I want to preface this pasted article because reading many threads of late on the religious topics, I feel it may asuage a lot of defensive posturing. These materials, on my part, are not posted with the thought of changing anyone's mind about their theistic beliefs. I've read a number of posts in forums and it sometimes appears as if believers believe, in the reading of what some might call "controversial" religious material, that the material is applying a underlying message that believers are fools or should re-think their allegiance to their god and eternity.
Firstly, I don't know how an article in cyberspace could ever have that kind of power in itself. People process information and decide what they accept as true or untrue. If an article makes one think about the material and thereby causes them to share their Pov, alls the better. Because not everyone reads everything the same way. Thus, the subject matter of the OT oftentimes broadened in it's scope to include many other relevant issues that help to comprise, in those parts, the whole of the original topic. How lovely. To learn more about each other as we learn more about what we hold in common.

And that is how I see it when I post this work. It is not meant to engage those that would defend by bible verses how it is wrong. The title may address the christian patriarch but those traits attributed to a god image correlate to every deific model. Be it the jews, muslims, hindu, pagans, etc... It is in the spirit of the overall theme, a higher power, a god being, that this article is intended to address. Because the christian god is not unique. His image, like that of his savior son, is found in all those other correlative faiths mentioned earlier. Maybe that is the true meaning of the fabled words to Moses; "I am that I am". Perhaps that was an allusion, by the ancient scribes, that the god of Moses is the god in the face of all peoples idols. One and the same. I am that I am. Because if there is only one creator power, how can anyone on this planet have ever worshiped a different god power, save in name alone?!

Please take this thread in the spirit it is offered. To discuss god power and it's potential, or not, as being all that we surmise is worthy of that deific respect. It is not meant to generate bible verses to discount it because it does not include any to found it's basic premise. Is god possible.

Thanks for reading, I look forward to your thoughts.






Why the Christian God is Impossible
by Chad Docterman



Introduction
Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.




Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.

I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.


Defining YHWH

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.


Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.




Perfection Begets Imperfection

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.



What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.




The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?
The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.




All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.




Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.




Belief More Important Than Action

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.




Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.



No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.




Contradictory Justice

One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.




Contradictory History

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?




Unfulfilled Prophecy

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.



The Omniscient Changes the Future

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.



The Omniscient is Surprised

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.



We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.

I will comment using my own ideas, without a bible quote. Science tells us this is probably not the first universe, and not the only one either. Let us assume, for a moment, the reverse of this Docterman's proposal. What if God does exist, based on our knowledge of a repeating universe? God would be the unchanging mystery behind the forever self-modifying universe, the regulating force behind galaxies and electrons. Our knowledge of this God would thus be indirect, causing us to found and postulate petty little nonsensical religions like Christianity, behind which lies the true knowledge of the divine. I have stated this before: I suspect that, if scientists would get off their collective atheistic asses and investigate, they might, just might, find that "God" is an actually detectible form of energy, of which spirits and souls are but a manifestation, just as light causes heat when it strikes a material object, or how sound resonates when it passes through an atmosphere. Just because scientists refuse to even look for God does not prove God doesn't exist. This only proves that the scientists are just as closed-minded as Christians, and that is all.

I will comment using my own ideas, without a bible quote. Science tells us this is probably not the first universe, and not the only one either. Let us assume, for a moment, the reverse of this Docterman's proposal. What if God does exist, based on our knowledge of a repeating universe? God would be the unchanging mystery behind the forever self-modifying universe, the regulating force behind galaxies and electrons. Our knowledge of this God would thus be indirect, causing us to found and postulate petty little nonsensical religions like Christianity, behind which lies the true knowledge of the divine. I have stated this before: I suspect that, if scientists would get off their collective atheistic asses and investigate, they might, just might, find that "God" is an actually detectible form of energy, of which spirits and souls are but a manifestation, just as light causes heat when it strikes a material object, or how sound resonates when it passes through an atmosphere. Just because scientists refuse to even look for God does not prove God doesn't exist. This only proves that the scientists are just as closed-minded as Christians, and that is all.

