God Doesnt Exist

Nature and reality are congruent words, nature is reality, reality is nature. All that exists is real, and all that is real exists. Everything that is real is governed by nature, it is nature. From every dimension, to every black hole, hypernova, solar flare and gravity. If something does not exist, it is not real. Therefore if it exists, it becomes part of reality, ergo nature.

So if something "supernatural," were to exist, by its own definition is illogical and non-existant, it would no longer be "supernatural," merely natural. That which does not exist is intangible [I.e. A concept] It cannot exist, being logically impossible.

Reality = A / Nature = B | Ergo: A = B, B = A

In order for somthing to cause itself, it must preceed itself. Nothing preceeds itself. Therefore, it is illogical for somthing to cause itself. Q.E.D.

If God exists, that means that it is part of nature. If it's part of nature, it is not supernatural. Also, as something which exists, it cannot be inconsistent. There is nothing that is tangible that is inconsistent.

For example, A being which is omnipotent must be illogical. Can a God make a rock bigger than he can lift? If so, then he would be unable to lift it. If not, he wouldnt be able to create one bigger than he could not lift.

Therefore god would be bound by the laws of logic. I.e., God is a natural entity which had a beginning and cannot do the impossible. A "God" that had a beginning, could not do the impossible, sounds alot like me, a human being. Nor would this God be omniscient, omnipresent... God(s) Can only exist as a concept, like invisible pink unicorns.

Through all of the contradictions in the bibles, and illogical claims, such as Jesus rising from the dead, meaning millions of people worship a 2,000 year old jew zombie nailed to two peices of wood... Magical trees, talking snakes, etc... God simply does not exist.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Why would anyone worship a deity that supposedly has the power to stop 40,000 children from dying of starvation every day, yet doesnt?

It was a picture of a black woman in Northern Africa. They were experiencing a devastating drought. And she was holding her dead baby in her arms and looking up to heaven with the most forlorn expression. I looked at it and thought, "Is it possible to believe that there is a loving or caring Creator when all this woman needed was rain?" [Charles Templeton, former evangelist, referring to a picture in Time Magazine, when asked by Lee Strobel when he realized he lost his faith]

Think of how many people have died for an "all loving" deity... Just in the christian religion alone! The holocaust, the inquisition, crusades, waco texas, salem witch trials, massacre of wounded knee, trail of tears, cortes and montezumo, the list goes on and on.

Were any deities listening to the prayers of a small boy asking for help while he was being molested by a priest?

You must consider that since a casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith proves nothing. It proves everything equally, from 2+2=5 to "God exists because I have faith." It's an inane concept without justification. Two hands working do more than an infinite amount clasped in prayer.

Wake up people, Gods dont exist!

You argument contains a flaw. You define existence as only what can exist within our physical universe. You do not consider that there may be an existence beyond our physical universe. You limit reality to the physical universe. God does exist. His existence is beyond our universe. You say, "If God exists, that means that it is part of nature" which indicates that you accept as an article of faith that nothing exists beyond our physical reality. This just as much a statement of faith or belief as the assertation that God exists. As for blind faith in God, faith in Jesus Christ is not based on just blind faith. There are rational reasons to believe if you were open minded enough to investigate. However since your mind is already closed, I doubt very much if you would comprehend what was put forth. Of course, belief for me was easy, since God directly revealed Himself to me. However, I wore a "I want to believe" sign in my mind and heart for years before the revelation.

Cannot see air, yet we know it is real. just becuase one cannot see something does not mean it dont exist. the very slim chance that this world has existed as long as it has with out beeing totaled like mars or even destroyed by the unknown amount of deadly meteors that miss us almost daily probably means nothing to you then huh?

I'm not going to argue this though, I actaully would like to hear more about your logic on these matters. as then maybe we as in the members of this community may be ablt to best accomidate you.

And just to clear things up, I personally do not believe in an all powerful supernatural being myself. But I firmly believe in the "message" Jesus was meant to portray.

We've just begun to study the Universe and it's power. We know .0001% of what's to be known about the Universe.

Trust me, God does exist.

[Edited on 7-13-2003 by Illmatic67]

Originally posted by Illmatic67
We've just begun to study the Universe and it's power. We know .0001% of what's to be known about the Universe.

