Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[paarsurrey]

Here I am.

You are very much here.
Your communication with us "Here I am" is a proof that you very much exist.
The same way communications from G-d with righteous persons in different regions of the world in all times amply proves that G-d doe exist.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Which God?

Please read my post # 159 in this thread.

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please read my post # 159 in this thread.

Regards

Could you give a link?

I'm on my phone and the mobile version of the site doesn't show post numbers.

 

[leibowde84]

I think I have defined G-d that I believe in in some recent posts in other threads. There is however no harm giving it here again:

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. Our G-d is identified by many attributes or these good attributes identify him. I give some of His attributes:

[2:256]Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.
Quran : Chapter 2
He has existed always and has communicated with righteous persons in every region of the world and in all ages.
His communication identifies that He exists.

Regards

This is far too vague of an explanation of God to be falsifiable. It is unreasonable to ask someone to disprove something that is not described specifically. In the case of God, I feel like it is a concept that is vague by definition ... or, in other words, all-encompassing.

In other words, lets say I invented an entity called "Jim". Jim is all-knowing, all-powerful, the only one of his kind, he is self-subsisting and all-sustaining. Jim is the creator of everything we know, so he is the master of everything as well. Many people throughout history have claimed to have spoken to Jim on several occasions as well.

Can you prove that Jim does not exist?

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no evidence to substantiate that such a being exists.

I gave attributes of G-d that I believe in in my post # 159. Please read it.
I also mentioned that He has communicated with human beings, in fact these attributes have been mentioned by Him in his communication to us.
Why not believe in Him?

Regards

 

[leibowde84]

I gave attributes of G-d that I believe in in my post # 159. Please read it.
I also mentioned that He has communicated with human beings, in fact these attributes have been mentioned by Him in his communication to us.
Why not believe in Him?

Regards

Claims of communication, especially when those claims are very different, in no way present evidence for the existence of God. They merely show that many people have CLAIMED to have recieved revelations from God. There is obviously plenty of reasons for men to be dishonest about such things. Always be skeptical of anyone who claims to speak for God.

 

[paarsurrey]

Could you give a link?

I'm on my phone and the mobile version of the site doesn't show post numbers.

I give the link : Your best argument that G-d does not exist | Page 8 | ReligiousForums.com

Regards

 

[leibowde84]

I give the link : Your best argument that G-d does not exist | Page 8 | ReligiousForums.com

Regards

I think you are missing a very important part of what it means to define something specifically. The only way to provide the possibility for an argument against something, you must explain what that thing is, and, more importantly, what that thing is not. I feel like your all-encompassing definition of God takes away any possibility for anyone to disprove it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Claims of communication, especially when those claims are very different, in no way present evidence for the existence of God. They merely show that many people have CLAIMED to have recieved revelations from God. There is obviously plenty of reasons for men to be dishonest about such things. Always be skeptical of anyone who claims to speak for God.

• Claims of communication, especially when those claims are very different

I don't think the differences cannot be sorted out. The important thing is that All-Wise < another attribute of God Al-Hakeem in Arabic> had communicated to an intelligent creature i.e., human beings. Under reasonable systematic principles these differences are not difficult to remove.
We humans are proud to decode ancient dead languages writings. Their value is not demeaned just because they were written in dead languages.

Communications exist and are good and valid source of existence of G-d though the scriptures have got corrupted under debris of time and the followers of such religions have been lead astray due to many factors that could be deciphered and looked into.

• They merely show that many people have CLAIMED to have received revelations from God

Claims of many people don't mean that no claimant or most of them were not truthful. The courts deal claims of many people yet under some procedure they sort to legitimate claims from the illegitimate on merit. Human beings are an intelligent race they do resolve such things.

• There is obviously plenty of reasons for men to be dishonest about such things.

I explained above that it is not impossible to ascertain honest from the dishonest.

• Always be sceptical of anyone who claims to speak for God

Humans get education from one race to another race on trust and only doubting where it is reasonable to do it. Excessive doubt is not essential. Let everything be on merit.

I don't agree with you on these grounds.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I think you are missing a very important part of what it means to define something specifically. The only way to provide the possibility for an argument against something, you must explain what that thing is, and, more importantly, what that thing is not. I feel like your all-encompassing definition of God takes away any possibility for anyone to disprove it.

I think I am already doing that, the attributes do mention as to what G-d is and as to what He is not.
Is it necessary to disprove G-d? If so; why? Please

Regards

 

[leibowde84]

• Claims of communication, especially when those claims are very different

I don't think the differences cannot be sorted out. The important thing is that All-Wise < another attribute of God Al-Hakeem in Arabic> had communicated to an intelligent creature i.e., human beings. Under reasonable systematic principles these differences are not difficult to remove.
We humans are proud to decode ancient dead languages writings. Their value is not demeaned just because they were written in dead languages.

