I Believe That There Is No God

[gc1765]

Of course I don't have an answer to the question. Duh. Who do you think I am, God? But the fact that I don't know something doesn't mean there isn't an answer. To argue as an atheist that unless someone can find the creator of the creator, the creator doesn't exist always struck me as one of the most foolish tautologies in existence. It's like demanding to know where the universe ends, and claiming that if the answer isn't forthcoming, the universe must not exist.

Looks like we're back to square one. If you or any other theists have trouble believing that life as intelligent as humans could evolve from "nothing", then why do you have no problem believing that God, who is presumably much, much more intelligent than humans, could come from "nothing"?

[ScottSA]

Of course I don't have an answer to the question. Duh. Who do you think I am, God? But the fact that I don't know something doesn't mean there isn't an answer. To argue as an atheist that unless someone can find the creator of the creator, the creator doesn't exist always struck me as one of the most foolish tautologies in existence. It's like demanding to know where the universe ends, and claiming that if the answer isn't forthcoming, the universe must not exist.

Looks like we're back to square one. If you or any other theists have trouble believing that life as intelligent as humans could evolve from "nothing", then why do you have no problem believing that God, who is presumably much, much more intelligent than humans, could come from "nothing"?

I would have thought that the answer is obvious. Because theists don't believe man is God.

[gc1765]

I would have thought that the answer is obvious. Because theists don't believe man is God.

What are you talking about? God exists doesn't he (it, she)? Just as man exists.

Now, man came into existence through evolution. Most theists believe this is not possible, man is too intelligent to have evolved.

God came into existence through some apparently unknown process. Most theists have no problem believing that something much more intelligent than man could come into existence through this "unknown" process.

Is that more clear?

[ScottSA]

I would have thought that the answer is obvious. Because theists don't believe man is God.

What are you talking about? God exists doesn't he (it, she)? Just as man exists.

Now, man came into existence through evolution. Most theists believe this is not possible, man is too intelligent to have evolved.

God came into existence through some apparently unknown process. Most theists have no problem believing that something much more intelligent than man could come into existence through this "unknown" process.

Is that more clear?

Sure it's clear enough. Clarity on my part isn't the problem. You're setting up arbitrary parameters to a hypothetical and STILL not getting the obvious flaw in it. You're claiming that if God created man, something had to have created God, right? But that's a nonsequitor. God is not man, and man is not God, and most theists would also argue that God is capable of far more than man, by definition. God may have created Himself, or been created, or been glued together by the energizer bunny, for all the relevance it has to the origins of man. The creation of man in no way depends upon the creation of God.

[gc1765]

You're claiming that if God created man, something had to have created God, right?

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

God may have created Himself,

Now there's a catch-22. God can't create himself unless he exists...but God can't exist unless he created himself.

or been created,

Then you'd just have to explain where the entity that created God came from, ad infinitum

or been glued together by the energizer bunny,

see above

The creation of man in no way depends upon the creation of God.

The creation of man clearly depends on the existence of God, and the existence of God depends on the creation of God (you can't exist without being created).

[ScottSA]

You're claiming that if God created man, something had to have created God, right?

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

God may have created Himself,

Now there's a catch-22. God can't create himself unless he exists...but God can't exist unless he created himself.

or been created,

Then you'd just have to explain where the entity that created God came from, ad infinitum

or been glued together by the energizer bunny,

see above

The creation of man in no way depends upon the creation of God.

The creation of man clearly depends on the existence of God, and the existence of God depends on the creation of God (you can't exist without being created).

You're just not getting it, are you? You're trying to place the constraints of western rationality on God. It's rather silly, really. The argument is not about where God came from, it's about where man came from. God, according to most traditions, is the beginning and end, the alpha and omega, as the greeks would have it. In all traditions, God simply "is," a concept that transcends western rationality in most aspects. That may not be possible within the confines of the logic of your argument, but either, for that matter, is the endlessness of the universe, and I hardly expect you to argue that the universe doesn't exist just because its existence is impossible according to the logic of your argument.

