How can God not exist

[OntheWindowStand]

Originally Posted by de_budding

In response to one: How did God start? Well in my opinion with a simple question. Existentially, something along the lines of- 'what should I do next?’ But there is also the raw human will to own and control. Such as inventing an entity which puts the human race at the centre of the universe; remember being taught about the resistance that people showed when it was theorized that the earth moved around the sun, as opposed the Earth being at the centre of all local orbit? This kind of thinking is related to less inquisitive and lazy thinking. Something along the lines of 'What was that?' a lack of control of the environment is presented and you would react with an answer like... "O' that was Atlas flexing his shoulders, he gets tired holding up the sky." The rest of your response doesn’t seem relevant to my point of God being in your own image as a defense against that which you can't control (predict, understand, fathom... whatever.)

In response to two: Please go on then. If time so blatantly indicates the existence of something to generate it-- [1] the existence of A = the existence of B-- then it follows that the existence of B = the existence of C and so on ad infinitum. And could not a cycle of big bangs (a cycle of the creations of time and space) indicate a cycle of the recreation of the start point of time? Also this is one example, please feel free to delve into the many models that exist to excuse infinite timelines... not that a finite time line indicates a God... refer to [1]

Also you did not attempt to address the idea that the creator concept (especially in a Christian context [which I assume this is]) can be disbanded by taking a look at the ridiculous explanation ratio. Let me elaborate for you though...

The existence of the Christian God explains a few things... How the earth was created, why we are here and how we should live our lives. But in the explaining of these three things it refuses to address the 1'000's maybe 10's of 1000’s of assumptions made... a sacrifice of truth- ironic as that is a Christian value held close to heart. Things assumed are...
that angels exist, that Jesus was reborn from death, the existence of Mary, the existence of God himself, the possibility of such a being, that humans could know, that the Bible can be trusted... and so on. Where as Darwin’s theory assumes one things, a common ancestor but, explains 10s of 1000s of questions.
So creation via God= 3/1000's (Q’s answered/things assumed)-- compared to a real theory like Darwin’s-- 1000's/1. That was more what I was poking at. If you can explain why we should listen to the reasoning you offer under such circumstances, then I'm sure I would be more willing to listen... and this is not a faith issue, this is a sense issue to be dealt with in apparent reality; and your answer (God) seems so arbitrary in this context that I find it hard to take you seriously.

Dan.

Darwin's theory actually assumes a lot how can your basis of beliefs be based on random assumptions. If evolution exist new species would have been popping up as well links between species that already exist

[de_budding]

Please don't focus on that, it was an example! Any good theory will hold true to a good explanation ration, Darwin's is just a particularly good one. Just concentrate on responding to the lines that have one of these---> ? at the end, if you are going to cherry pick.

You responded to Theatetus as well...

nothing has shown to evolve only change species adapt but never changes specie lines

Don't let this distract from the real issue but... 'specie line' is a subjective label: A mouse is a mouse until it changes so much that we choose to relabel it. If you agree mice can grow (change) then you agree that mice can loose their tails (change), you also agree that it's nose can turn green... perhaps to adapt; how many changes would you insist on before we relabel it a new species. Or am I wrong? Is there is an objective definition for what 'change[s]' are required to qualify for new-species creation.

Dan.

[OntheWindowStand]

Originally Posted by de_budding

Please don't focus on that, it was an example! Any good theory will hold true to a good explanation ration, Darwin's is just a particularly good one. Just concentrate on responding to the lines that have one of these---> ? at the end, if you are going to cherry pick.

You responded to Theatetus as well...

Don't let this distract from the real issue but... 'specie line' is a subjective label: A mouse is a mouse until it changes so much that we choose to relabel it. If you agree mice can grow (change) then you agree that mice can loose their tails (change), you also agree that it's nose can turn green... perhaps to adapt; how many changes would you insist on before we relabel it a new species. Or am I wrong? Is there is an objective definition for what 'change[s]' are required to qualify for new-species creation.

Dan.

something to remember is that change only occurs to a species when it changes where it lives that is because the sub species that is the best suited thus survives and it appears as though something changed in reality when put back in the same environment the sub species that flourished before will continue its past prosperity and another "change will occur" this is just the survival of the fittest at work no specie changes occur though the basis of what makes it certain animal hasn't shown to ever change

[Theaetetus]

Physical characteristics are not the only thing that evolves. Look at the universe as an example. Chemical reactions happen all the time. Simple atoms such as hydrogen and helium evolve into more complex atoms until you end up with uranium. One minute stars exist and then disappear taking out hole regions of galaxies, which is the mechanism that creates enough energy to act as a catalyst for more complex atoms. To think that God is responsible for these evolution is to think that God pops stars like balloons. That is pure ridiculous.