Communications exist and are good and valid source of existence of G-d though the scriptures have got corrupted under debris of time and the followers of such religions have been lead astray due to many factors that could be deciphered and looked into.

• They merely show that many people have CLAIMED to have received revelations from God

Claims of many people don't mean that no claimant or most of them were not truthful. The courts deal claims of many people yet under some procedure they sort to legitimate claims from the illegitimate on merit. Human beings are an intelligent race they do resolve such things.

• There is obviously plenty of reasons for men to be dishonest about such things.

I explained above that it is not impossible to ascertain honest from the dishonest.

• Always be sceptical of anyone who claims to speak for God

Humans get education from one race to another race on trust and only doubting where it is reasonable to do it. Excessive doubt is not essential. Let everything be on merit.

I don't agree with you on these grounds.

Regards

You still have not explained why you believe that these "prophets" were both honest and accurate (not mistaken or fooled), apart, I guess, from there being a number of them. I just feel like, if they were passing along a message from God, God would have helped them provide a more convincing argument.

So why do you believe these seemingly unbelievable (impossible) stories without physical evidence? Why would God expect us to believe something like this instead of just expecting us to live good, just and charitable lives?

 

[leibowde84]

I think I am already doing that, the attributes do mention as to what G-d is and as to what He is not.
Is it necessary to disprove G-d? If so; why? Please

Regards

My point is that the question is unreasonable, and thus extremely pointless/unnecessary, as it provides no evidence either way.

 

[paarsurrey]

In other words, lets say I invented an entity called "Jim". Jim is all-knowing, all-powerful, the only one of his kind, he is self-subsisting and all-sustaining. Jim is the creator of everything we know, so he is the master of everything as well. Many people throughout history have claimed to have spoken to Jim on several occasions as well.
Can you prove that Jim does not exist?

I have given the attributes of G-d that I believe in. If somebody believes in "Jim" (a hypothetical god who has never communicated) having the same attributes then we go comparing other communications they both have made. The fake one will be disproved.

Regards

 

[leibowde84]

I have given the attributes of G-d that I believe in. If somebody believes in "Jim" (a hypothetical god who has never communicated) having the same attributes then we go comparing other communications they both have made. The fake one will be disproved.

Regards

What if they have both made the same amount with the same value in the eyes of their respective adherents?

 

[paarsurrey]

pantheist god

Such a god has never communicated with human being, so it does not exist.

Regards

 

[Ouroboros]

Such a god has never communicated with human being, so it does not exist.

Rather the opposite.

Every moment I'm awake it communicates with me. Through my eyes, my senses, skin, smell, thoughts, breath, experience. Everything that makes me alive and aware of my existence is the universe communicating with me, and I'm with it. It's a constant interchange of information and action. Every waken moment is a prayer and communion with reality.

 

[paarsurrey]

Say the spaghetti monster is a character in a book. It exists in the mind of the author and on paper. It does not exist in reality, outside of what is written and what is in the authors head. So, if we're talking about Gods of mythology, Holy Scriptures, and Sutras, they only exist like characters in a book and in the minds of believers. Can you say they exist independent of these things? If so, how?

"Spaghetti monster" is a character in a book. It never communicated with a human being otherwise we would have compared his attributes to the ones I have mentioned. This way we could ascertain the truthful one.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Theists will never be convinced because they have a strong emotional need to believe.

The Theists and Atheists both are human beings sharing the same traits, equally susceptible to biases. It is hard to convince one or the other, nevertheless not impossible, that is why the dialogue goes on. An intelligent race, the are. Aren't they?

Regards

 

[Blastcat]

I gave attributes of G-d that I believe in in my post # 159. Please read it.
I also mentioned that He has communicated with human beings, in fact these attributes have been mentioned by Him in his communication to us.
Why not believe in Him?

Regards

Sure, why not.. But Paarsurrey. WHY believe in him ?

Why not believe in Santa Clause.. or why not VISHNU.. or.. any other number of gods, goddesses that are all very nice?
Surely, deciding what GOD to believe in is more important than.. I don't know.. some ice cream flavor. Why not try pistachio?
Pistachio is a GREAT flavor.. so... why don't you?

Instead of vanilla.. you see the problem?

You say your god has communicated with humans.. or so they claim. BUT.. you do know that other humans make all kinds of claims about THEIR gods too. Do YOU believe in THEIR gods, too?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

"Spaghetti monster" is a character in a book. It never communicated with a human being otherwise we would have compared his attributes to the ones I have mentioned. This way we could ascertain the truthful one.

Regards

Actually, the "flying spaghetti monster" was a caricature of God given in a dissertation to the Kansas Board of Indoctrination when they heard arguments about whether or not to teach "Creationism" in public schools.