-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Simplest, Yet Most Powerful Argument Against the Existence of God
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
Akivah
Well-Known Member
The Hebrew bible doesn't describe any physical characteristics for G-d because He doesn't have any. So using G-d's non-physicality as a proof is a non-starter.
This is a kindness on G-d's part. If G-d was actually visible and provable, then no human would have any freewill. G-d's method of letting us decide for ourselves is far better.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
That isn't a good argument for not believing in an invisible god. I would never use it. You'll get blown out of the water most every time.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Maybe from their perspective I'll get blown out of the water. From my perspective I always win.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Maybe from their perspective I'll get blown out of the water. From my perspective I always win.
LOL Fair 'nuff
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
We, as individual identities, did not develop. We were developed (even if one does not believe it was by decision) and become aware as extremely complex selves we do not understand at all.
We are essentially mass-produced.
Is it logical to think that we are the most capable intelligence in existence -had no input into our own configuration, yet were developed solely by a non-intelligence?
An original, initial, creative intelligence, identity, self-awareness, etc., would necessarily self-develop, become increasingly aware, increasingly capable -and be involved in its own development every step of the way -increasing in self-awareness as it became more of a self of which to be aware, increasing in self-determination.
Some things must precede intellligence, self-awareness, creativity, etc., and some things must be preceded by intelligence, self-awareness, creativity, etc.
Yes, it is.
But for me, the simplest argument against the existence of God, is that the concept of God as a real being, a being with objective existence, is incoherent.
(Imaginary gods, no problem ─ they're whatever you'd like them to be, and they're indistinguishable from the present product.)
If God has objective existence then [he] exists in reality, outside of your head. Therefore [he] has real qualities, perhaps resembling those of a tree, or an animal, or a neutrino ─ but real. And therefore God is definable in real terms.
But the history of God is a flight from that concept, the rise and rise of apophatic theology, which prohibits ascribing positive qualities to God and leaves only statements of what God is not.
Not that the other schools of theology do any better. None of them that I'm aware of have a definition of God that would allow us to seek such a being out there in the real world.
(There's an argument that God is real but 'spiritual' and 'immaterial'. That might be given some credence when someone can tell us the objective test that will distinguish the 'spiritual' from the imaginary, and the 'immaterial' from the imaginary and from the non-existent.)
Last edited:
What's "His Word?"
There are two kinds of such things: those whose existence we might reasonably suspect because we have examinable evidence that points that way. And those whose existence we have no good reason to suspect.
Examples of the first kind are the lumeniferous ether, which when we looked wasn't in fact there; and the Higgs boson, which we ultimately found when we got the right tools. Right now we're looking for the unknown causes of known phenomena, under the labels 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.
Examples of the second kind are positive energy perpetual motion machines, magic wands and supernatural beings.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
The doctrines of the Kingdom contained in the holy scriptures.
Which scriptures are "holy?"
But no one can agree what those doctrines are. There's no agreement on why it was necessary for Jesus to die, for instance, though death was his mission from the start (Mark 2:20). And should we refrain from washing our hands before meals (Mark 7)?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I meant to say this before.....
"We readily accept that the development of self-awareness, intelligence and creativity are inherent in "nature" -and there is no reason to believe this has not always been the case."
Anyway... There is much indication (though not direct evidence) that the universe and ourselves are so complex and ordered (even DNA-based evolution itself is already extremely complex before producing complex life forms) that intelligence and intent were required, but that still leaves the question of the origin of that intelligence.
Ironically, unless it is possible for a complex self-aware, creative intelligence to simply exist as such, without having developed into such from that "stuff" which has always existed, the most logical explanation for the existence God is "evolution" in its broadest possible sense.
God could well have been the sum of that original dynamic "stuff" which "always" existed -becoming that which now is -and that would actually adequately explain every aspect of "God" -omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.
God says he is both the beginning and the end -and that very much indicates development.
Whereas we have no say in our initial development, the original would have had an increasing say in its own development and configuration as it developed.
Though it (developing to the point of saying "I AM") may not have been able to be responsible for deciding to exist -or for its own most basic nature, it would have been increasingly responsible as it developed step by step in the ability to be responsible for all else.
Every complex thing is based on simple things -and the most simple thing possible.
Interaction is the basis for awareness, feedback is the basis for self-awareness, etc., etc,.
Anyway -I'm just a newb -I'm not saying I know -but this seems most logical to me at this point.
Last edited:
syo
Well-Known Member
We see God in our dreams.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Interesting how your "facts" are not actually "facts"Yes faith backed up with MANY good reasons grounded in FACTS. Don't mean to shout at you, just wishing to make it clear to the 'unbelievers' on here
We will see....
Bold empty claim
Bold empty claim
Bold empty claim
Bold empty claim
Bold empty claim
Bold empty claim
Bold empty claim
Bold empty claim
Finally, a fact.
Well, two out of ten isn't all that great....
Joshua Pryce
Member
God doesnt hide Himself from His creation. He lets Himself be known to whoever looks out for Him. Relationships are based on good interpretation and communicative intimacy. I cannot expect Donald trump to come to my house and sup with me without reaching out to him first. I can know him through others, i can see him on TV, but to know him takes personal advancements and learning and recognition. God is seen in TV by people who have visions of God,. or heaven, and miracles performed by God. Communication is spiritual growth and development. Interpretation is biblical understanding.