No Proof is NO PROOF for Inexistence of God.

I used the logic reasoning that according to the bible God made people believe in his superiority by having prophets perform miracles like turning water into wine or split the ocean in two.
The entire believe system of religion is based on empirical evidence that was felt, seen, heard and smelled.
These days however we do not have such prophets with supernatural abilities, thus God does not exist or can not expect us to believe in his power without physical proof as that was the foundation of his religion.

I made an error though, this is still under the assumption stories in the bible actually happened the way they are described but God could have existed in those times and either stopped existing at some point or is just absent at the moment.

reply to post by Maarten

I made an error though, this is still under the assumption stories in the bible actually happened the way they are described but God could have existed in those times and either stopped existing at some point or is just absent at the moment.

Which basically leaves us in the same position, either way.

reply to post by logical7


Hi, saw your post and wanted to invite you and everyone else to my thread. I think were all concerned
about this. Theres no right or wrong, just friendly ideas sharing different views. Please comment on my theory
and share your thoughts. My goal is discussing without arguing. Looking forward to you joining in

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was U2U'ing with another member, when something I've been struggling to find the words for fell into place. There was a word I've been missing, a label that defines an idea that suggests the existence of something other than pure chaos and chance. I am not saying it's a god, I am not saying it's proof of a god. Anyone who is familiar with me knows that I do not believe in a conscious all powerful being ruling from the heavens.

I believe in a law, a code. But there has to be evidence for this code, right? Well, here it is. Here's my argument in favor of a divine principle.

Atheists say the universe was born from chaos. Of chaos, by chaos. The nature of chaos is to take every opportunity, roll a number, roll a number to determine the chances of the first number, roll a number to determine the chances of the second number, throw all the numbers in the air, and then strike while they're still falling. Chaos doesn't allow organization. Chaos is a race against time.

The nature of order is to take every opportunity to stack the odds in favor of a particular outcome. Roll a number, change variables to reflect the effects of that number, roll a number, change, roll, change, roll. It's a chess game.

Order and chaos should be mortal enemies. That's what people think. They should be Harry Potter and Voldemort, Luke Skywalker and Palpatine, Subway and McDonalds. But see, while chaos is rolling numbers, order is switching up the game by preparing for every possible outcome. Chaos, by its very nature, is unfocused. Which mean order can fly circles around it any day. And when chaos takes an opportunity to beat down the good work of order, order uses that opportunity to put its own plans into play and improve upon its original designs. That way, chaos points out the exact weaknesses and order figures out how to make it stronger.

It's a chess game of the most beautiful and astronomically astounding proportions. That's why I believe in a divine principle. Because unless there was some kind of code giving a direction to the universe, order wouldn't do that. Order wouldn't be necessary because there's no reason to preserve anything.

The mere existence of preservation, from the very beginning, speaks to me of direction. There's a meaning there. The universe was born from chaos, by chaos, they say. But if that's the case, it should have stayed in chaos.

These are my thoughts on the matter.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


It is not born out of chaos - it is born out of nothing - out of the void. And if it was born out of nothing then it is still nothing but just appears.

There is such a strong belief in a solid existing world. Yet only this present experience 'exists'. No one can go back to even one minute ago - it has departed forever. No one can go one minute into the future - we have to wait for the hand on the clock to move.
What is this 'present nownes'? What does this 'hereness' consist of?
Can 'things' exist here?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by logical7

ok you win. If that makes you feel better, however read the book "a history of God" by a historian Karen Armstrong as she may disagree and say that "God"/motheism existed first and then the pagan ideas and rituals came.

Oh, sure. Except for this bit right here, at the very beginning of her book:

Despite its other-worldliness, religion is highly pragmatic. We see that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound.

yes thats how its used, its a belief. Right?

Or this!

For the first time, the Israelites became seriously interested in Yahweh's role in creation, perhaps because of renewed contact with the cosmological myths of Babylon. They were not, of course, attempting a scientific account of the physical origins of the universe but were trying to find comfort in the harsh world of the present.

well, she is mentioning 'history' of israelites. If you start believing in God today, it wouldnt mean God started existing from today or that you 'invented' God

OR EVEN THIS!!!

“If your understanding of the divine made you kinder, more empathetic, and impelled you to express sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology. But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, of self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God's name, it was bad theology. ”

i completely agree to this too.

That last one brought a smile to this surly face of mine.

So...how does this support your argument, exactly? Because I only see her agreeing with me.

she is mentioning objective history not a proof for existence of God. I mentioned her to tell you a historical point, not to prove God. 'MONOTHIESM existed first and was revived in abrahamic religions not plagiarised.'

reply to post by chrome413

The way I see it, both belief and non belief in a god take just as much faith.

this was exactly my point to start this thread. Atheist also have faith yet claim to be 'rational' and thats odd and irrational especially the one's who are 100% sure about it.
I agree that theists are not rational, but i see that atheists too are the same. If atheists want to claim themselves completely rational then either they should say "maybe,i dont know however i choose to believe what i believe" or stop claiming themselves as rational and looking at 'those' theists as being irrational.

Originally posted by sajuek
I own and have a personal relationship with an invisible unicorn which no one, not even me can see, feel, taste, touch or hear or even experience in any tangible way. And if I telepathically accept it as my master it will reward me with eternal life (Only after I die of course.)