[gc1765]

You're trying to place the constraints of western rationality on God. In all traditions, God simply "is," a concept that transcends western rationality in most aspects. That may not be possible within the confines of the logic of your argument...

If you're trying to argue that believing in God is not rational or logical, well then I guess I can agree with you on that much.

...but either, for that matter, is the endlessness of the universe, and I hardly expect you to argue that the universe doesn't exist just because its existence is impossible according to the logic of your argument.

I never said the existence of the Universe is impossible, but thanks for making up that strawman. I just have an easier time believing that simple particles can pop into existence than I do believing that a super-intelligent being can simply pop into existence. Neither are impossible, one just happens to be much, much more probable than the other.

[Riverwind]

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

Funny and very spot on about the way atheism enriches his life.

Funny but not for the same reasons. His essay simply demonstrates that he knows nothing about what faith in a deity means for most people. Ironic because he feels it necessary to define his religious beliefs based a strawman.

[ScottSA]

I never said the existence of the Universe is impossible, but thanks for making up that strawman. I just have an easier time believing that simple particles can pop into existence than I do believing that a super-intelligent being can simply pop into existence. Neither are impossible, one just happens to be much, much more probable than the other.

Ah, at least now we're into probabilities rather than the arrogant certainties of atheism.

So, where exactly do you think the universe ends? Is it possible for it to go on forever? When did it start, and how? It couldn't have started from nothing, right? And when did it start, and what was before that? None of this works according to logic, does it? See where we're going here? It's exactly the same logical paradox you constructed and used as evidence against the existence of God. God must have been created in order to exist, just as the universe must have begun sometime and somewhere to exist, and it couldn't have begun at the beginning of time, because time has no beginning. Yet the universe exists anyway, right? It spite of its extant impossibilities. The universe is inherently impossible, yet it is. Your argument was that God is inherently impossible, and I am arguing that He is anyway.

[gc1765]

So, where exactly do you think the universe ends?

Multiply the time that has passed since the creation of the Universe by the speed of light.

Is it possible for it to go on forever?

No.

When did it start, and how?

Most estimates put the age at 15 billion years. I can't say for certain if that is correct, but it's irrelevant. How? Most likely something resembling the "big bang".

It couldn't have started from nothing, right?

It started from nothing.

And when did it start,

see above

and what was before that?

By definition, absolutely nothing.

None of this works according to logic, does it?

Of course it does, what are you talking about?

See where we're going here?

No.

It's exactly the same logical paradox you constructed and used as evidence against the existence of God.

I did no such thing. I argued that it's easier for me to believe a relatively unintelligent being can be created from nothing, than a super intelligent God being created from nothing.

God must have been created in order to exist, just as the universe must have begun sometime and somewhere to exist,

True.

and it couldn't have begun at the beginning of time, because time has no beginning.

The beginning of time was the beginning of the Universe. Space and time are intricately linked. Read up on the theory of relativity.

Yet the universe exists anyway, right? It spite of its extant impossibilities. The universe is inherently impossible, yet it is.

It's not impossible at all.

Your argument was that God is inherently impossible, and I am arguing that He is anyway.

Show me where I said God is impossible so I can correct my mistake. Once again, I said it seems to me that it's much more probable for humans to come from nothing than it is for a super-intelligent being to come from nothing. That's all I'm trying to argue here. Anything else is a strawman.

[ScottSA]

So, where exactly do you think the universe ends?

Multiply the time that has passed since the creation of the Universe and multiply that by the speed of light.

Is it possible for it to go on forever?

No.

When did it start, and how?

Most estimates put the age at 15 billion years. I can't say for certain if that is correct, but it's irrelevant. How? Most likely something resembling the "big bang".

It couldn't have started from nothing, right?

It started from nothing.

And when did it start,

and what was before that?

By definition, absolutely nothing.

None of this works according to logic, does it?

Of course it does, what are you talking about?

See where we're going here?

No.

It's exactly the same logical paradox you constructed and used as evidence against the existence of God.