Trust me, God does exist.

[Edited on 7-13-2003 by Illmatic67]

yes. god is real. our notions of god, however, border on delusional. don't you think? the act of trying to know the mind and motives of god is silly. what is "death" to god?
know yourself, was good advice. forgive. love. evol-ve.

Actually Illmatic67 you could have probably added several 100 other 0's and still have been correct.

The Universe we are currently aware of is classified as Finite but Boundless.

AS welcome to ATS...

You are correct in stating that the term supernatural is related to being beyond nature, but only as related to what we do not understand.


Would sugest you look around the forum.

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by Toltec]

this really is a very old chestnut. It most commonly apepars in what passes for discussion on "miracles" to the obvious effect that if they "happen", they cannot be miraculous etc..blah....sigh....yawn.
Quite simply, it is a matter of the limits of language: unicorns don't "exist" in the way horses do: thoughts, emotions and memories don't exist in the way that skulls and brains do and, almost by definition, I should have thought, an omnipotent, omnipresent, supreme being (and everyone of those adjectives reveals the limits of language) will not "exist" in the way that anything else does.
We have no beter word than "exist" to cover a multitude of meanings and any apparent contradictions emerge only because of the limits of thought and language: how could we ever talk other than symbolically or metaphorically about something that is by definition outside of all human understanding?
When the old theologians and philosphers spoke of "mysteries", they weren't "copping out": they were simply pointing to the limits of what is knowable and what is expressible.

Please, demonstrate something that isnt physical. Remember, emotions are possible because of the brain, which is physical. Even the neurosynapses are physical, the chemical reactions, in one word: everything. Please take into account that schizophrenics see things which aren't there. The mind is indeed a powerful tool. Theists hold irrational beliefs in spite of invalidating evidence. This makes them delusional, irrational, ignorant of that information and superstitious. Not that this is an attack, more along the lines of a diagnosis. Theism is a meme, to put it in its truest form, a mental virus.

We cannot see air, correct. However we can see the effects of air, and we do know it exists. Things exist that we cannot see, hear, smell, taste, etc. However that does not mean they dont exist, merely that our natural abilities to detect them are severely limited.
We've just began to study the Universe? In the history of time, our research is an eyeblink. However, I would enjoy for you to demonstrate your claim that we know .0001%.

God is real? Surely, since there is no evidence to support your claim, the burden of proof is yours. The burden of proof makes your concept of some "divine entity" non-existant until proven existant. Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, but it is justification for lack of belief, also it places the burden of proof upon you. But we're not just going on absence of evidence, its all the more interesting.

Remember, Even other dimensions are included in Reality/Nature. Everything that exists. I've no problem in believing in some natural entity which had a beginning and cannot do the impossible, do you? Not that I would want to worship such an entity, however.

So if knowledge was infinite, 2+2=5 would be rational?

Please remember, 2 is defined as 2 not 2 1/2. It could be 2.50 + 2.49, It is still 2.

Rainbows were once thought to be miracles, they have been shown to be natural phenomenon, which everything existant is. You cannot change the actuality of reality by changing language.

I define real by what exists, that is in the actuality of existing. I've no better way of stating the obvious.

Changing language doesnt change what exists or not. You cant define something non-existant into existance. It has to actually exist.

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by AnarchistSuperstar]

Anarchist.......

Nature=God
Reality=God
'A' is to 'B' as 'B' is to 'A'.

God is All='C'

A+B=C
thus.........2+2 does indeed amount to '4'.

You need to read many of the topics in this "Religious & Spiritual" Forum.
Your analysis is flaw ridden and biased to the point of an Atheist/Atheism belief...matter of fact, it is a Atheist argument and point of view.

I am almost certain that no matter the answers given, your stance, view, idea, notion, and belief of God not existing will never budge nor change. This is after all, your God given right.....no one, certainly not God, forces you to except anything dealing with, implying, indicating the existence of God or a belief in.....it is ultimately a decision that you, sir, can only make.