So because you can't prove me wrong, I have a 50% chance of being correct?

its interesting how atheists give example of 'unicorn' to prove their point.
if at the time when it was assumed that our solar system is the end of universe and someone claimed otherwise but with no proof then who would be right?
Is science an exclusive domain of atheists? The divorce of science and God happened by the behaviour of the church run by 'men' it was a fault of men. If God exists then He would be very scientific right?

reply to post by logical7

she is mentioning objective history not a proof for existence of God. I mentioned her to tell you a historical point, not to prove God. 'MONOTHIESM existed first and was revived in abrahamic religions not plagiarised.'

Nope. Not even the ten commandments we are familiar with today are an original work. "God", the life of Jesus, the holy trinity, the ten commandments, the rituals and holy days observed, all of it can be traced back to way before Christianity was ever thought of.

I would post all the evidence, but I don't want to make it too easy for you. Earn your own armchair degree. It looks like you need a new one anyway.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by logical7

 

she is mentioning objective history not a proof for existence of God. I mentioned her to tell you a historical point, not to prove God. 'MONOTHIESM existed first and was revived in abrahamic religions not plagiarised.'

Nope. Not even the ten commandments we are familiar with today are an original work. "God", the life of Jesus, the holy trinity, the ten commandments, the rituals and holy days observed, all of it can be traced back to way before Christianity was ever thought of.

I would post all the evidence, but I don't want to make it too easy for you. Earn your own armchair degree. It looks like you need a new one anyway.

you are just proving that christianity is not a new religion as they claim. I actually also dont believe that. I believe all people on earth were given a similar basic message and a moral code at various times and so we see these similarities. See Noah's 7 laws.
It also fits with your idea of 'divine principle'
what if the preset code already had in it a code to guide people away from chaos and towards order at regular intervals by sending an 'inspired' human.
The humans will also be bound by the code and need order to get established by some interference in the law of chaos.
In short your 'code' can send prophets. What do you say?

reply to post by logical7


Oh no you don't believe the tale if Noah do you? Do you also believe in Jonah and the whale.

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by logical7

 

Oh no you don't believe the tale if Noah do you? Do you also believe in Jonah and the whale.

oh yes i do! A chance of these tales being true is more likely than the chance of universe being created and existing by chance. Do you believe this tale?

reply to post by logical7

what if the preset code already had in it a code to guide people away from chaos and towards order at regular intervals by sending an 'inspired' human.

I don't think it works that way. It just fits conveniently in your beliefs, so you're willing to consider it.

The humans will also be bound by the code and need order to get established by some interference in the law of chaos.
In short your 'code' can send prophets. What do you say?

I think that you place far too much significance/importance on prophets. They are unreliable.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by logical7

 

what if the preset code already had in it a code to guide people away from chaos and towards order at regular intervals by sending an 'inspired' human.

I don't think it works that way. It just fits conveniently in your beliefs, so you're willing to consider it.

The humans will also be bound by the code and need order to get established by some interference in the law of chaos.
In short your 'code' can send prophets. What do you say?

I think that you place far too much significance/importance on prophets. They are unreliable.

it was just a suggestion to see your response.
What i place importance on is not important right now. We are discussing your 'divine principle'/'code.'
If you believe that the code has a purpose to bring order and its woven in the fabric of space-time then invariably humans are also bound by that 'code.'
so either the code's plan is to bring order after a lot of chaos or the code isnt working on humans but then it doesnt hold up, a code cant create something that will go against it.
Then religions were also born by that code as it is determing everything.
You cant complain about anything at all if you believe in a 'code'
the 'code' caused the holocausts, the 'code' is responsible for the failure to prevent sufferings/injustices.
The 'code' actually steals all free will from you and makes you a pawn in the grand scheme who just 'believes' that he is 'free' but its a 'divine joke'(my invented term)
this belief of yours has all the faults that you find in God yet not the comfort to put the blame on God, which is ironic, that you are choosing a belief that will make you miserable yet you can do nothing other than 'submitting' to it or struggling, either way its written what path you'l go.
It makes me feel that strange frustating and helpless feeling when i ponder over it by putting myself in your place.
How do you feel?

reply to post by logical7


I'm 100% atheist, I don't even consider there is a possibility that one of man kinds many gods exist.

Why aren't I miserable?

reply to post by logical7

ok you win. If that makes you feel better, however read the book "a history of God" by a historian Karen Armstrong as she may disagree and say that "God"/monotheism existed first and then the pagan ideas and rituals came.

Dude, you read it?!!
Already!??
It's a big book. I'm still working on the re-read - it's the kind of book that one must read in doses, then contemplate and compare/contrast.......
I'm on the last chapter now.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Dude, you read it, too!????

Fascinating, eh?
I'm pleased as punch that you guys are aware of that intensely important book.

reply to post by GafferUK1981

I'm 100% atheist, I don't even consider there is a possibility that one of man kinds many gods exist.

Why aren't I miserable?

I don't believe in a god either. But do you think there might be a quantum principle of some sort that promotes universal growth? A law of nature?

reply to post by GafferUK1981

I'm 100% atheist, I don't even consider there is a possibility that one of man kinds many gods exist.

Why aren't I miserable?

Maybe not 'miserable', but I bet you feel an emptiness and yearning.

reply to post by logical7

oh yes i do! A chance of these tales being true is more likely than the chance of universe being created and existing by chance. Do you believe this tale?

Oh, dude!

No, you don't actually believe it, do you?
Do you?!!!
If you actually read Karen Armstrong's book you would KNOW that those are myths! They are archetypal metaphors, NOT LITERAL HISTORY.
gha