God, is not, nor ever was a material being.
He is merely a belief.
Alive only in the eye of the beholder.

If the God of the bible is the main DUDE, then I think He can do whatever He damn well pleases, Like it or not. Chad is like the model a trying to explain Henry.

Well said Gideon. I get where you're coming from. As do I your words, SkeptiCx.

I think the hang up is on the word. "god". Because we know the human society is visually bias and also it can be said are we prejudiced in the relativity of words and their meaning. For some people "god" must be. Must be an transcendent anthropomorphic being sitting in the sky, watching over everything that exists. That all seeing eye, as it were. For others it's a metaphor, for the intrinsic. That which causes them to recognize reality from a subjective pov. But in the non-secular world it's always a specific being or force, worthy of that name and characteristics. And because of the categorization of the infinite, into something specific and theistic, it all becomes a very central understanding.

So science, claiming to segregate their research from deific ideologies, claims what they pursue or that which the latest theories support, has no allusion to what some call god. And creationists claim that nothing found in science can be anything but, god. I think so much is lost because science and creationists get hung up on the words. "God" or "Theory", which translates as the latest evidence that does not include evidence of god. And that then causes the illusion to overlay all pursuits of science and that what we're looking for but that also can't possibly be, what we say we don't accept is there by that name.

If that makes any sense at all. Akin to saying, in the field of theoretical physics, for instance. Yes, we've discovered enough thus far to abide a theory called; multiverses. But that's not saying that can also be called god!

Why the hell not?! Call it cupcake, for all it means. What is is. But it's that name, that declaration and myopic allegiance against what something can't be, because of what one imagines is, simply because a word gives it an absolute identity.

Therefore I think what I recognize as power that gives life to me, is not god. But that's me. Because the religious doctrines that put a face and a creed on it, are impossible for my intellect to accept as worthy of living my life believing. I may not know, but I sure know I can't accept superstition for a way of life. However that doesn't mean what someone else reveres in their personal faith as, "Jah", isn't the same thing. What I think also impugns the clear sightedness in the seeking the "answer" to beingness, in the sciences or elsewhere, is the religious scriptures that attempt to dogmatize the infinite and imply there must be an allegiance to one particular creed, at the risk of one's imagined immortal soul. There is a lot of emphasis on words that define our reality , in so many ways and in the context of our personal level of consciousness, that I think what will keep science stymied and believers looking up, is they can't see past the harmonics of the words they hold faith in first, so as to see what is possible outside of what is "known".

Seems like the article eliminated possibility of the existence of some god, but if it was meant to eliminate the existence of the God of the Bible, in my opinion it failed because again someone is trying to prove/disprove the existence of a being who defies science or logic.

One fatal mistake, you speak of as if God must exist within the confines and rules of the universe. Just as much as believers of God disbelievers try to cram God into a box for their own understanding and comfort.

If there is no God, how did the universe get here.



Thats more proof for the existence of god then any disproof I've ever seen

I once proved that toast was impossible.

LoL

Id like to hear that. How is toast impossible boorite?

"Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist."


I took a religion and reasoning course in college, and one basic rule is that you have to prove each claim. The christians are the ones (by virtue of their initial claim that god exists) who are under obligation to provide proof. a universal positive can be no more proven that a universal negative. saying something exists doesnt obligate others to disprove it, it obligates the claimant to prove it does exist.

Yes but when its so obvious that it has to exist, there is no need to look for proof when its all around you.
Ive read this before somewhere.

Imagine your walking along a path and you find a pocket watch laying on the ground.
Would you not ask yourself where did this come from? who created it?
What if it were just a rock? Yet we all know our own bodies are thousands of times more complex then pocket watches.

If the pocket watches need a creator why shouldnt we?

