The non-existence of God

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
I think it's particulary funny that when Science finally hit that point where it had to delve into metaphysics, concepts like the multiverse and super string theory, you kind of have to ask yourself how in the world did this even get created. Atheism is losing ground by all the recent scientific discoveries, and even more so with our exploration into certain cosmic events (like dark matter for example).

It's even more baffling when someone asserts that this was all just created out of nothing. Like there is no purpose to anything, it just happened and that's it. Now that assertion must be put into question, not God.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Entscheidungsproblem said:
FatherHLL said:
Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?
You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.
Whether or not we live in an infinite multiverse (which I doubt that can actually be "tested"), to assign God to the naturalistic world is no different than deistic or pantheistic at best and has ultimately no different purpose than atheism, but a personal God is one that which someone prays to, and develops a relationship with.  It's only proven through this relationship, I believe, through works.  If infinite and cyclical is something that the human mind can actually conceive of, then God by definition is much bigger than that.

I've been stressing works as an important component of our faith, that is humanitarian and at the same time ascetic lifestyles.  The problem I feel is that among us Christians, we believe, but we don't act or show the effect of our beliefs.  I think discussing this is useless if we don't "walk the talk" so to speak.  How can I show you how God exists through these words on a computer if I can't show you how God exists through my actions?  I believe we, Christians, reap atheism from what we sow, that is do essentially and collectively when we do nothing, as if God doesn't exist, we give birth to those who believe that God doesn't exist.

Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
FatherHLL said:
^A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.   
"Gotta play your hand, cuz sometimes the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay em down.." truckin

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Jetavan said:
Even cycles have a beginning. Someone has to spin the wheel to get it going.
Brilliant!
 

sainthieu

High Elder
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
621
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The only mystery I see is 'why are you here' in this forum? Clearly, you're interested in nothing more than venting your ill-informed and juvenile hostility toward those who have never done anything to provoke you.  Why don't you toddle off to a Muslim forum and entertain them. Oh, sorry; you wouldn't have the nerve.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
FatherHLL said:
Papist said:
Entscheidungsproblem said:
FatherHLL said:
Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?
You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.
All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy. 
Right, it does not eliminate the problem of causality but buries it in several more steps so that people bail before getting to the fact that the problem still exists without God. 
If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms. A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain. Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.

If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
GiC said:
FatherHLL said:
Papist said:
Entscheidungsproblem said:
FatherHLL said:
Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?
You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.
All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy.  
Right, it does not eliminate the problem of causality but buries it in several more steps so that people bail before getting to the fact that the problem still exists without God.  
If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms.
That's why one is called Creator, and the other creation.  If the First Cause was just a cause like all the rest, then at best you would have deism, but more likely monism.
GiC said:
A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain.
Why explain Him? We can know Him, while watching the cosmologists entertain us with their tales of big bangs, strings, dark energy, and other theories du jour.
GiC said:
Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.
Yes, what would we do without you to tell us what to think. Who needs revelation when we have Greeki's assertions?

GiC said:
If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.
Then we would end up chasing our tails with the monists. And the cosmologists.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
GiC said:
If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms. A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain. Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.
If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.
I disagree.  The proposed multiverse is still part of a bounded system and therefore cannot be eternal.  The problem of the multiverse theory is that the explanation of cause is still within the system itself.  God predates the system.  The gods of Hinduism or other religions are concurrent with the system and part of the system of nature, therefore, they have a need of causality, as the system has bounds, therefore one could propose “everlasting past” but not eternity, as the system is bounded.  If our current universe did not have bounds including physical laws and time, space, energy/mass, etc. then it would require no causal explanation whatsoever.  Likewise, the God of Christianity requires no explanation of cause as he is unbounded, unlike the bounded system of universe or even multiverses, even if we exponentiate them, they still can only draw nearer to infinity, but cannot reach it.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
FatherHLL said:
God predates the system.   The gods of Hinduism or other religions are concurrent with the system and part of the system of nature....
True, because the gods, or devas, of Hinduism are more analogous to the angels of Christianity. The God of Christianity is analogous to the Brahman of Hinduism, Brahman being that which transcends the fields of causality.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Also, multiverse theory still does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.  It simply seeks to explain how something rather than nothing can exist without the need for a transcendent creator. 
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
Achronos said:
It's even more baffling when someone asserts that this was all just created out of nothing.
Isn't Creatio ex Nihilo a dogmatic teaching in the Orthodox Church?

