Give one reason or argument that God doesnt exist

[austin12345]

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist, but not one emotionally.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist, but not one emotionally.

Again not one person has made any argument agaisnt God so far.

According to Einstein, E=MC^2. M, mass, which is to say, matter, is equal to E, energy. The amount of energy which exists in any given amount of matter is equal to the mass of the object times the speed of light squared. A statement proven unmistakably true with the explosion of the first atomic bomb which used roughly seven pounds of uranium to release an enormous amount of energy. Matter... you, me, the earth the stars and planets, are nothing more than a form of energy. Matter is one of the forms energy takes. According to the law of conservation of energy, derived from the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be CREATED OR DESTROYED. Energy exists eternally according to all experimentation and observation, and never was nor could it ever have been created. Therefore there can be no creator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_con ... _of_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%5E2

[bernee51]

[Replying to post 1 by austin12345]

From an Oz philosopher...

1.
The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2.
The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3.
The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4.
The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5.
Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6.
An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
Ergo:
7.
God does not exist.

[Divine Insight]

If belief in god was rational then don't you think we would ALL come to the same conclusion?

No more than we all come to the same conclusions about the best political or economic systems. No more than all scientists come to the same conclusions about interpretations of quantum mechanics or theoretical cosmology.

That is not even remotely comparable, IMHO.

How can you compare philosophies like that with the charges and accusations being made by Christianity that people are purposefully choosing to turn against their creator and actually chose evil over good?

Seriously?

How can you even pretend to make such a comparison?

I know for certain that that accusations of the Hebrew religion is false.

I know for certain that I am not "choosing evil over good" with the purposeful intent of rebelling against "my creator" and refusing to obey his supposed "commandments".

On the contrary, most of the reasons I reject the Hebrew religion is precisely because, IMHO it supports far too many immoral things.

It's support male-chauvinism and the idea that women are inferior second-class citizens.

It's support religious bigotry in extremely violent and unethical ways. The Old Testament had the Hebrews literally stoning people to death for not obeying the directives of this religion, as well as literally killing people who don't believe in it.

The New Testament is highly ambiguous on this count. In many places it tries to make Jesus out to be that same kind of jealous God who will condemn people for merely not believing in the New Testament rumors. Yet in other places it has Jesus forgiving people who are literally in the process of killing him because they supposedly "Know not what they do".

The problem with Christianity is that everyone who refuses to believe in it would necessarily need to be an extremely evil person. As evil as the Biblical Satan. Actually refusing to obey their creator with the sole purpose of defying him and choosing Evil over Good.

That is utter nonsense, IMHO.

In Christianity it really can't just come down to a philosophical difference of opinions like the other topics that you have mentioned.

In Christianity those who reject this Christian God necessarily have to know what they are doing. They have no KNOW that they are choosing evil over good, and actually hating God, etc.

Even the New Testament has Jesus forgiving people "For their know not what they do"

It just makes no sense at all.

I know, that I am not "rejecting" any God. I know, that I am not choosing evil over good.

Those are utterly absurd charges.

Yet this religions makes these charges.

This religion can be nothing more than a very underhanded and vile brainwashing scheme created by mankind.

The only people who could be rejecting "God" on purpose would necessarily need to be people who are knowingly choosing evil over good.

That's the whole problem with Christianity Mithrae.

You can't have GOOD and INNOCENT people being condemned simply because "The know not what they do"

Even Jesus knew better than that.

I personally believe that there is indeed a mystical and spiritual essence to reality.

That doesn't send me off to worship the Hebrew God.

Why should it?

Why should I believe in a God who support male-chauvinism?

Why should I believe in a God who attempts to solve all his problems using violent and often hideous means of so-called punishments?

Violent methods that NEVER WORK I need to add. None of this God's solutions to anything has ever worked in these fables.

How could a supposedly all-wise God keep botching everything continually?

I reject this religion because IMHO, it truly is utterly absurd.

The very idea that an all-wise supreme being would expect me to condone something as rude and crude as having his son nailed to a pole to pay for my sins is itself absurd.

