Biblical proof God doesn't exist

[shnarkle]

Just what do the biblical authors mean by "God" anyways? We all know that all gods are imaginary, right? So what makes the biblical god any different than, oh let's say the 330 million deities that populate the Hindu pantheon of gods?

Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all. You're just looking at the product of your own imagination. They even have a word for it. They call it idolatry.

An idol is any object that is viewed as a god itself. In other words, the biblical authors don't believe in objectifying "God" at all. They can imagine all sorts of gods just like the next guy, and they can admit that these gods are all imaginary. In fact, they would be the first to point out that they aren't gods at all. They're simply imaginary ideas. That's not what they mean by "God", and whatever meanings or definitions they do come up with aren't God either. They're just meanings and definitions for the word "God", which they will be the first to admit is simply a symbol for its meaning. Again, words and meanings are not gods; they're words with associated meanings.

Paul also points out that Christ isn't God when he refers to him as "the image of the invisible God"(Col.1:15). The word he uses for "image" is the Greek "eikon" which is where we get words like 'icon';"iconography"; "iconoclastic" etc. An icon should not be confused with an idol. As noted previously, an idol is worshipped as god, but an icon is a representation of God, and representations are not gods themselves.

Some would hasten to note that these two terms are synonymous, but this is only in relation to "things", and the biblical authors don't include God as any thing.

Given that the word "God" is essentially undefinable, unimaginable, and unknowable, thats what Jesus represents. He is an immanent representation of transcendence.

The biblical authors have a name for their "God" which they call "YHVH" which means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be", and what will be doesn't exist. Potentiality is not actuality.

They use words like "incomparable" or "there is none beside me". In other words, there is no referent for transcendence. There is no essential difference between the word "God" and nothing. There is no referent for God other than the word "God" itself.

The New Testament's gospel of John points out essentially the same thing. The introduction doesn't begin with "in the beginning was God". Why? Because God doesn't exist. He begins with "in the beginning was the word". That's all there is to begin with.

He then continues by pointing out that everything that exists is created(vs. 3), and at no time does he or anyone else ever suggest that God is created. Therefore, for those who are lacking even rudimentary reading comprehension skills, it logically follows that God doesn't exist. This is especially so given that the biblical authors view the objective world as the created world. So by definition, God can't objectively exist in the created world.

Paul reaffirms this in his letter to the Corinthians when he points out that God is the origin (not to be confused or conflated with "beginning") of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists (1 Corinthians 8:6).

For those who insist in asking the question, "Who created God?, Paul's argument refutes that by pointing out that the origin of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. So he has simultaneously admitted that God doesn't exist and denied the need for an infinte regression.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

God exists according to the Bible.

Genesis 1, King James Version (KJV, Gen 1:1)
"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Modus Ponens

1. If this World, the Earth and so on then God created it
2. This World, the Earth and so on
3. God created it [God exists]

Implication, right from the start of the Bible: God exists if God creates something.

The whole Bible becomes meaningless if God does not exist and central aspects such as God's Righteous People and to stay true to God completely vanish in terms of meaning!

The Bible says: God exists!

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

God exists according to the Bible.

Genesis 1, King James Version (KJV, Gen 1:1)
"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Some Christians are aware of this idea that what is concealed in the Old Testament is revealed in the New. This is one of those examples. As I may have pointed out already, we find this in the name "YHVH" which means "I will be". In the New Testament that is revealed as "I am". The bible is pointing out the distinction between becoming and being. Do you see the difference between what will be and what is?

Paul elaborates by pointing out that God is the origin of all that exists. While this may not seem all that different from the old testament pointing out that "God created...", it doesn't stop there. Paul goes on to point out that it is Christ who is the means by which everything comes into existence. This is why most people conclude that Christ is also God. The only problem with this analysis is that it doesn't take into consideration the fact that Paul distinguishes between God and Christ. 1. Cor.8:6

The whole Bible becomes meaningless if God does not exist and central aspects such as God's Righteous People and to stay true to God completely vanish in terms of meaning!

Perhaps this may be the case for you, but certainly not for others.

The Bible says: God exists!

The bible also points out that God is the origin of existence, and that logically refutes your claim due to the fact that the origin of existence cannot exist without negating an origin for existence.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

I apologize, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say either.

The New Testament's gospel of John points out essentially the same thing. The introduction doesn't begin with "in the beginning was God". Why? Because God doesn't exist. He begins with "in the beginning was the word". That's all there is to begin with.

This is not quite accurate. Both the Word and God are in the beginning, because the Word is with God in the beginning. Verse 2:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

He then continues by pointing out that everything that exists is created(vs. 3), and at no time does he or anyone else ever suggest that God is created.

This - the bold - is also not accurate.

Verse 3:


Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.