As to the "problems" of this world and your "blaming" and questioning God as to His abilities to "allow" these things..........your looking for the answers in the wrong place. Hint: when you get a chance look in the mirror......thats where the truth can be found; thats the "reality" that you, they, he, she, and Man seem to fail to grasp. The truth is, we, Man, are the one's responsible for the happenings of this world. Those 40,000 kids die everyday, because we, Man, allow them to......not God's fault here......hello?!?!? Your placing blame onto something because you don't want to look in the mirror and see your own self as being at fault....its called denial. Sweet an simple. Just like 2+2=4....direct and to the point.

Join the club.......you are not alone, be assurd of that. But regardless, no matter how hard you want to deny God and His existence, God is something that is straight and simply..........unavoidable......you'll find that out over time.....bet on it.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
A+B=C
thus.........2+2 does indeed amount to '4'.

To break it down even further, your math was off...

4 broken down to 2, can divided in half again to get 1.

And there is only one God.

Awnser finished.

Well antichristsuperstar what would you say to the thousands of people who have reported and seen what they called supernatural events. What would yos say to people who have witnessed what they believe to be miraculous events. What would you say to me who experienced a direct revelation of GOD? Indeed God directly revealed His existence to me. What would you say to me?

Originally posted by AnarchistSuperstar
So if knowledge was infinite, 2+2=5 would be rational?

yes. one female plus one male equals more than two(sometimes).

Please remember, 2 is defined as 2 not 2 1/2. It could be 2.50 + 2.49, It is still 2.

that's just your meaning of two. it's more of a 4/2 kind of number to me.

Rainbows were once thought to be miracles, they have been shown to be natural phenomenon, which everything existant is.

rainbows ARE miracles. nature is god.

You cannot change the actuality of reality by changing language.

are you sure?

I define real by what exists, that is in the actuality of existing. I've no better way of stating the obvious.

you believe what you perceive. not necessarily "reality".

Changing language doesnt change what exists or not. You cant define something non-existant into existance. It has to actually exist.

let's just hope the dreamer doesn't wake up.

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by AnarchistSuperstar]

"emotions are possible because of the brain, which is physical" this may, in part or wholly, be the case but it explains nothing about what we call "emotions": "hallucinations" "exist because of the brain which is physical. Sherlock Holmes "exists" because of Conan Doyle's brain which was physical - and what does "possible because of" actually mean: fish are presumably "possible" because of water -does water "explain" fish?
Such pseudo-reasoning takes no one anywhere and many would argue that the fact that the brain is physically by no means necessarily leads to the conclusion that the "mind" is physical..at least in the way that the brain is. And "mind" would appear to be the operative concept here.

It appears that you're a pantheist if you're going to define god into existance by essentially modifying the definitions of Nature/Reality into "God," sure. I've no reason to worship nature/reality, either. My rights were not given by a deity. My creator are my parents, who engaged in sexual intercourse leading to biological reproduction. There was no deity involved, the same happened for you. People create their own rights, and take them away if they wish.

I'm talking about "If God existed, and had the ability to change the events that happened, and was indeed loving, would God indeed refuse to help a starving child?" You attempt a red herring, which is sad. Because indeed, man creates his own problems, thats because deities do not exist. I've no reason to assume some loving deity lets children suffer, there must be an explanation as to why then there is suffering. Easy, there is no quick fix-all you can pray to, if man wants to fix his problems, he has to get serious about it.

You're accusing me, as a homosapien of contributing to the worlds problems? On the contrary, I do much to end them, I'm not part of the problem, I'm part of the solution. No, not all the easy questions have been answered, I believe that to be a lie of the utmost order.

You talk about me denying a deity and his existance, if this deity exists why isnt it a fact? I deny all deities, you deny all but one. You must realize humanity has invented several millions of deities. So once you realize what allows you to dismiss all others than yours, you'll understand why I dont make that one tiny exception. I do not act condescending towards people who deny the presupposed existance of Zeus. You're proving nothing, you're just spreading misinformation.

Technically, no. There are an infinite number of hypothetical gods, equally likely as the next. This proves nothing, however. I would say that they experienced natural phenomenon but did not understand it so they attributed it to the explanation for everything people are too ignorant to understand. "Mommy, why is it raining?" "You made God Cry." These fictitious analogies have no validity or respect inside the scientific community, nor do they give any honest explanation into natural phenomenon. I would severely doubt your sanity. Which sounds better, "I hear a voice in my head and it won't go away" or "God speaks to me and I have a personal relationship with him"?

