Proofs of God's non-existence- Part One: Discrepencies in the definition of God

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

Proofs of God's non-existence- Part One: Discrepencies in the definition of God 06.13.04 (7:37 pm)   [edit] The simplest proof that there is no God that I can offer you is that, with so many different religions that hold different ideas of who or what God is, it is clear that there can be no God, as there is no ultimate definition of God. If God is a being that we can conceive, we must first have an operable definition of what this being is and what its nature is, prior to accepting its existence. Since there are numerous religions, it is apparent that there is no operable definition of God. If we are talking about the Christian God, He is a supreme being that spoke the universe into existence and created man in His image. To combat sin, He sent His son, Jesus Christ, to the earth to die, absolving the sins of all mankind. According to Christian dogma, so long as we accept Christ as the savior and repent for our sins, we will be saved and have eternal life in the kingdom of God, Heaven. In Judaism as well as Islam, the same idea of God as a supreme being who created the universe, is worshipped. However, there are different ideas of salvation and the messiah. The Jewish belief, which Christianity is based on, parallels Christianity in its assertion that a messiah will come and deliver us to salvation. In Judaism, counter to Christianity, the belief is that the messiah has not come yet; Jesus Christ is not considered the savior. According to the Islamic faith, God is considered to be eternal and everlasting. He is the Creator and also the Preserver of all- He determines the ultimate cause of life. His attributes are eternal and unchanging, as well. The three major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) are in basic agreement on the nature of God, though each view varies. In each religion, God is considered to be a supernatural being that is omnipotent and omniscient. But this definition is not consistent with all religions. In Hinduism, the supreme God, Brahman, is actually embodied in the various gods and goddesses worshipped. Similarly, there are numerous gods worshipped in Shintoism. Buddhism is generally considered to be a religion, though there is no belief in God necessary. Given that there are so many religions that maintain different views on what the exact nature of God is, it is only natural to reach the conclusion that there can be no God. If each religion’s God exists, God’s nature is questionable- many religions assume that their God is the supreme being and coexisting with other supreme beings would be counter to their definitions of God. This means that we must consider that no religion is right if there does exist a God. Leaving religion out of the discussion, we must define God in some manner, unrestrained by the concepts of religious dogma. For the purposes of discussion, we can define God as an omnipotent, all-benevolent, and omniscient being that exists outside of time and space. However, this definition can not be true. Consider the problem of evil. Since there is evil in the world, God must not be entirely good or God must not be all-powerful. We can then change the definition to state that God is either all-powerful but not wholly benevolent, or God is all-good but not omnipotent. This weakens the case for God, and the fact that we must alter our definition demonstrates the flimsiness of the argument that God exists.   posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 06.13.04 (4:47 pm) Good essay. If a loving God exists, I'm sure he'd take the trouble to let his subjects at least know what's up so they wouldn't be so confused. posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 06.13.04 (7:57 pm) i definatly do not belive that god exists. i belive that gods with names and goddesses with names once existed or still do according to ragnarok where the gods are killed, but we dont know if ragnarok has happend yet so i belive in the spirits of my gods and goddesses which is more powerful. but i dont think that it is fair for the christians to steal the idea of god. they took the god word and made it a name making out that god is the only ruler of the universe. god means odin, thor, tyr etc. gods is the naming of a gruop of gods or there title ( god odin). and so many stories have been stolen from my culture and many others and retold turned around and made there own. Plus jesus didnt die for our sins he was executed for being a pain in the arse to everyone. posted by: AsatruViking (reply) post date: 06.13.04 (7:58 pm) i didnt put my name in but i'm newbie i wrote that last blog .poo posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (7:50 am) I think this is the weakest essay you have written to date. It simply does not follow that if people have different conceptions of something, then it could not exist. I expect that different people here have different conceptions about a lot of things. They may have different notions about what you or I may look like. They may have different notions about what the surface of Jupiter is like. A lack of a clear conception of something or a lack of a clear definition is completely irrelevant with respect to something's existence. Realistically, in an infinite universe, there are stars and other bodies that are unknown to any person in this universe. We cannot say that there is agreement about an unknown item