This verse does not state that everything that exists was created. This verse is speaking about things that were made. This cannot be referring to God (who exists, but who was not made).

Therefore,

Since the premises are based on inaccurate information, can there still be a 'therefore'?





Peace again to you!

[shnarkle]

Both the Word and God are in the beginning, because the Word is with God in the beginning.

You're distinguishing between the word and God, which indicates to me that you agree that God is not the word. Some may not see the difference, but to say that God is the word is not the same things as saying the word is God. You are pointing out that the word is distinguished from God, correct?

Paul does the same thing:

there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Cor.8:6

Notice that God is the origin of all things while Christ is the means by which all things come into existence. The origin of existence cannot be the means, correct?

Therefore, unless you wish to admit an infinite regression, you must accept Paul's articulation of the Shema which necessarily spotlights that the only way for God to exist it in, with, and through the word. There quite simply is no other referent for God other than the word.

This verse does not state that everything that exists was created.

Not only is it emphatically stated, but God is not a "thing".

This verse is speaking about things that were made. This cannot be referring to God (who exists, but who was not made).

Not according to Paul. Paul has pointed out that God is the origin of Christ, and therefore cannot exist apart from Christ. There is only the word, and there can be no referent for the word "God" other than the word itself.

The creed backs this up as well by pointing out that it is Christ who is "one in being with the father" Being or existence is all there is or can be, and the origin of existence cannot exist without contradicting ourselves.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Both the Word and God are in the beginning, because the Word is with God in the beginning.

You're distinguishing between the word and God, which indicates to me that you agree that God is not the word.

Yes.

Some may not see the difference, but to say that God is the word is not the same things as saying the word is God.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, so I'm going to refrain from responding to this part.

You are pointing out that the word is distinguished from God, correct?

Yes, the Word is Christ.

Paul does the same thing:

there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Cor.8:6

Yes.

Notice that God is the origin of all things while Christ is the means by which all things come into existence.

All things come from God through Christ.

The origin of existence cannot be the means, correct?

I'm not sure why not.

Therefore, unless you wish to admit an infinite regression, you must accept Paul's articulation of the Shema which necessarily spotlights that the only way for God to exist it in, with, and through the word. There quite simply is no other referent for God other than the word.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. I think you are suggesting that God's existence is dependent upon Christ (the Word) rather than the other way around.

That does not make sense, so I must be misunderstanding you.

This verse does not state that everything that exists was created.

Not only is it emphatically stated, but God is not a "thing".

No, this verse refers to things that are made. God is not a thing that was made; therefore, this verse is not referring to God.

This verse is speaking about things that were made. This cannot be referring to God (who exists, but who was not made).

Not according to Paul. Paul has pointed out that God is the origin of Christ, and therefore cannot exist apart from Christ.

Ah... you are limiting God to being just this one 'thing' (for lack of a better word). God is the Creator, and He is also the Father of Christ (who is born from God), and He is also the God of Israel (and more); but He is also a Spirit being of His own accord.

I am a mother, but I still existed as a woman before I had a child.

There is only the word, and there can be no referent for the word "God" other than the word itself.

Angels are called gods as well; as beings that are immortal. Men are called gods as well. It is just a word.

The creed backs this up as well by pointing out that it is Christ who is "one in being with the father"

What creed is that?

Being or existence is all there is or can be, and the origin of existence cannot exist without contradicting ourselves.

This sentence is a bit confusing as it is worded and I do not know what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase please?




Peace again to you!

[shnarkle]

The origin of existence cannot be the means, correct?

I'm not sure why not.

How about because it's what you just agreed to with what Paul just said in 1Cor.8:6

origin
[ˈôrəjən]

NOUN
the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.
:beginning · start · origination · genesis · birth · dawning · dawn · emergence · inception · launch · creation · birthplace · cradle · early stages · conception · inauguration


means
[mēnz]

NOUN
(means of somethingmeans to do something)
an action or system by which a result is brought about; a method.
"resolving disputes by peaceful means" · [more]
synonyms:
method · way · manner · mode · measure · fashion · process · procedure · technique · expedient · agency · medium · instrument · mechanism · channel · vehicle · avenue · course

Paul is not using these ideas any differently. He points out that God is "OF whom" all exist, while Christ is "BY whom" all things exist. See the difference? Of denotes the source while "by" denotes the means.

Henry Ford conceived and fathered the Ford motor company, but all Ford automobiles are manufactured BY means of Ford manufacturing plants.

Therefore, unless you wish to admit an infinite regression, you must accept Paul's articulation of the Shema which necessarily spotlights that the only way for God to exist it in, with, and through the word. There quite simply is no other referent for God other than the word.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. I think you are suggesting that God's existence is dependent upon Christ (the Word) rather than the other way around.

That does not make sense, so I must be misunderstanding you.