Prove what put the universe here is god. (In all that word means that one would credit it so.)



That's more proof for existence. Without the subjective bias for a thing called, "god", I've yet to see. But unlike absolutists of their own kind, that imagine they're really absolutely different than anyone else absolutely, I know it's early yet. I know that "god" is the box in the mind of those that imagine god really is anything at all.

What a silly question. You know as well as I do that toast is possible.

Why yes it is. And if you've very good you might even meet some with personality.


I believe.

I see Salvadore Dali's wife, Gala.

Though some might like to call her Mary.

Trying to disprove god is as pointless as trying to prove there is a god. It really serves no purpose other that patronizing believers. You can't disprove God. You can only disprove theories of God which isn't the same thing. I really wonder why people are so bent on trying to prove that there is no God. You don't believe. Get on with it.

If true I doubt an atheist would make such a post. Nor would there, I imagine, be any threads wherein is discussed anything relative to the god issue, at all. Jesus, prayer, after life, etc... No, if that simple this forum would have little purpose than to discuss what is discussed in other forums, relative to no-theistic topics. So clearly there's much to be said, even in matters of patronization.

Why is it most people only ever view 'God' in its transcendent personal aspect??? What about a 'God' or whatever in its perennial philosophy aspect as being both immanent, personal and transcendental? No one ever researhes the perennial mytics whose views on God is so much more radical yet individually empowering. It is so easy to be put off by the formalised religion versions of "God" or "Nirvana" or whatever. But as one Hindu mystic put it: All religions are approaches to a single truth.


Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is. (Bhagavad-Gita)



Gandhi was committed to Advaita Vedanta (i.e. monistic or, more literally, nondual Hinduism), to the belief that all life comes from “the one universal source, call it Allah, God or Parmeshwara.” He expressed this belief by conceiving of all entities as drops in the ocean of life: The ocean is composed of drops of water; each drop is an entity and yet it is a part of the whole; ‘the one and the many’. In this ocean of life, we are little drops. My doctrine means that I must identify myself with life, with everything that lives, that I must share the majesty of life in the presence of God. The sum-total of this life is God.” (Fox, 1995. P259 (Gandhi)


..The real God is not to be sought in idols and symbols, in temples or churches.
The truth of the matter is that the purified man is God himself, for he has become one with universal life. The purified man is the self-realised man. He has not to await answers from God, for he has no questions to ask. He himself is the answer to all questions; his life itself is a benediction. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988.
p55)


But in reality subject and object are One; inasmuch as they are mere two aspects of the single process of perception; they are both the same, both being sparks of Brahman(just another name for 'God'. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. p88)


And when Brahman is attained, to the man of realisation all beings become the very self, then what delusion, what sorrow can there be for the seer of oneness?” (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. p109 (Isa Upanishad,7)


The essence of any religion lies solely in the answer to the question: why do I exist, and what is my relationship to the infinite universe that surrounds me?
.. It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e. without any kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person without a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person may not know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to exist without a religion than without a heart. (Leo Tolstoy, 1879)

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)


For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. (Albert Einstein, 1941)


Anway I hope they offer some better alternative views on a spiritual outlook(i avoided using the word religion here which is the same thing anway). God is not impossible and organized religion has done a very decent job in help turni people away from looking into spirituality in gerneral because people only think that version means ALL religion.


The principles are very simple, comprehensible and uncomplicated. They are as follows:
that there is a God who is the origin of everything;
that there is an element of this divine origin in every person, which he can diminish or increase through his way of living;
that in order for someone to increase this source he must suppress his passions and increase the love within himself;
that the practical means of achieving this consist in doing to others as you would wish to do to you.
All these principles are common to Brahmanism, Hebraism, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity and Mohammedanism. (If Buddhism does not provide a definition of God, it nevertheless recognises that with which man unites and merges as he reaches Nirvana. And that something is the same origin which the other religions recognise as God.)---LEO TOLSTOY

All religions in essence are the same. All preach love.