I did no such thing. I argued that it's easier for me to believe a relatively unintelligent being can be created from nothing, than a super intelligent God being created from nothing.

God must have been created in order to exist, just as the universe must have begun sometime and somewhere to exist,

True.

and it couldn't have begun at the beginning of time, because time has no beginning.

The beginning of time was the beginning of the Universe. Space and time are intricately linked. Read up on the theory of relativity.

Yet the universe exists anyway, right? It spite of its extant impossibilities. The universe is inherently impossible, yet it is.

It's not impossible at all.

Your argument was that God is inherently impossible, and I am arguing that He is anyway.

Show me where I said God is impossible so I can correct my mistake. Once again, I said it seems to me that it's much more probable for humans to come from nothing than it is for a super-intelligent being to come from nothing. That's all I'm trying to argue here. Anything else is a strawman.

Excellent obfuscation, but you failed to answer what came before the universe, some 15 billion years ago. And since matter cannot originate from nothing, you have some real paradoxes to explain. Or not, as you so choose.

Just to jog your memory, you did in fact claim that God was impossible, and you hinged your argument on precisely the same argument I made against the existence of the universe. It's gratifying that you're now trying to wiggle out of your unsustainable original argument, but you're kinda busted: You said: "The creation of man clearly depends on the existence of God, and the existence of God depends on the creation of God (you can't exist without being created)."

Its more probably that the universe doesn't exist than that it does, and yet it does exist.

[gc1765]

Excellent obfuscation, but you failed to answer what came before the universe, some 15 billion years ago. And since matter cannot originate from nothing, you have some real paradoxes to explain. Or not, as you so choose.

I already said there was nothing before the Universe. Who says matter can't originate from nothing? Matter can in fact originate from nothing, and it's seems a lot more probable than saying that God originated from nothing, don't you think?

Just to jog your memory, you did in fact claim that God was impossible, and you hinged your argument on precisely the same argument I made against the existence of the universe. It's gratifying that you're now trying to wiggle out of your unsustainable original argument, but you're kinda busted: You said: "The creation of man clearly depends on the existence of God, and the existence of God depends on the creation of God (you can't exist without being created)."

Its more probably that the universe doesn't exist than that it does, and yet it does exist.

You are twisting my words. I'm not sure if you are intentionally twisting them, or whether you don't understand what I am saying. I'll try to be clear as possible. Both matter and God can, in theory, be created. In fact, we know that matter can be created from nothing. What we don't know is whether God can be created from nothing, but since God is much much more intelligent/complex than simple matter, it is much less likely for God to be created out of nothing. In my argument you quoted above, I said God must have been created in order to exist. I never said it was impossible for God to be created. Again, if you think I said this please show me where so that I can correct this mistake...

[ScottSA]

Excellent obfuscation, but you failed to answer what came before the universe, some 15 billion years ago. And since matter cannot originate from nothing, you have some real paradoxes to explain. Or not, as you so choose.

I already said there was nothing before the Universe. Who says matter can't originate from nothing? Matter can in fact originate from nothing, and it's seems a lot more probable than saying that God originated from nothing, don't you think?

Just to jog your memory, you did in fact claim that God was impossible, and you hinged your argument on precisely the same argument I made against the existence of the universe. It's gratifying that you're now trying to wiggle out of your unsustainable original argument, but you're kinda busted: You said: "The creation of man clearly depends on the existence of God, and the existence of God depends on the creation of God (you can't exist without being created)."

Its more probably that the universe doesn't exist than that it does, and yet it does exist.

You are twisting my words. I'm not sure if you are intentionally twisting them, or whether you don't understand what I am saying. I'll try to be clear as possible. Both matter and God can, in theory, be created. In fact, we know that matter can be created from nothing. What we don't know is whether God can be created from nothing, but since God is much much more intelligent/complex than simple matter, it is much less likely for God to be created out of nothing. In my argument you quoted above, I said God must have been created in order to exist. I never said it was impossible for God to be created. Again, if you think I said this please show me where so that I can correct this mistake...