Personally I would have told God before he ever did such a thing that if that's the only way to "save" me then by all means condemn me. Don't even bother.

I DO NOT condone having anyone nailed to a pole on my behalf.

My creator would have known from the beginning of time that I would never condone such a thing.

This is absurd.

The very idea of a God becoming involved with having his demigod son nailed to a pole which everyone MUST CONDONE before they can receive his love is simply unacceptable to me.

I can't even believe that Christian keep trying to push this highly immoral thing onto other people.

I would NEVER condone this act. I would gladly go to HELL first.

So that would be my choice in any case.

And certainly not because I'm "choosing evil". On the contrary. The idea of a God who would be associated with something as ignorant as a crucifixion is simply totally unacceptable to me.

If I'm going to believe in a "God" I'm sure I can find better pictures of God to believe in, and in fact, I most certainly have.

IMHO, Christianity (and all the Abrahamic Religions) are basically an insult to any supreme creator that might exist.

I wouldn't even want to insult our creator be suggesting that the Hebrew mythology might be true. Why would I want to believe that our creator is that ignorant?

I'll never understand why Christians can't see the ignorance of the Hebrew religious folklore.

How can they sing praise and shout "Hallelujah" over the idea their creator had to have his son butchered on a pole to pay for their disgusting unworthiness?

I'll never understand that as long as I live.

If Christianity were true, I would be sick to my stomach and extremely shamed of both myself and my creator.

It would be a truly depressing reality for sure.

Pure secular atheism is at least more honorable, if nothing else.

Although, as I point out, it really doesn't need to come down to either Christianity or atheism. That mentality right there is already extremely shallow, IMHO.

There are far better pictures of spirituality to be had. Why people dwell on these limited views of the ancient Hebrews is beyond me.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 20 by Mithrae]

The problem is that a god who truly exists would be the most rational and reasonable explaination. His existence would not need apologists to rationalize it.

I understand that we can rationalize all day for this or that, but a 100% truth such as an existent god would hold true in all rationalizations. If something is true it will overcome all scrutiny and all rationalizations.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 1 by austin12345]

There is no way to prove that god does not exist. But I don't understand why I would need to prove his non existence before it's even been fully proven that he/ she/ it does.

Even on the best day of an Apologeticist - the most you can hope for is a possibility that God exists - all the cosmological argument shows is that in a vacuum of better ideas, sure - there is a possibility that God exists - When Dr. Craig trots out his show ponies = Kalam, Teleology, TAG, etc... the most he gets is the biggest trophy for showing the possibility of a mind behind the veil.

The most these arguments accomplish is that there may be some nameless faceless creator pulling the strings here - but none of the arguments and by none I mean ZERO that give claim to any one single belief system. Theists - how do you know it's not the God of the other Guy? How do you know that its not some God that can't be claimed by any one faith, but is reflected in certain small ways by them all?

My position - if I cannot put a face to this being - this mind - and his existence (based off of the best arguments apologeticists can put together) does not necessitate any significant change in the way I operate on a day to day basis...

Why hold a position at all? Why not simply say -I'm just going to wait until I can put a face to it, that there is clear evidence it exists and my life or life thereafter is contingent upon it?

Without clear evidence I feel the best any theist can do is say - I might be right, God might exist so I'm putting all my chips in that basket right or wrong.

[Mithrae]

According to the law of conservation of energy, derived from the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be CREATED OR DESTROYED. Energy exists eternally according to all experimentation and observation, and never was nor could it ever have been created. Therefore there can be no creator.

...cannot be created or destroyed, but energy does change forms. How do you define energy? If it's the capacity to do work, the formation of the observable universe obviously would have been a tremendous shift in energy states. By your reasoning there can be no 'creator' if and only if we assume that creator has no properties of 'energy' - no capacity to do work.

------

If belief in god was rational then don't you think we would ALL come to the same conclusion?

No more than we all come to the same conclusions about the best political or economic systems. No more than all scientists come to the same conclusions about interpretations of quantum mechanics or theoretical cosmology.

That is not even remotely comparable, IMHO.

How can you compare philosophies like that with the charges and accusations being made by Christianity that people are purposefully choosing to turn against their creator and actually chose evil over good?