I would posit the essence is immense, the religion is finite. Therefore, true love is not present in the preaching of religions that imply love is conditional, and abides in acts of terrorism, separatism and bigotry as the presumed vehicle to impart how that essence is defined by human terms. It blights the truth, it does not reflect it.

Ah i see so that was an analagy for this topic? har har

The problem with his post is that he believes theories of god are god.

That's about the smartest thing I've heard all day. To one who believes no explanation is necessary, to one who doesn't believe no explanation is possible.

Not very intelligent at all really.

Empedocles and Anaximenes believed the earth is flat. Aristotle believed it was not.

The earth is not flat.

Faith precludes fact. But fact averts faith.

Interesting find GW,Brave very intertesting POV, one I'd like to add too, really anything 'fully experinced is joy...When this is understood fully any path would be very short indeed.....

when the self disappears, so is the insessant 'need' to constantly interperet reality also disappears with this personality we have created dramas around..


LOL these dramas are no more than movies written on the mind, no more real than fairies or santas, some dramas create visions of ones own suffering, to sustain itself through its own traumas and dramas, even the drama of planning ones own salvation makes for great mental playing, how about the one who pretends to feed itself by pretending to hate itself...How about the one who creates the idea of being blocked and becomes the blocked idea...Or the self that wants to analize it self to death before its ready to surrender, and finally the one who only hears what it wants to hear so it can prove its right to it self over and over, this is a big one ..and the productions go on ..these negatives just bring one in face with all the doubt , fear and blocks and maipulations, denials and dysfunctional conditionings that have plagued man kind for ever, and when one tires of the game they will let it all go and in this moment self will see that its in letting go that makes all things possible...

Ya. As one poet put it: [b]Many a doctrine is like a window pane, we see Truth(captial t) through it but it divides us from Truth(capital t). But the doctrines are guides...to be taken seriously at some situations to be discarded at others. Doctrines ARE NOT TO TAKEN AS ENDS IN THEMSELVES BUT AS A MEANS.
Also I agree that if people wish not to use doctrines than good on them because Truth(capital t) is something that cannot be imposed on others. Me myself I have learnt much from Christiainity, Hinduism, budhism, Islam, Taoism..... I doubt there isnt a doctrine that you can learn something from to enhance your knowledge.

If there is no God, answer this: Why is there something, instead of nothing? Science can't explain itself but God can. I hate all these know it all atheists who think their smarter than theists.

How sad for you that you choose to spend your life hating people that dare to think differently than you do. I dare say, given the Atheist population, you'll be quite busy in your life. Hating.


God can't explain all that exists. God is a term theists apply to all that exists to explain the origin of all that is. It's no more valid than theoretical science, that postulates probabilities. However the one difference is, math and other sciences have a much better chance of at least evolving the theories, so the probability factor is greater than those faithful proclamations creationists afford, as an answer to everything. God is a construct, it's not an answer, save in the mind of those that believe it so. You could call the creator of all that exists "Epoxy", for all it matters, and it still does not prove Epoxy is the source for creation. Rather it proves that some feel comfortable Epoxy can answer well enough all that matters to them.

Even though he wasn't the first to say it, Bruce Lee is given credit for it. It applies greatly to BNW's mode of thought.
"Absorb what is useful, discard the rest."
What was useful today, however, may not be useful tomorrow, so one should constantly adapt.

Mr Docterman set out to write an article arguing against the existence of God (as the proper noun used the cat in the book). Of course, he formulates a definition that is easy to disprove and makes the blanket statement that this is the actual definition accepted by all who believe in this particular god form. In reality all his article does is make an interesting arguement against the existence of deities according to the definition he supplied. If he were to take up the arduous task of refuting every defintion of divinity, well now, that would be something to see.

Desty and GW reminded me of one of my favorite quotes, "If you want to tell me that stars are not words then stop calling them stars." ~ Jack Kerouac. The same applies here.

