative instead of heaven.

Qualities which qualify one for heaven are admitted, those not have a place other then heaven, by definition any such place would be hell.

"burning and suffering" or torture I think is an image portrayed even in the bible to get the point accross that this really is NOT a nice place. As pointed out by my friends this is a place where violence, sex and fun happens? how does that sound like hell...

These are all things which are measured on I guess an earthly sense, the soul or very center of these incentives are what presides in this place called hell, all that attitude and feelings towards others and even themselves... I believe that would trancend even a mortal limit.

As for the all loving aspect, suffering, pain, sorrow exist in this world, that is true, I can still choose to live some one regardless of thier status, I can love some one if they are a heroin adict, I can love some one who hates me, I can love some one who loves me even more then I love them..

I can love some one in prison, that isn't the point, the point is, how can god justify being loving and at the same time being indifferent, and that I believe would be answered by choice, it comes right back arround for a theist to argue that there would be no test of faith without doubt, and you cannot say that choice was not an option before we were born either, in the context of a theists arguement there may have been a choice for our souls to be born and then tested on this earth and that we full well knew our consequences before hand.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary This debate has only served to: 1)Further convince atheists that halfway intelligent theists (I like to think I'm one) are fantastically stubborn and ignorant bastards who pretend to believe in God to manipulate logical atheists to fulfill their sadistic fantasies. 2)Further convince Theists that Atheists are unimaginative rodents who are so tied up in their concept of logic they can't see the logic in God possibly existing.

Wow, I just came back from a debating hiatus, and I find all these objections to my responses. But I realize that basically, I'd be saying the same thing over and over again, just as you'd be saying the same things. We'd often get circular in our arguments as well.

I should note that if argumentation continues and one side seems to be winning more, then yes, that side may be more appealing. However, I should note that if one side has absolute evidence, arguments, etc. that it is true, then it would have won a long time ago. But really, we're still unsure today. If you could come up with a totally sound argument that ultimately proves whatever you're trying to say, then please show it. I don't think either side in this debate has one.

That's why I urge agnosticism; I agree that this debate is futile.

Quote by: Castle It most definitely means "unknown". The gnosticism scale deals with certainty of belief, while the theism scale deals with what that belief actually is.

Also, look up the definition of agnostism/gnosticism in a philosophical dictionary please.

Thus, I revert back to all my old responses, because you haven't really done much to them. Don't think of this as my medieval response to your grand, established reason and excellent thinking power, but I really think this is going nowhere. And I originally responded to the arguments just to show that gnosticism has loopholes, regardless of whether its theist or atheist. Then again, I might respond to some stuff if I get more time, but it will be pointless in my opinion.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Fonceai The Bible really never claims god is all-loving. That's why the "omnibenevolent" argument fails. It's attributing a personality characteristic to God that isn't based on Christian documentation.

I think Castle was attacking the commonly held view of the Christian god, rather than the scriptural one. If he was trying to disprove the scriptures, it would probably have been better to go for the Islamic version of God, aka "Ar-Rahman".

Also, on a side note, your "stronger" reason for disbelieveing in the Christian god is not logically or scientifically valid. Your reason for disbelieveing is due to flaws in the method by which the concept of God was arrived at, rather than in the concept itself.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Kuroko Does it really stand to reason that a truelly free willed creation would be predictable?

It stands to reason that, to an omniscient god, everything would be predictable. The choice argument fails on the first line.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Bacon Also, on a side note, your "stronger" reason for disbelieveing in the Christian god is not logically or scientifically valid. Your reason for disbelieveing is due to flaws in the method by which the concept of God was arrived at, rather than in the concept itself.

Logically or scientifically valid is an issue with something like this, always.

But for me, it wasn't like it was a shared experience of God where people came together and they all had the same stuff to say about it.

I can't believe something is spiritual truth if there are aspects of it that had to be voted on.

That is logical and valid enough for me.

[The Bacon Guy]

Likewise, but until there is actual proof of the god's non-existence, or logical contradictions within the idea, one can't say, on a philosophical level, that the god's non-existence is certain.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Likewise, but until there is actual proof of the god's non-existence, or logical contradictions within the idea, one can't say, on a philosophical level, that the god's non-existence is certain.

This thread is about the logical contradictions of the Christian god.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Isherwood I await your demonstration.

KA's statement applies to all humans.
Zhavric is a human.
Zhavric does not "know" there is a god.
Therefor KA's statement is false.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Lullaby This thread is about the logical contradictions of the Christian god.

I'm aware of that; I was simply addressing a point of Fonceai's.