I'm not a pysicist, but I don't recall ever having seen a claim that matter can originate from nothing. Nor do I recall a claim that time has no beginning or space no limit. Yet you accept all of these paradoxs without blinking, while claiming that another paradox proves that God doesn't exist. The argument that it's more likely that an infinitely complex universe, governed by laws, can pop into existence out of nothing simply because it's less complex than God, is stretching your argument to the breaking point, wouldn't you say?

And frankly the entire exercise is a bit of a red herring, since virtually all monotheisms posit God in some way as the beginning and end, an "always." Its a paradox, to be sure, but hardly more of a paradox than the existence of the universe.

[noahbody]

You're arbitrarly equating spirit with personality and "identity." Why? On what grounds?

If spirit and identity are not one in the same, then "you" are gone when you pass away. "You" don't continue on in another life. "You" don't get 72 virgins. "You" only live once.

On the grounds of reason, I suppose.

[ScottSA]

You're arbitrarly equating spirit with personality and "identity." Why? On what grounds?

If spirit and identity are not one in the same, then "you" are gone when you pass away. "You" don't continue on in another life. "You" don't get 72 virgins. "You" only live once.

I would have thought that's self-evident. Otherwise you'd be up for breakfast the next day, right?

[Mad_Michael]

If spirit and identity are not one in the same, then "you" are gone when you pass away. "You" don't continue on in another life. "You" don't get 72 virgins. "You" only live once.

On the grounds of reason, I suppose.

Spirit (or soul) cannot be identical to identity if you believe in an afterlife.

One's identity belongs to one's mortal existence - it is documented and ends with physical death.

The Spirit (or soul) may supposedly/allegedly continue (or some believe that it does).

Ergo, they must be two different things (unless there is no afterlife, in which case, this argument is moot).

[gc1765]

I'm not a pysicist, but I don't recall ever having seen a claim that matter can originate from nothing.

In that case, here's a few articles for you:

Link 1

Link 2

You can do a search on google for more information, but that should get you started.

Nor do I recall a claim that time has no beginning or space no limit.

I said the Universe does have a limit. You can check out This article to find out why.

I also said time does have a beginning.

Yet you accept all of these paradoxs without blinking, while claiming that another paradox proves that God doesn't exist.

I've told you several times now that I never claimed to prove God doesn't exist. The first couple of times you tried to bring this up, I thought it was an innocent mistake on your part...but now I KNOW you are just trolling.

The argument that it's more likely that an infinitely complex universe, governed by laws, can pop into existence out of nothing simply because it's less complex than God, is stretching your argument to the breaking point, wouldn't you say?

It's exactly the same argument that theists make to argue that humans can not have popped into existence (through evolution) because they are too complex. This is what I have been saying all along. It seems you now agree with me.

[BC_chick]

Perhaps GOD is simply the Theory of Everything (which physicists haven't fully completed).

Similar to 19th Century Positivism.

[jazzer]

You're arbitrarly equating spirit with personality and "identity." Why? On what grounds?

If spirit and identity are not one in the same, then "you" are gone when you pass away. "You" don't continue on in another life. "You" don't get 72 virgins. "You" only live once.

On the grounds of reason, I suppose.

Wanna make a million bucks? This guy will pay you if you can refute his claim for an afterlife. So far no one has taken him up on his offer.

[BC_chick]

Wanna make a million bucks? This guy will pay you if you can refute his claim for an afterlife. So far no one has taken him up on his offer.

Have you read this book yourself? If so, what did you think of it - was the evidence as compelling as the advertising?

[noahbody]

Wanna make a million bucks? This guy will pay you if you can refute his claim for an afterlife. So far no one has taken him up on his offer.

Have you read this book yourself? If so, what did you think of it - was the evidence as compelling as the advertising?

His challenge requires "convincing a committee of "people expert in afterlife evidence" to agree that their claimed evidence has been rebutted "beyond any doubt.""

So all you have to do is convince experts that they aren't experts. Sounds easy enough.

[Mad_Michael]

Wanna make a million bucks? This guy will pay you if you can refute his claim for an afterlife. So far no one has taken him up on his offer.