The doctrine of the Trinity presents three persons who are co-equal, correct? The fact is that without the Son, there is no Trinity. There is no God. The relationship is one of inter-independence. However, the Creed points out that Christ is "one in being with the father". Christ says, 'I AM'. It is Christ Who exists, and Who points to the father as the origin of existence. There is absolutely no possibility of seeing the Father except through Christ.

this verse refers to things that are made. God is not a thing that was made; therefore, this verse is not referring to God.

Here's what he says:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Note that he begins by pointing that ALL things were made by him. Therefore God cannot be any thing. Everything that exists in all of creation exists by means of the word. The father is the origin of every thing. God cannot be anything if he is the origin. God cannot be the means if he is the origin.

you are limiting God to being just this one 'thing' (for lack of a better word).

No, I'm doing the exact opposite. God cannot be limited one thing because potential has no limitation, and because God is not any thing.

God is the Creator,

No, God is the source of creation. Again, as Paul says, "OF WHOM".

and He is also the Father of Christ (who is born from God), and He is also the God of Israel (and more); but He is also a Spirit being of His own accord.

No, God is not a spirit. God is spiritual. God is not an entity. God is the origin of being. God is the source of being, but God cannot be any thing.

I am a mother, but I still existed as a woman before I had a child.

Sure, but again we're not dealing with "things" to begin with. When we're dealing with things, there is no difference between origin and beginning. We're not dealing with things. We're dealing with the origin of existence and existence/being (itself). Therefore there is no beginning or end; just the origin or source which cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. Paul refutes that idea.

There is only the word, and there can be no referent for the word "God" other than the word itself.

Angels are called gods as well; as beings that are immortal. Men are called gods as well. It is just a word.

What's your point? Angels are messengers. Judges are also referred to as gods, but messengers and judges are words which have referents in the created world because they are things in the created world. The word "God" has no referent in the created world because only the word exists in the created world.

The creed backs this up as well by pointing out that it is Christ who is "one in being with the father"

What creed is that?

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of ONE BEING WITH THE FATHER.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end....etc.

Being or existence is all there is or can be, and the origin of existence cannot exist without contradicting ourselves.

This sentence is a bit confusing as it is worded and I do not know what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase please?

Would you agree that existence exists? Would you agree that nothing doesn't exist?
Do you suppose that without existence nothing would exist? No, this is a contradiction because we have already claimed that nothing doesn't exist. If nothing doesn't exist, then it doesn't then follow that if existence didn't exist that nothing would exist. The fact is that existence exists, and probably exists eternally.

We could ask why is there something rather than nothing, but we don't need to; it's a Given.

However, we also know that the word is essentially synonymous with existence, and was there "in the beginning". The beginning should not be confused or conflated with the origin or source, and the reason for this is because we're not dealing with "things". The origin of things is not a thing. The means by which things are produced is not a thing either.

Henry Ford does not produce Henry Fords, he is the idea or source of the Ford manufacturing plant. The Ford manufacturing plant does not produce Ford manufacturing plants. It produces Ford cars and trucks. Henry Ford is the source of Fords, and his manufacturing plants are the means by which those cars are all produced.

When we take this and apply it to being, we must logically note that the origin of existence cannot exist anymore than Henry Ford could be a manufacturing plant.

Where does existence originate? It can't originate from what already exists as that would produce an infinite regression. it is a contradiction in terms.

[tam]

Peace to you Shnarkle,




Does your argument require the doctrine of the trinity to be true?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 17 by tam]

The doctrine is something that is accepted without evidence. It is also accepted with differing interpretations which I have already addressed. Therefore, the arguments I am presenting stand on their own according to simple logic, and this logic supports the doctrine of the Trinity, just not in all of it's differing articulations and interpretations.

I have decided to assume those I am debating accept and follow the golden rule which necessarily means that if they ignore my arguments, I must accept that they no longer wish me to address theirs as well.

[tam]

Peace again to you,

[Replying to post 18 by shnarkle]


I was not attempting to argue about the trinity. I just asked if your argument required the trinity doctrine to be true, since you based some of your reasoning upon it. That seemed like a yes or no question to me (with added explanation if you prefer), but I still do not see a clear yes or no in your answer.




Peace again to you.

[shnarkle]

Peace again to you,

[Replying to post 18 by shnarkle]


I was not attempting to argue about the trinity. I just asked if your argument required the trinity doctrine to be true, since you based some of your reasoning upon it. That seemed like a yes or no question to me (with added explanation if you prefer), but I still do not see a clear yes or no in your answer.

Peace again to you.

No, my argument does not rely upon doctrines, true or otherwise. The reason being that there are more than a few articulations of the Trinity. I have pointed this out already. My arguments are not proving that God is the conclusion to a syllogism either. Granted, they are based upon logic, but also the reality of the Trinity rather than an acknowledged doctrine.