[Zhavric]

Hello. I'm the quote button. Have we met? I function by highlighting text and then clicking the button that looks like a thought bubble. If you hold your mouse above it, it states "Wrap {QUOTE} tags around selected text".

Quote by: KillerArgument Not really, if alleviation of suffering is not the greatest good--and it isn't. Biblically, God's glory is the highest ideal.

This argument fails because god is all-knowing. He has to know how badly people are suffering / has walked miles in EVERYONE'S shoes / etc. Your argument is simply part of Christian propaganda which has, for the last 1800 years, done its best to reconcile how a loving god can allow suffering. It's a spin campaign of 18 centuries and it's as much BS now as it was in the bronze age.

Who died and made you God? Support your assertion with logic.

Question for you: Do you need to open and look inside a shoe box to know there's not a full grown living elephant inside it? No? Ah, good. Then you understand that we can know things about our universe through logic (a word I'm not so sure you comprehend fully...)

An all-loving god cannot committ a sin. Innaction in the face of suffering is also a sin.

You mean to tell me you actually believe that Zeus did NOT create thunder??

That'd be funny if you hadn't completely dodged my question.

Complex structures occur naturally NOW. But they did not COME INTO EXISTENCE naturally. (sorry, I don't have italics.)

Support this claim or retract it. Your posts are big on statements and small on things like evidence.

Maybe according to logic, but not according to reality. It makes you mad because God said it, and you know it's true.

Ridiculous. See the post above. You're merely spouting Christian propaganda at this point.

Logically, how do you know there is no Hell?

Because hell is a claim which contradicts existing proven claims and is therefor "false until proven true". No evidence of hell exists, therefor it is false until you're able to provide evidence of it. You probably believe that hell involves a lot of burning, don't you?

How come all the pagans in here make assertions without logic, but the Christian has to use logic. Seems kinda racist to me.

I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but "pagan" and "Christian" aren't races. Fortunately for you, neither is troll else you may have some problems.

The gospel Jesus never existed.

[/quote]

Can't imagine why you didn't address this one... lol

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Do you need to open and look inside a shoe box to know there's not a full grown living elephant inside it?

This isn't a relevant comparison.

The size of a standard shoe box is already known.

The size of an adult elephant is already known.

Because you know them both, the conclusion about the elephant in the shoe box is already based on two things for which any person on Earth can verify.

It does not properly address the issue of faith.

Quote by: Z You're merely spouting Christian propaganda at this point.

This post is specifically about Christian propaganda.

Quote by: Z Because hell is a claim which contradicts existing proven claims and is therefor "false until proven true". No evidence of hell exists, therefor it is false until you're able to provide evidence of it.

How many different links to scientific method do you need to read before you get it through your head that what I quoted above can never be the foundation for an argument.

Two opposing assertions (there are apples on the table, there are no apples on the table) need to be proven independently.

A claim has to stand on its own, it cannot use the failure of opposing claims as evidence.

There are multiple people here who have tried to illustrate this for you correctly; the concept that each claim must be proven independent of other claims.

I'll start a whole new thread about the Argument From Ignorance fallacy.

---

Your post was also rife with insult and condescension. I don't care how closely it flirts with the rules, it may not be outright flaming but it's enough for me.

---

See the thread in the Science section: False Until Proven True

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai How many different links to scientific method do you need to read before you get it through your head that what I quoted above can never be the foundation for an argument.

Fonceai, I am sick to DEATH of this ridiculous assertion you've made over and over.

I've repeatedly claimed that claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true and you've NEVER... not once... proven otherwise. All you've done is piled up loads of fallacies, stamped your feat, buried your head in the sand to avoid admitting proven claims are actually proven claims and provided links to other related concepts that don't address my specific claim (like the scientific method).

It's time for you to stop trolling on this topic and argue honestly.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Fonceai, I am sick to DEATH of this ridiculous assertion you've made over and over.

Yet you love responding to it...

Quote by: Z I've repeatedly claimed that claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true and you've NEVER... not once... proven otherwise.

I did. I made a thread about it. What you are stating is ignorance, by definition.

Quote by: Z It's time for you to stop trolling on this topic and argue honestly.

I am arguing as honestly as you are. The problem is your assertion is ignorant. Literally defined as an argument from ignorance. Go check out the other thread... it pretty much spells out "honestly" how science approaches claims and counterclaims.

[Zhavric]

Let's take this over here.

[rokinross]

Castle fank u so much god dose not exist and ur reason are good as any i have ever seen look at my thread on Religon the con