That's because it is categorically impossible to prove a negative.

[Rue]

What is this God that we either are supposed to believe in or not. Is he that fellow up there in the white nightgown or is he everything you see or cannot see. Is it the Universe? Where does the good and caring come from that we see in some people? What or who are the evil ones? Can anyone explain this?

So such easy questions. Sigh! I guess this "God" is either the notion there is something intelligent behind all that we try to comprehend but can't.

Humans by nature look into their reality and they tend to do 2 things; i-believe that there is something beyond it all that does make sense but we just can't understand and need to have faith that it will show itself to us and explain when we are ready for it-OR, ii-they take in all the f..ck ups of life, all the war, injsutice and savagery and say well if a God existed its his fault for allowing this or God can't possibly exist because a God would not allow such shit to happen.

Here is the way I see it and it is only my opinion. I can understand why humans react both ways. With those who believe there is no God, I would hope they are humanists and believe in the absence of a God, humans must act in a civil way as we are creating all the mess and so we must clean it up. I hope that, because I believe SOME who feel there is no God, basically use it to say, since there is no God they can just do whatever the f..ck they want and not worry about it. Most atheists or agnositics I know are humanists and believe humans must act civilized. I have though met some very twisted psychotics who believe there is no God and no consequence to what they do.

Now me, I think there is a God, only I don't like using that word. I prefer to see it as an abstract concept that simply means there is something beyond or behind what we think we see. I personally see it as an abstract notion beyond any thing our human brains conceive.

I think many people don't see it as existing because they feel when humans f..ck up this God allows it.

What if this "God" created free will? What if the reason wwe f..ck up is precisely because we have free will and God can not interfere because to do so would "kill" us? Could it be our free will means we are responsible for our own actions and when we do something evil, we pay the consequence eventually as a way to teach us?

I believe we lose faith in the sight of the ugliness and depth of how savage humans can be but it may be what we can't see because we are not ready to see is how if we do such evil, we will experience the same evil we do to others and in this way we will learn.

I personally think we all chose to come into existence to learn and we were expelled or expunged or spit out or vomited out, or sent out from this abstract notion of God, in a free-fall or free will precisely to experience through these things. While we came forth from this thing God, and are seperated from it one level, and allowed to f..ck up so we can learn...I believe we also still remain part of it and it suffers through us and experiences all the pain we do as much as it does the joy.

I think its hard to explain to people that to learn there must be contrast. One could not understand love without also understanding hatred. To appreciate and cherish peace, unfortunately some must first go through war and terror.

It seems like a ridiculous way for an intelligent omnipotent entity to have decided to run things but did it?

Could this God have sneezed and expelled quadra zillions of us souls to experience because it created a system that when all is said and done is about sharing its perfection?

I think so. I think what we can not see is that suffering and all the shit humans cause may not seem like it, but is part of an experience that leads to understanding what love is.

O.k. so I have no proof. None. It is an opinion. I guess for me it is no more non-sensical then it is to believe that one when looks around and sees so many intricate layers of connection and interaction, one could believe it's all an accident.

Do I project intelligent design on chaos as does a religious fanatic who sees the face of Mary in a stain on a sheet? Maybe. Lol.

[jazzer]

Wanna make a million bucks? This guy will pay you if you can refute his claim for an afterlife. So far no one has taken him up on his offer.

That's because it is categorically impossible to prove a negative.

Aah, but it's not a negative. He has made a claim with his evidence. The challenge is to refute his claim. It should be extremely easy for all those atheists out there to collect.

[jazzer]

Wanna make a million bucks? This guy will pay you if you can refute his claim for an afterlife. So far no one has taken him up on his offer.

Have you read this book yourself? If so, what did you think of it - was the evidence as compelling as the advertising?

It raises some interesting questions. My wife and I have had a couple of paranormal experiences, but that's hardly evidence of an afterlife. To me Zammit's site should definitely be viewed with skepticism, but with an open mind. I'm still skeptical, but at least I have not closed myself off to the possibility of life after death.