Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[Where Is God]

I am simply warning you about your wording. You have to be careful to not proselytise. Try to word your posts in such a way that it doesn't come across as preachy, otherwise your posts may be reported for moderation (it's against the rules to proselytise).

This is a thread about reasons to reject God. Anything "preachy" would come from a theist. And how does repeating "In your opinion." warn me of proselytise?

 

[Mikeyway]

Why is there something instead of nothing? There are several ways to approach this question of existence. Either something came from nothing. Or that something has always existed and always will. Ok that sounds good, mass-energy has always existed, it can't be created or destroyed anyway so if it is eternal than that explains why there is a universe rather than nothingness. But mass energy is not eternal...it had a beginning. So now we are stuck with either something came from nothing, or something is eternal. And mass-energy is not eternal. God is eternal.

 

[Where Is God]

Why is there something instead of nothing? There are several ways to approach this question of existence. Either something came from nothing. Or that something has always existed and always will. Ok that sounds good, mass-energy has always existed, it can't be created or destroyed anyway so if it is eternal than that explains why there is a universe rather than nothingness. But mass energy is not eternal...it had a beginning. So now we are stuck with either something came from nothing, or something is eternal. And mass-energy is not eternal. God is eternal.

Complete contradiction.

 

[Quagmire]

Why is there something instead of nothing? There are several ways to approach this question of existence. Either something came from nothing. Or that something has always existed and always will. Ok that sounds good, mass-energy has always existed, it can't be created or destroyed anyway so if it is eternal than that explains why there is a universe rather than nothingness. But mass energy is not eternal...it had a beginning. So now we are stuck with either something came from nothing, or something is eternal. And mass-energy is not eternal. God is eternal.

Actually, if you're going by the idea that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it must be eternal by default.

Can't be created, yet is = must have always been.

Is, and can't be destroyed = must always be.

 

[Where Is God]

Actually, if you're going by the idea that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it must be eternal by default.

Can't be created, yet is = must have always been.

Is, and can't be destroyed = must always be.

Why would he understand that?

 

[Mikeyway]

Within our physical universe it can't be created or destroyed. If it is eternal then there is no need to introduce another eternal existence. But eternal would imply that it had no beginning...which modern physics would tend to disagree with.

 

[Where Is God]

If it is eternal then there is no need to introduce another eternal existence.

What?

If it can't be created and it exists then it has always been there! Period. Just like dark matter, it's there, but seemingly has no large effect on anything.

 

[Quagmire]

Within our physical universe it can't be created or destroyed. If it is eternal then there is no need to introduce another eternal existence. But eternal would imply that it had no beginning...which modern physics would tend to disagree with.

Since that seems to be the pivotal point in your equation, I think you would need something a little less vague than "which modern physics would tend to disagree with" to make it worth considering.

 

[Mikeyway]

The energy. If it has always existed, then there is no need for a "god" or another eternal existence.

 

[Quagmire]

The energy. If it has always existed, then there is no need for a "god" or another eternal existence.

There's no "need" for existence at all (if there were no existence, "need" wouldn't exist either) and yet here it is.

 

[Where Is God]

The energy. If it has always existed, then there is no need for a "god" or another eternal existence.

Finally you're are getting somewhere.

 

[Morpheus]

The energy. If it has always existed, then there is no need for a "god" or another eternal existence.

What if the energy IS 'God"?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Yes, but you would not have asked if there were not a "still small voice" in your head to motivate you to ask that question.

If there wasn't such a voice with such a thought, I'd put one there.

 

[atanu]

All empirical knowledge is subjective and refutable.

Agree. The only immutable in all subjective knowledge is the subject that knows -- whom we do not know except through senses. Who will know the knower?

Perhaps. Self-awareness is a recursive process.

I have an inkling that you have read Yoga Vashista. In a Yoga Vashista story "The Story of 100 Rudras", Rudra, recurses back to the base case retracing the nodes -- to the primeval man, which He himself is.

Indeed this is actually Self Reference -- in general, a process of repeating objects in terms of self. "i" becomes "I am atanu" etc. etc.

For recursion to occur a) a rule and b) base case are required. But to observe the recursion an intelligent viewer is required. Mirrors may reflect infinitely yet without anyone to see the infinite reflections the reflections will not be known.

Now, for that to happen, the base case itself must contain or give rise to the intelligence to See. In other words, we are simply saying that intelligence is the very property of the base case -- whatever the base case may be.

Svet. U.IV.18
When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day nor night, neither being nor non-being; the sadashiva (pure Brahman) alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the savitur. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.

And from this, the second hypothesis. One who knows the base case knows the intelligence and is God, since He can put desired objects in recursive nodes (as role players) -- just as novelist or a film director can do. Vedanta says: One who knows Brahman becomes Brahman.

I hope that your reply will not be routine.

Regards

 

[Copernicus]

I don't see this as a basic tenet of Christianity (that minds exist independent of bodies), and I don't think it's an obstacle for any other religion that believes in a continuation of the self after this mortal life. The information accumulated from this life that constitutes 'self' could be transferred and translated to some other kind of existence. The next 'body' could be very different from this mortal coil.