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Oh how I could prattle on for the rest of my days on just this one question, but I think I'll borrow from GW for the answer.
Cupcake!

heh, I might get the hang of this Zen master thing one of these days.

indeed BNW if the doctrine is the end then it should be burned, thrown out , anything that is followed to the exclusion of all else is a dogma, it becomes the god, dieified...good point....

dogma turned around amgod... humans have put s acromyms and what not to remind themsleves of things too lol.....

Your question presupposes the need for intent and design, anthropic traits, of which there is none needed to accurately describe what we observe through science. It presupposes that the known universe has to have a reason NOT to be, of which there is none. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite of intent or design in the observed universe in too many ways to really delve into here, but such is the case. Note though, science doesn't exist to disprove any god and there are plenty of theistic scientists out there. As for science not explaining itself, I can't really fathom that since science is inherently explanation of observed phenomenon.

I so admire people that can get the message across simply. Whereas I could could write a novellete and still come across as vague.

No, you come across loud and clear. Seriously though, I do enjoy reading your thoughts.

Now back to it. As far as mainstream religions' ideas about god, I would have to agree about its impossibility. This does not mean I don't believe there is a higher order at work, it just means I don't accept religion's interpretation of 'god'. Too many contradictions for me, I prefer not to even bother with it.

Like it? ^ Once I perch it on my horns, I can get HBO PPV Boxing for freeeee! Woot!

Beautifully said, also. I've said before the hang-up that enters into much of the thoughts about what makes this reality what it is, is that simple phase: god, that imparts , for some, that's all it can be.
That's impossible, because man made god in their image. So since man is part of all that is created, what ever is at work behind the scenes, and I respect that as an Atheist btw, I just don't give it a name and religious credentials, no mans mind could ever fully understand in it's present state of awareness. That out there is so awesome, if we did know we'd never be able to contain our selves in this little vessel we cherish so much and call "my life". Along with all we do to make that mean something to us. Even if we think we have to fight (figuratively or otherwise) other people, so we can be just that. And that's just silly right there. So you gotta know any mind that can think of war, can never be like that mind that dreamed eternity. But shhhh, don't tell our ego's that. We dream of god and then we think to fight to defend what that means. Ahhh, I love peoples. We're just so quirky.

GW is very concise and detailed i cant imagine anyone having a hard time figuring out what she means but ther are those lol......

arty wherre do you find those sigs and what is up with your fascination with bugs or flys lol?????

Nicely said, I think like that too, so I guess I'm also an atheist. ... God help me, eh, I mean- Nothing help me.
Oh, by the way. I perch it on my halo and not only get boxing but PPV movies too.

Sheri, when the time is right, all things will become clear.

Pm me arty...i don't do suspense and waiting.... is it music related?????

If there is a God, how did HE get here? The concept is flawed completely, because we are basing the concept on our concept of life, where there is a beginning and an end. I would rather believe that the universe is a never ending cycle with no creator, than believe there is a God running the show, also with no creator.

take note of the first half of my post. You also are making the fatal mistake of confining god to the box which we ourselves exist within. the confines and rules of the universe, example:Time, time then leads to beginnings and ends.

God is not subject to the laws we are, we are not god, god is not us. By teaching that a man can become god 'Jesus', there is this flaw, Putting god in the same confines that we ourselves are subject to.

Soooooo, my concept was not flawed, you just didnt read my post, or you didn't comprehend it; either way, please, please, before you make silly statements, read everything. There wasnt very much in the first place....

God has been made untouchable by people. No matter what anyone does to try and prove that god could not exist then it will always in the end be countered with the........


We will never be able to comprehned god.

or

God is beyond us all he is outside of our box and does not follow the same rules of the universe like we do.



It's like a fail safe.



I dont know if God is real or not. I just dont think god is real and no one knows if god is bound by the same laws of the universe as us or that god is beyond those laws.