BillyBob, I'm talking about mathematics, not biological reproduction. Yes, my concept of two determines what two is. If I used the word five to describe the word 2, 5+5=10 in actuality it would equal four. However, Almost everyone (Excluding you) agreed upon what each number represents. Some poor oafs had to write a 200 page book demonstrating that 2+2=4; because of people like you.

A rainbow in its least technical sense is an arc of colored light in the sky caused by refraction of the sun's rays by rain. So are you saying "Arcs of colored light in the sky caused by refractions of the sun's rays by rain is God"? I hope not, because thats laughable. Yes, I'm sure you cannot make reality stop existing by changing the definition of reality to one meaning "Non-existant."

I believe in what exists, I'm not limited to what I can see, hear, taste, touch, smell, etc.
I am not unconscious right now, you're not adding anything interesting to the conversation besides ignorance.

The character Sherlock Holmes is fictional, please think about that.

You're the one who is using psuedo-reason. Fish are presumably possible because they have been demonstrated to be real. They could not however exist in the Dead Sea. I do not see what your point it. Emotions, hallucinations and other physical phenomenon have been explained.

A poet and philosopher once said: "Reality is, once one stops believing in, doesnt go away."

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by AnarchistSuperstar]

"What would you say to me who experienced a direct revelation of GOD? Indeed God directly revealed His existence to me. What would you say to me?"-this has to be addressed (it is manifestly evident that you are incapable of adressing any philosophical issues in any clear, cogent or informed manner).
What do you say? "You're wrong" "Prove it"?
Plainly both are mere folly. I might as well ask someone to prove they had a certain dream or that they felt tired yesterday, or asserting that they thought they had had this dream but actually they hadn't beause they cannot prove it: this is called not really knowing how the word "proof" is used.
Now, had I bumped into St Paul on the way from Damascus and he'd told me about his recent adventures, I may well have thought "His head's not right."; but this tells us nothing about him, only about me.
Even if I'd taken him to a Roman shrink and had him tested in Latin and it was shown that in all manner of ways his head wasn't right that would have no meaningful consequences as far as what he said happened on the road to Damascus was concerned.
We can say no more than "I do not believe this"; we cannot meaningfully say "you are wrong".

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by Estragon]

Again how would you explain my experience which was a direct revelation of God?????? And no I was not delusional!!!!!

First, If you took everything everyone said as fact, you would be placed inside a mental institution. That is why I say "Prove it, please." However, making a subjective claim proves nothing, therefore I am indifferent towards it, as am I indifferent towards emotionalistic arguements because they hold validity. Why does everyone assume the deity known as "God" is a male, does God have genitals? Why would he need genitals? Perhaps thats how the "Virgin" Mary gave birth, she was penetrated by a magical penis.

Not folly at all, thats nonsense. What are you prattling about now? Yes, there is a difference between taking someones ordinary claim at face value, and taking someones extrordinary claim at face value. Some things need to be analyzed more closely. Skepticism is always the best option, however, it is very possible to say "You are wrong," whilst actually being right.

Your claim that you are not delusional does not in fact prove that you are not delusional. As I have said, schizophrenic people experience things which have been demonstrated not to be there, so why should I believe you? You likely have a major mental defect. There are some people who see Jesus in their bean burrito. Am I supposed to believe them that the historical persona known as "Jesus" has manifested himself into the bean burrito? I've no reason for believing that person just because he said so, do you? So why should I for you?

First, I never said God had a physical body. God is a spirit being. Yes I do make the claim that an exceptional event happened to me, one that could only be explained as a direct revelation of God. And I take your claim that I have a major mental defect as an insult. Because I have a firm conviction that God exists does not prove a mental defect. Indeed I once was an atheist, but because of this revelation, I am now a believer. As for the event happening, you must take my word that it did indeed occur. However, yours truly does not commit perjury.

I believe you, I know what your talking about to though. As for those who do not or cannot believe, it doesn't matter. As mentioned on a different thread, people won't change unless they really want to.

That much is certain.
Religion has become a bad word these days it seems.
Maybe if everyone just forgot about the messenger and looked at what the message was, none of these problems would exist...