Honestly I cannot prove that God does not exist, but that is not my job. The person that claims God exists must prove that fact. I only provide evidence that proves that if there is a God he/she is not a creator. Anything that evolves cannot have a creator because things that are created cannot evolve. I can create a song, but it is incapable of altering without me evolving as a guitar player. I could paint a picture but it will not spontaneously change as its environmental pressures put strain upon it. Much in the same way, people created the idea of God, but for God to evolve it takes new thinking of humans to change the concept.

The question then is what good is a God that has no effect upon any living system?

[Zetetic11235]

It is interesting how one can cite the theory of relativity to prove their point and then attack someone for using another theory, of evolution, and do so using outmoded Darwinian evolution. Go read John Archibald Wheeler's writings on the idea of reversible and non reversible processes, and don't cite the theory of relativity unless you can understand an accept the physics behind it as likely rather than absolute. There are no laws of science, only likelihoods. A law would imply that induction is absolute truth, this is false for we do not know of all possible events, we only draw up a theory by what we see.

Assume god created everything. God is then not a thing unless god created himself. God created existence, thus god does not exist unless he created himself. Our minds are a product of god thus any conception of god which we have was created by god. Our universe is not self causual thus not of the same nature as god. Take that as you will.

Assume that god created our physical universe. You argue that our physical universe (perhapse the multiverse conjectured by Mikio Kaku) is not infinite for time is not infinite as defined as the distance between two physical events. However, you assume that time is not infinte by stating that you cannot concieve of it and a man cannot do it, thus god cannot do it, assuming god has the limitations of man while claiming that he has no limitations, a contradiction.

Further, assuming god caused himself is not in contradiciton to any assumptions made in this thread. God created the physical universe and all that exists, god is caused by god, thus existence is caused by that which is caused by itself which it god. Since god is eternal and self causing, surely then so can be the universe?

Pick that apart, I'm not entirely sincere in the argument but I would like to see it refuted.

Edit:A good objective measure of species is interbreeding, it has been suggested that classification be genetic based upon whether an animal can interbreed with another. There is still the problem of classifictation by physical appearance. A dual classification might not be a bad idea.

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by OntheWindowStand

I'm glad you see my logic some mysteries will always exist I suppose. You agree something had to start it?

Well one thing is for sure... One or more thing's must exist before time can exist in it's present state, mainly due to the fact time is a observation of one or more thing's interacting with one another bound by are perception of that observation, yet time would still exist if we didnt, yet if all form's of matter didnt exist then time would not exist in it's present state.

Time is only 13.73 billion year's old, before then there could be no time do to the fact that the big bang had not happend and this existence was void of all form's of matter, therefore the effect of time would not be present, and therefore making time exist in a diffrent state as it is in presently.

But by religiou's point's of view, time is said to be created by god, when god had made light from nothingness.

So just like everything els, time was created from nothingness...

Yet it's hard to say what was the somthing that created somthing from that nothingness, but we all can be sure that somthing had to for everything to exist how it exist's presently...
____________________________________________
Also time is just a perception of one or more thing's experiencing or undergoing a non-observable change or a observable change.(also time is used as a mathmatical tool where the start and end's are used to create data or information that can be used)

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

Physical characteristics are not the only thing that evolves. Look at the universe as an example. Chemical reactions happen all the time. Simple atoms such as hydrogen and helium evolve into more complex atoms until you end up with uranium. One minute stars exist and then disappear taking out hole regions of galaxies, which is the mechanism that creates enough energy to act as a catalyst for more complex atoms. To think that God is responsible for these evolution is to think that God pops stars like balloons. That is pure ridiculous.

Honestly I cannot prove that God does not exist, but that is not my job. The person that claims God exists must prove that fact. I only provide evidence that proves that if there is a God he/she is not a creator. Anything that evolves cannot have a creator because things that are created cannot evolve. I can create a song, but it is incapable of altering without me evolving as a guitar player. I could paint a picture but it will not spontaneously change as its environmental pressures put strain upon it. Much in the same way, people created the idea of God, but for God to evolve it takes new thinking of humans to change the concept.

The question then is what good is a God that has no effect upon any living system?

"Simple atoms such as hydrogen and helium evolve into more complex atoms until you end up with uranium."

Program's dont program them self... Someone must program the program to program it's self...