If god was bound By RULES, any kind of RULES, he would not be god

How hard is that to understand?

Why cant it still be god if it is bound to the same laws as us. God is just a title why cant that being titled god be bound by the same rules that apply to us or anything elses in this universe.

a being be titled God be bound by the same rules as us. Ok go have a kid and name it God.

Actually i wanted to name our dog GOD but my partner thought it would upset everyone on our street since we live next to a church and everyone on our street is a christian.


Also try and chill out a little you always seem so ....well ticked off. PEACE!!! ( I could be wrong if i am im sorry)

i think it was grace slick who named her kid god to later change it.......As humanity contiunes to evolve ther will be those that nmae thier kids and pets god..lol a few years ago you were horrible if you referred to yourself as god self or goddess we have come so far..


I am expecting a to be with child very soon and we have picked his name if a boy he will be Jayden Chrisitian, well I am NB all the way its intented to reflect our humour for the whole dogma prattle...lol

Couldn't have said it better myself. In a way they're right, we won't be able to comprehend......Not God, but the universe's creation as a whole. I have said this a dozen times already, we are far from all of the answers. Why not be open to the possibility that there is a concept that we have never experienced before, which is impossible to comprehend for us, and deviates from the idea of a supreme ruler of the universe?

the possibility that there is a concept that we have never experienced before, which is impossible to comprehend for us, and deviates from the idea of a supreme ruler of the universe.

Something like cubicle circles? lol

and Im not sure if your refering to god as the "supreme ruler" of the universe

But to me that just doesnt sound accurate

rul·er (rōō'lər) Pronunciation Key
n.
One, such as a monarch or dictator, that rules or governs.

Then again who knows, maybe God does dictate what goes on. He obviously knows whats going to happen and he knew before he started the show.

But then again perhaps he placed within us a God like power which enables us to defy him and act against his nature.
-It is written ye are gods.-

and I agree were a long ways away from understanding not only the universe but even ourselves. They still havent figured out what this 'Observer' thing is.

P.S. sorry for always sounding... um.. ticked off. ^.^

Deisty,note: supreme being, 'being' is a verb its what youare being) a state of beingness not a person or ruler, just like happiness is a state of being ... god is not a person ar a father or a he as relgion is so fond of stating again within their own doctrines they miss alot they have written this stuff themselves oy vey.........supreme is simply the highest state of beingness or state of excellence a high standard of behaving,(clearly the diety of religon falls very short its an error in understanding man sees diety as himself and projects his awareness....of course he will tell you otherwise) ... many have achieved a supreme beingness they are called masters, mystics ect.....its a standard one places on thier behavior, there are many states of being ....

Supreme being is much better stated, However your theory i dont buy it.

Those masters mystics ect, did not create us, they are sinful, bad people just like me or you. so their supreme being, or 'state of existence' did not shape the cosmos, infact they would never have had a chance to mislead people into thinking we can become enlightened and then ascend to become god, or part of god or in the same frequency of god.

satan convinced adam and even to eat from the fruit because he told them they would know the difference between right and wrong, and become Like God

fundamental thing that people overlook, even if its not the exact event that occured i believe that sums up. and a good lesson can be learned from it.

People say the greatest trick satan ever did was convincing the world he didn't exist, I think thats the 2nd greatest. The greatest was convincing men that man is God. (or could become god, or was a buddha ect ect)

creator and created are the same thing, they only appear different, you are viewing through the illusion...no-thing is separate form anything you jsut don't know that yet....

sinful is a relative man made concept again illusion.... you are part of a fear construct it tells you are soemthing that you aren't and to keep you from exploring it leads you to beleive that which you are is bad too, a catch 22 i think its called, but by all means beleive as you choose, may i ask your age????

Oh trust me there are sins, there is evil, maybe you just havent been introduced yet. Im 19 going on 20 this feb 14th.