There are a lot of problems with your points here, not the least of which is that most people, let alone Christians, do not buy the claim that mental function is dependent on physical brain function. But we know that the mind decays along with the physical brain in old age. What gets "transferred" from the ravaged brain of an Alzheimer's victim? Do false beliefs get transferred? Psychoses? And what physical activity drives the mind of God? If God can go brainless, then why can't people? I honestly do think that #1 is the most serious problem for belief in gods, because they are usually not thought of as material beings, yet they have the same moods, emotions, memories, and thinking ability of humans.

Religion is not science and is not meant to explain the scientific aspects of this universe. Religion is about our role in this universe, our relationship with God, nature, and each other.

This point is contradicted by a history of faith-based claims about our physical reality that have turned out to be dead wrong, including the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that biological diversity was essentially created as we find it today. Whenever there has been a contradiction between a religious claim about the material world and a scientific claim, science has prevailed. This leads one to suspect that revelation from a god is not a reliable source of information.

The interpretation of revelation depends quite heavily on the person receiving it. The light from the sun is the same, but it appears quite different when it is intercepted by a stone vs. cut diamond vs. the leaf of a plant.

Whoever receives it, it still seems to be as reliable as pure imagination, which is what I think it really is.

Prayer raises all boats together.

Actually, I can think of no human endeavor that has failed quite as often and quite as miserably. Christians appear to fare no better than adherents of other religions. If any were praying to a true God, you would think that we would see some kind of differential effect.

Because a miracle is, by definition, something outside the bounds of science and human control, it is no surprise, and no damning evidence of failure, that miracles are not corroborated by science.

Every miracle is a physical event, which makes every one a potential subject of empirical (a.k.a. scientific) investigation. The reason that people talk about miracles is that they see them as evidential corroborations of faith. They are not "by definition" outside the bounds of science. By definition, they are within scientific bounds. When the Vatican finally permitted 3 independent labs to carbon-date the Shroud of Turin, all three came back with independent confirmation that it was a medieval fraud. Why did someone bother to create such a hoax? Well, people needed, and still need, that physical corroboration of their faith.

Because reason #1 is the least relevant to religious faith or the existence of God, I'd say your argument is overall quite weak. Minds depending on this physical brain is not a no-brainer.

Mind-body dualism is a foundational belief of most religious faith, not just Christianity. Souls are thought of as immaterial spirits that can exist independently of bodies, and souls are very much in evidence in Christian literature.

 

[Copernicus]

Agree. The only immutable in all subjective knowledge is the subject that knows -- whom we do not know except through senses. Who will know the knower?

The knower knows itself. Self-awareness is fundamentally a recursive process.

I have an inkling that you have read Yoga Vashista. In a Yoga Vashista story "The Story of 100 Rudras", Rudra, recurses back to the base case retracing the nodes -- to the primeval man, which He himself is.

Unfortunately, I have not read Hindu literature for a while now. I cannot really read Sanskrit anymore, although I once studied it for several years in grad school. I do not recall this story, but I probably never encountered it in the past.

For recursion to occur a) a rule and b) base case are required. But to observe the recursion an intelligent viewer is required. Mirrors may reflect infinitely yet without anyone to see the infinite reflections the reflections will not be known.

I am a Lisp programmer and a linguist, so I know quite enough about recursive processes. Recursive processes can arise spontaneously from chaotic interactions. There is no need for a god to get things started.

I hope that your reply will not be routine.

I fear that most of my replies are bound to disappoint you. We come at the subject matter from very different sets of assumptions.

 

[Mikeyway]

"Where is God" you focused on the complete wrong point, and then my wording probably did not help.

1st off I will continue to refer to mass-energy, energy and matter are different manifestations of the same thing. Energy could have potentially proceeded what we call "time" and "space" yes, I am not saying you are wrong, that is a valid BELIEF.

But if the energy has not always existed...then you must believe something originated from nothing. Which I hope you would not have faith in that...

But the fact of the matter is if you are willing to accept that something did not magically come from nothing, then something must have always existed and "can't help but to exist". That is either the energy, or it is god. But something has to be eternal. I really do enjoy the feedback as well, I was not trying to force "christian beliefs", I am not a christian.

 

[atanu]

I am a Lisp programmer and a linguist, so I know quite enough about recursive processes. Recursive processes can arise spontaneously from chaotic interactions. There is no need for a god to get things started.

Well. There is no requirement for God. Did I say that there was? It seems to me that you have not read the reply. What I said was that there must be the Seer.

Originally posted by atanu
But to observe the recursion an intelligent viewer is required. Mirrors may reflect infinitely yet without anyone to see the infinite reflections the reflections will not be known.

Now, for that to happen, the base case itself must contain or give rise to the intelligence to See. In other words, we are simply saying that intelligence is the very property of the base case -- whatever the base case may be.

I fear that most of my replies are bound to disappoint you. We come at the subject matter from very different sets of assumptions.

Not really. But if a few agreements occur that will be bonus. You only said: "Of course. That was the point of posting it here--to get alternative points of view". Furthermore, what are the assumptions in your and my case?

 

[Mikeyway]

But if mass-energy has always existed how can you say WHEN it changed into the big bang (or whatever you want to call 13.7 billion years ago) or even WHY it changed states? The very notion of change makes no sense over eternity.

 

[painted wolf]

It may in a cyclical view of the universe... big bang followed by big crunch and repeat ad infinitum.

wa:do