It can be perceived as just a game, and I'm sure hydrogen didnt tell it's self how to interact with another form of matter...nor did it evolve to learn how...

So due to that fact there is a set of rule's that all thing's must follow...

And thank's to science a list of those finite amount of rule's of interaction can be created.

And just like the rule's of a computer program, they dont wright them selve's...

(All Statement's Above Include No Presumptions)

Intelect

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

It is interesting how one can cite the theory of relativity to prove their point and then attack someone for using another theory, of evolution, and do so using outmoded Darwinian evolution. Go read John Archibald Wheeler's writings on the idea of reversible and non reversible processes, and don't cite the theory of relativity unless you can understand an accept the physics behind it as likely rather than absolute. There are no laws of science, only likelihoods. A law would imply that induction is absolute truth, this is false for we do not know of all possible events, we only draw up a theory by what we see.

Assume god created everything. God is then not a thing unless god created himself. God created existence, thus god does not exist unless he created himself. Our minds are a product of god thus any conception of god which we have was created by god. Our universe is not self causual thus not of the same nature as god. Take that as you will.

Assume that god created our physical universe. You argue that our physical universe (perhapse the multiverse conjectured by Mikio Kaku) is not infinite for time is not infinite as defined as the distance between two physical events. However, you assume that time is not infinte by stating that you cannot concieve of it and a man cannot do it, thus god cannot do it, assuming god has the limitations of man while claiming that he has no limitations, a contradiction.

Further, assuming god caused himself is not in contradiciton to any assumptions made in this thread. God created the physical universe and all that exists, god is caused by god, thus existence is caused by that which is caused by itself which it god. Since god is eternal and self causing, surely then so can be the universe?

Pick that apart, I'm not entirely sincere in the argument but I would like to see it refuted.

Edit:A good objective measure of species is interbreeding, it has been suggested that classification be genetic based upon whether an animal can interbreed with another. There is still the problem of classifictation by physical appearance. A dual classification might not be a bad idea.

Those are a lot of assumptions. Lets assume that invisible pink unicorns exist while we are at it.

I am not sure what you are attempting to argue. That the universe and God are one and the same? That only makes the word and concept behind God irrelevant.

[Zetetic11235]

You Win! Irrelevent indeed!

Nah im just goofin around buddy. Besides, invisible pinky unicorns do exist! A horse exists, a horn exists, invisible exists and pink exists, just put them all together! <---, ya get me?

You have to make assumptions to get a result. Make one statement that includes no presumptions! I know that I can't do it..perhapse you can, but I doubt it! Every human system has a presumption at its base.

I just wanted to write a bunch of goofy stuff and see how people would respond to it. I am still interested in seeing a deconstruction of my argument.

Edit:On a more serious note, yes, a concept of god cannot show god fully as it is by definition a part of god and a part does not constitute a whole.

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

It is interesting how one can cite the theory of relativity to prove their point and then attack someone for using another theory, of evolution, and do so using outmoded Darwinian evolution. Go read John Archibald Wheeler's writings on the idea of reversible and non reversible processes, and don't cite the theory of relativity unless you can understand an accept the physics behind it as likely rather than absolute. There are no laws of science, only likelihoods. A law would imply that induction is absolute truth, this is false for we do not know of all possible events, we only draw up a theory by what we see.

Assume god created everything. God is then not a thing unless god created himself. God created existence, thus god does not exist unless he created himself. Our minds are a product of god thus any conception of god which we have was created by god. Our universe is not self causual thus not of the same nature as god. Take that as you will.

Assume that god created our physical universe. You argue that our physical universe (perhapse the multiverse conjectured by Mikio Kaku) is not infinite for time is not infinite as defined as the distance between two physical events. However, you assume that time is not infinte by stating that you cannot concieve of it and a man cannot do it, thus god cannot do it, assuming god has the limitations of man while claiming that he has no limitations, a contradiction.

Further, assuming god caused himself is not in contradiciton to any assumptions made in this thread. God created the physical universe and all that exists, god is caused by god, thus existence is caused by that which is caused by itself which it god. Since god is eternal and self causing, surely then so can be the universe?

Pick that apart, I'm not entirely sincere in the argument but I would like to see it refuted.

Edit:A good objective measure of species is interbreeding, it has been suggested that classification be genetic based upon whether an animal can interbreed with another. There is still the problem of classifictation by physical appearance. A dual classification might not be a bad idea.

Egg's turn into chicken's, but the first chicken didnt come from an egg, because at one point a chicken wasnt a chicken and didnt lay egg's