TryingtoConvert said:
The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?
As far as arguing for the "existence" of God, does not apophaticism show us that in a very true sense, God does not "exist", at least not in a manner we are able to fully comprehend? God is uncreated, therefore He does not exist in the conventional sense. He is no creature.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alveus Lacuna said:
Achronos said:
It's even more baffling when someone asserts that this was all just created out of nothing.
Isn't Creatio ex Nihilo a dogmatic teaching in the Orthodox Church?
TryingtoConvert said:
The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?
As far as arguing for the "existence" of God, does not apophaticism show us that in a very true sense, God does not "exist", at least not in a manner we are able to fully comprehend? God is uncreated, therefore He does not exist in the conventional sense. He is no creature.
1.  Yes ex nihilo creation is a dogma.  Also, twice in the Liturgy every week we acknowledge that God "brought us from non-existence into being..."
2.  Right, if we are speaking of existence as what we know as existence (circumscribed, bounded, etc.) or anything relative to it, we cannot apply such existence to God, and therefore He is beyond existence in such a context.   
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
GiC said:
FatherHLL said:
Papist said:
Entscheidungsproblem said:
FatherHLL said:
Really?  There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?
You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events.  What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been?  Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.
All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy.  
Right, it does not eliminate the problem of causality but buries it in several more steps so that people bail before getting to the fact that the problem still exists without God.  
If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms.
That's why one is called Creator, and the other creation.  If the First Cause was just a cause like all the rest, then at best you would have deism, but more likely monism.
So you don't have to explain the system because you gave it a different name, wow! Do you even read this dribble before you post it? A monkey throwing feces at a keyboard could have come up with a better response.

GiC said:
A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain.
Why explain Him? We can know Him, while watching the cosmologists entertain us with their tales of big bangs, strings, dark energy, and other theories du jour.
GiC said:
Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.
Yes, what would we do without you to tell us what to think. Who needs revelation when we have Greeki's assertions?
Who needs 'revelation' when they have half a brain and even the tiniest shred of common sense?

GiC said:
If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.
Then we would end up chasing our tails with the monists. And the cosmologists.
So instead you just bury your head in the sand?
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
FatherHLL said:
GiC said:
If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms. A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain. Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.
If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.
I disagree.  The proposed multiverse is still part of a bounded system and therefore cannot be eternal.  The problem of the multiverse theory is that the explanation of cause is still within the system itself.   God predates the system.   The gods of Hinduism or other religions are concurrent with the system and part of the system of nature, therefore, they have a need of causality, as the system has bounds, therefore one could propose “everlasting past” but not eternity, as the system is bounded.   If our current universe did not have bounds including physical laws and time, space, energy/mass, etc. then it would require no causal explanation whatsoever.   Likewise, the God of Christianity requires no explanation of cause as he is unbounded, unlike the bounded system of universe or even multiverses, even if we exponentiate them, they still can only draw nearer to infinity, but cannot reach it.
How does being bound imply not infinite? Furthermore, please define these bounds. Are you suggesting finite bounds or infinite bounds? If the latter, to what degree are these bounds? From my reading of the theory, if true the multiverse would encompass unbounded uncountably infinite time...sounds a lot like eternity to me.

Furthermore, something being unbounded hardly gets you out of an explanation; if it did it would have made my math classes easier, but it would have also been cheating.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
FatherHLL said:
Also, multiverse theory still does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.   It simply seeks to explain how something rather than nothing can exist without the need for a transcendent creator. 
Why, as a meaningful question, is simply 'How did this become'. Now, when it's construed to be asking for 'purpose' or 'intent', then it's a simply a meaningless question because the response is tautological: there is none.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
384
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Earth
minasoliman said:
Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.
If you're serious you're seriously deranged. I mean let's face it the Jews were first so they must be right, while the Muslims got the last prophet so they must be right, Hindus are all inclusive so they must be right. At least Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are relatively self-consistent. Christianity is a joke. An omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy was so incompetent he created creatures that he allowed to do what he didn't want them to do, so he punished them for doing what he had given them the ability to do and then turned himself into one of them and had himself tortured to death to fix the problem he had created in the first place. Get real, Christianity is a waste of time, space, effort and resources. If you really believe in a Christian God you are definitely not really engaging in reality.

