Ontological Proof There is No God

[Diogenes]

One can prove there is no god as described in the Bible from reason alone.

God is, by definition according to Christian theology, perfect, all knowing and all powerful. This god has no needs or desires. 'He' is complete unto himself. He is perfect.

Since he is already perfect any change is a change from perfection.

Therefore God not only had no desire to create 'man,' no need to create man, the creation of any fundamental change to the universe, to existence itself, would constitute a change from perfection. Any change from an absolutely perfect state must be a change from perfection to a lesser state, therefore God did not create man since to do so would imply he was not previously perfect.

That homo sapiens exists is therefore proof there was no preexisting and perfect God.

[Miles]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #16]

I know how they do it, least, some 30 years after it took place in England at a radar site for earliest radio-astronomy interpreting the outermost Sloan Wall by radiological signals,

Err, if I recall correctly, "radiological signals," signals involved in using advanced, state of the art X-ray technologies in medical examination, diagnosis, and treatment." are not tools of radio astronomy----in fact, the two actually operate at opposite ends of the electromagnetic spectrum. Moreover, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, used optical telescopes, not radio telescopes. So none of the data that led to the discovery of the Sloan Great Wall was of a "radio" frequency. Therefore there was no "radiological signature . . . similar to (some) ghosts who we now (and earlier rather) can see directly with proper viewing devices, think Infra-Red devices and such."

And "ghosts" you say; curious, what frequency do ghosts manifest themselves at these days?

one can make this output to a screen and there, "telepathically", communicate with God confirmed by (f)MRI. Good?

Really. By looking at brain scans a person can confirm they are communicating with god. And the evidence that supports your proof of this is what?


.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #16]

I know how they do it, least, some 30 years after it took place in England at a radar site for earliest radio-astronomy interpreting the outermost Sloan Wall by radiological signals, one can make this output to a screen and there, "telepathically", communicate with God confirmed by (f)MRI. Good?

"Good?" Hardly! Not even close. Merely mentioning the GSW* means nothing. You claimed some kind of scientific proof of God. You were challenged to show the evidence. You haven't. You might as well say "Rutabaga!"

But go ahead, please explain how GSW is somehow connected to your claim of scientific evidence for God. And if you have something besides your own opinion, provide a URL to support your claim. Then take the facts and arrange them in something approaching a logical order to explain your claim.

__________________
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall

[Ionian_Tradition]

One can prove there is no god as described in the Bible from reason alone.

God is, by definition according to Christian theology, perfect, all knowing and all powerful. This god has no needs or desires. 'He' is complete unto himself. He is perfect.

Since he is already perfect any change is a change from perfection.

Therefore God not only had no desire to create 'man,' no need to create man, the creation of any fundamental change to the universe, to existence itself, would constitute a change from perfection. Any change from an absolutely perfect state must be a change from perfection to a lesser state, therefore God did not create man since to do so would imply he was not previously perfect.

That homo sapiens exists is therefore proof there was no preexisting and perfect God.

It seems to me quite uncontroversial to suppose that creativity can (reasonably) be counted among God's innate perfections. If such is the case, then God's creation of the universe would not be the product of an unmet need (denoting imperfection), but rather the logical consequence of his innate artistic disposition to create.

As such, it is by no means obvious that divine perfection precludes the rise of homo sapians, or anything else which might come about as a result of the exertion of God's omnipotence and innate creative potential.

I should also point out that the introduction of the universe into the state of affairs we call "existence" need not compel us to believe that God's perfection would, as a consequence, become compromised. Placing iron ore, for example, next to a pristine gold bar does not diminish the beauty, value, or general "perfection" of the gold bar itself. Similarly, God (being ontologically distinct from that which he creates) is not subject to a loss in perfection simply because entities exist which are less perfect that himself. This could only be the case if God were not ontologically distinct from his creation (which is a position that few, if any, orthodox Christians hold).

[2ndRateMind]

One can prove there is no god as described in the Bible from reason alone.

God is, by definition according to Christian theology, perfect, all knowing and all powerful. This god has no needs or desires. 'He' is complete unto himself. He is perfect.

Since he is already perfect any change is a change from perfection.

Therefore God not only had no desire to create 'man,' no need to create man, the creation of any fundamental change to the universe, to existence itself, would constitute a change from perfection. Any change from an absolutely perfect state must be a change from perfection to a lesser state, therefore God did not create man since to do so would imply he was not previously perfect.

That homo sapiens exists is therefore proof there was no preexisting and perfect God.

Don't quite see where the 'ontological proof' is relevant to the OP. But it is my belief that God created the universe, the world, and it's various inhabitants because He wanted to love us all, and without that love, however 'omnimax' He is, He would have been imperfect.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JoeyKnothead]

Don't quite see where the 'ontological proof' is relevant to the OP. But it is my belief that God created the universe, the world, and it's various inhabitants because He wanted to love us all, and without that love, however 'omnimax' He is, He would have been imperfect.

So if this god decided hate was the way to go, that'd be perfection.

This god is clearly the product of human emotions, wants, and wishes.

[2ndRateMind]

Don't quite see where the 'ontological proof' is relevant to the OP. But it is my belief that God created the universe, the world, and it's various inhabitants because He wanted to love us all, and without that love, however 'omnimax' He is, He would have been imperfect.

So if this god decided hate was the way to go, that'd be perfection.

This god is clearly the product of human emotions, wants, and wishes.

Joey, my friend, if and as and when you discover God for your self, you will discover that God's aspirations to and for us, and the best of our aspirations for ourselves, happen to meet in perfect consummation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Difflugia]

Joey, my friend, if and as and when you discover God for your self, you will discover that God's aspirations to and for us, and the best of our aspirations for ourselves, happen to meet in perfect consummation.

Some years ago, an acquaintance of mine used to talk for her cat, doing a special voice and everything. Usually it was a sort of running commentary on what the cat was doing ("I wonder what's back here?" "You haven't scratched my ears yet, Difflugia."), but occasionally the cat would opine on some conversation we humans were having ("No, Difflugia, homeopathic medicine is not stupid.").

It was uncanny just how simpatico cat and owner were.

[2ndRateMind]

Joey, my friend, if and as and when you discover God for your self, you will discover that God's aspirations to and for us, and the best of our aspirations for ourselves, happen to meet in perfect consummation.

Some years ago, an acquaintance of mine used to talk for her cat, doing a special voice and everything. Usually it was a sort of running commentary on what the cat was doing ("I wonder what's back here?" "You haven't scratched my ears yet, Difflugia."), but occasionally the cat would opine on some conversation we humans were having ("No, Difflugia, homeopathic medicine is not stupid.").

It was uncanny just how simpatico cat and owner were.

I might be tempted to lend your story more weight, were we not talking in terms of the best we humans can be, and how God helps us toward that. It's a qualitative thing, not a conversational one.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Difflugia]

I might be tempted to lend your story more weight, were we not talking in terms of the best we humans can be, and how God helps us toward that.

And I might be tempted to find something more in your aphorism if "best" and "helps" were anything other than subjective.

[2ndRateMind]

I might be tempted to lend your story more weight, were we not talking in terms of the best we humans can be, and how God helps us toward that.

And I might be tempted to find something more in your aphorism if "best" and "helps" were anything other than subjective.

Sorry, but the subjective is an important feature of human lives. It may not be empirical, but that does not diminish it's relevance.

Best wishes, 2RM.