Seriously?

How can you even pretend to make such a comparison?

I was not talking about Christianity. I explicitly held up Christian god/universe dualism as an outmoded and misleading idea, from which secular culture has largely shifted to physical monism without a thought for the equally (or more) valid ideal monism. Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall you mentioning at times that you had a Christian upbringing? If so, may I tentatively observe that for an obviously intelligent fellow it may be wise to avoid blinkering your responses in a crusade against that childhood indoctrination

That said, the accusations of bias and personal cynical or alterior motives which you attribute to Christians are just as common and often vitriolic in the political and economic arenas of discussion as they are in the religious, so I think my choice of comparisons would remain quite apt.

Although, as I point out, it really doesn't need to come down to either Christianity or atheism. That mentality right there is already extremely shallow, IMHO.

There are far better pictures of spirituality to be had. Why people dwell on these limited views of the ancient Hebrews is beyond me.

Why indeed do you keep bringing them up, even against one of the few people on this Christian debate forum whose views from what I've gathered are somewhat similar to your own?

------

[Replying to post 20 by Mithrae]
The problem is that a god who truly exists would be the most rational and reasonable explaination. His existence would not need apologists to rationalize it.

I understand that we can rationalize all day for this or that, but a 100% truth such as an existent god would hold true in all rationalizations. If something is true it will overcome all scrutiny and all rationalizations.

Like relativity did for poor old Newton? I'm afraid it's simply not the case that "a 100% truth... would hold true in all rationalizations," though to be fair I'm not sure what you mean by '100% truth' (what other kind is there?) or for that matter 'rationalizations' (reasoned conclusions?). Divine Insight's comments may apply better to you than to me: If you're only arguing against a Christian God which directly shapes human history, human hearts, and the fate of human souls, maybe it's time to think outside the box a little.

The OP of this thread is not explicitly advocating Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism or Hinduism - it's simply asking for good reasons or arguments to believe that a God does not exist. Claiming that one specific view of God should be obvious to all people (when that is not the case across the board of either social or scientific views) is not a reason to believe that a God does not exist. At most, it's a reason to believe that particular view of God is incorrect.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

...cannot be created or destroyed, but energy does change forms. How do you define energy? If it's the capacity to do work, the formation of the observable universe obviously would have been a tremendous shift in energy states. By your reasoning there can be no 'creator' if and only if we assume that creator has no properties of 'energy' - no capacity to do work.

What you seem to be saying is that the creator IS energy. Well, so are we. And we do "create" things. It doesn't make us creator God's though, does it! Because nothing can be created from scratch. Only reformed from existing energy. But perhaps what you are really talking about is magic... a capacity to work outside of the laws of physics.

[olavisjo]

.

Energy exists eternally according to all experimentation and observation, and never was nor could it ever have been created.

May I assume that you reject the second law of thermodynamics?

[Mithrae]

...cannot be created or destroyed, but energy does change forms. How do you define energy? If it's the capacity to do work, the formation of the observable universe obviously would have been a tremendous shift in energy states. By your reasoning there can be no 'creator' if and only if we assume that creator has no properties of 'energy' - no capacity to do work.

What you seem to be saying is that the creator IS energy. Well, so are we. And we do "create" things. It doesn't make us creator God's though, does it! Because nothing can be created from scratch. Only reformed from existing energy. But perhaps what you are really talking about is magic... a capacity to work outside of the laws of physics.

Where in the name of the holy St. Bobby did you get magic out of this? You're talking about conservation of 'energy,' but you haven't answered my request for a definition. So using a common definition - the capacity to do work - it seems obvious that any hypothetical god would have abundant energy. Thus energy is not created in a theistic system, it simply changes form, as we know it does. Without a clearer definition of what you mean by 'energy' and what you think theism entails, I'm afraid I can't see the merit in your argument. Introducing new words does not solve that problem.

[PhiloKGB]

.

Energy exists eternally according to all experimentation and observation, and never was nor could it ever have been created.

May I assume that you reject the second law of thermodynamics?

The 2LoT has nothing to do with the creation of energy.