Fortunately I don't live in an aggressive theocracy like Saudi Arabia, the USA or Pakistan. I don't have to put up with being abused by nasty, self-centred, arrogant, proselytising, delusional God Botherers. The fun thing about that is that when accosted by well meaning street missionaries I can take the piss out of them mercilessly and have a real laugh at their ignorance. My kids are all normal people and completely superstition free. With the birth of my child another generation of the superstition free has arrived and they may actually be able to deal with the real issues humanity faces rather than worrying about what an imaginary, mythological issues like going to paradise or hell.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Actually man chose death.

I don't recall the banishment of Eden as an act of "punishment", God did us a favor because in the Garden was the Tree of Life and had Adam and Eve eaten from it, they would have been immortal in their corruption. So God had to save His people from their falliness; Christ is the way.
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
TryingtoConvert said:
minasoliman said:
Atheism is at its strongest when people actually become less Christlike.
If you're serious you're seriously deranged. I mean let's face it the Jews were first so they must be right, while the Muslims got the last prophet so they must be right, Hindus are all inclusive so they must be right. At least Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are relatively self-consistent. Christianity is a joke. An omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy was so incompetent he created creatures that he allowed to do what he didn't want them to do, so he punished them for doing what he had given them the ability to do and then turned himself into one of them and had himself tortured to death to fix the problem he had created in the first place. Get real, Christianity is a waste of time, space, effort and resources. If you really believe in a Christian God you are definitely not really engaging in reality.

An old story is told about a drunk who fell into a pit. The sides of the pit were so steep and he was so inebriated that he could not get out. He cried in alarm to anyone who would hear him.

A Jew walked by, stopped, took out the Psalms and quoted:-

“I am reckoned among those who go down to the pit; I am a man who has no strength” (Ps 88:4)

“My son,” he said, observe God’s Law and you will not stumble.” With that he walked on by.

A Muslim walked to the edge of the pit, peered over and declaimed: “You are a drunk, an unbeliever. First submit both Allah and to his laws, then you will know Paradise.” In disgust, he also walked away hurriedly.

A Hindu approached, a sage. “Your karma is now set by this deed. There is nothing you can do. Accept death and on your next rebirth perhaps your soul will make more progress.” The sage calmly walked away.

A Buddhist monk approached and with compassion he looked down on the man and tried to teach him to meditate. “Try to extinguish your desires … for earthly freedom, even for life itself. With desire comes suffering. With the right mental attitude you too can attain nibbana.” The monk retreated from the pit with a beatific smile on his face.

The drunk man grumbled noisily to himself in the pangs of his pain that all men were the same. With much difficulty he slumped and forward and fell into a fitful sleep.

Suddenly he was rudely awoken by a rough fellow gently shaking him. This man had let himself down into the pit with a rope.

The descent was so difficult beset with sharp stones, briars and obstacles that his hands and body were bleeding.

He took a spare rope, tied it round the drunken man’s waist who fell silent in disbelief. The drunk felt himself dragged to the side of the pit whereupon his rescuer strapped them both together and raised them up on a pulley fixed into the edge of the top of the pit for that purpose.

As they both stood out of the pit into the sunshine, unshackled, the drunken man, who was now a little more sober, looked round. The stranger had gone but there was a rather odd charge that lingered on in the air. He did not feel alone.

He looked back into the pit and thought thankfully about the great sacrifice this Man had made to save him.
 

sainthieu

High Elder
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
621
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"I don't have to put up with being abused by nasty, self-centred, arrogant, proselytising, delusional God Botherers. The fun thing about that is that when accosted by well meaning street missionaries I can take the piss out of them mercilessly and have a real laugh at their ignorance. My kids are all normal people and completely superstition free. With the birth of my child another generation of the superstition free has arrived and they may actually be able to deal with the real issues humanity faces rather than worrying about what an imaginary, mythological issues like going to paradise or hell."

Trying: Why don't you just change your moniker to "ProudLeftyAtheist" and have done with it? You're toxic, and you're full of nothing but vitriol and lies. (Reading Andrew Sullivan will do that to you.) You're here under false pretences, and I suggest you be banned.
 
Top