since it's unknown. We cannot say that any item that is unknown to everybody does not exist either; the fact that there are new discoveries puts a wrinkle in that. Since discoveries of the existence of things will generally give an indication that they already existed, and will be consistent with our understanding of the world, then the notion that previously unknown objects did not exist until their discovery is not a very strong argument. So if even something completely unknown cannot be rationally said to not exist, then the idea makes even less sense simply because people disagree on the nature of something. Scientists are just beginning to figure out such basic things such as where babies come from, but the disagreements about this in past centuries did not indicate that babies don't exist. If we use your argument, we could show that something like evolution could not exist because there are so many different and conflicting notions about the origin of life that there is no ultimate definition, or even no operable definition. But the reality is that something could exist even if many, most or nearly all people have it wrong. Whether something is understood properly simply has no relevance as to its existance. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (1:37 pm) "There are levels upon levels of perspectives we must consider when we try to understand our individual perceptions of things, or when we try to relate our own perceptions to those of our brothers and sisters. Every single one of our previous experiences in life will affect in some way the mental perspective from which we see the world around us." -- Hyemeyohsts Storm posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (3:25 pm) Reply to: mblog "I think this is the weakest essay you have written to date." Well, thanks. "It simply does not follow that if people have different conceptions of something, then it could not exist." I agree, and that's not what I'm arguing. I should have explained more about the basic point, but this was just a draft. In essence, this idea is to challenge religious views more so than the actual possibility of a God existing. With so many differing ideas, how can anyone know with certainty that their view is right? And if you can not know, what's the point? More to come... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (4:16 pm) Reply to: jbfs Hmm, this looks oddly familiar... ;) posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 06.15.04 (7:42 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 I found it to be particularly pertinent to the discussion at hand. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.15.04 (10:52 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 "With so many differing ideas, how can anyone know with certainty that their view is right?" That's a good question. The same point could be made for your argument, and then we get back to Pascal's wager. I'm sure that you are as sure that you are right as the Pope is sure that Jesus is God. A related issue is that some religions not only insist that their views are correct, but also that theirs is the only possible interpretation. Indeed, some of the major ones go beyond that and say that if you don't do things their way, then you are going to hell for eternity. Then you are faced with a situation where the implication is that not only are most people in the world going to hell for eternity, but it has nothing to do with their actions or how they lead their lives. The mere fact that they live somewhere where they never even heard of Jesus or Allah or somebody else's concept of God is still sufficient to condemn them to eternal damnation. Despite what many Christians believe, the majority of people in the world are not Christian and no religion is held by the majority of people in this world. So if a religion that believes it is the only way is correct, then most of the world is destined to go to hell. The problem I have with that is not truly related to the issue of differing views or one being right or wrong, but of reconciling that with the religious texts of those who make those claims. It seems inane that a loving God would do such a thing. It also goes against the Bible. Before the time of Jesus, it was clear to Jews that Jews were expected to follow the laws given by God, but that gentiles were not expected to, and indeed the notion that they should be expected to follow something that they never heard of is inherently senseless. Instead, gentiles were expected to merely follow the laws of Noah, which were more of a general moral code. When Paul started preaching to gentiles (he also preached to Jews and expected them to follow the Torah and its laws) he followed Jewish custom by not expect them to follow Jewish law. For pragmatic reasons he would not have been successful otherwise, and his followers ultimately blended in lots of Greek mythology and Pagan ritual, but the notion of "Salvation through Jesus alone," which loosely meant that a strict following of Jewish law was not necessary for Gentiles, rather than implying that non-Christians will not be "saved," was simply misinterpreted as Christianity started becoming dominant, and Christians saw non-Christian ideas as threatening. So the inherent notion that only one religion is a true path was not a biblical concept but a political one. And there are still religions that do not consider that there is only one correct path. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins