Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[PureX]

The initial singularity is God then?

Sure, and we still have no idea what either of them are. All we have are these labels for the mystery, and the various ways that we imagine them for ourselves.

 

[ChristineM]

No, we don't. Nor do we have any idea of it's source. All we think we know are a few rules about how it functions. That's it.

I know that the mystery we call God exists. But I have no idea what The content of that mystery is. Just as we know that energy is that physical source of existence, but we still have no idea what energy actually is.

The ability to do work...
What is energy? explained - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

 

[PureX]

Was there some other possibility that didn't happen?

That question denies the possibility of it's own answer. So we will never know.

The natural laws.

This sounds as if there was only one caused effect, but you just said the BB was an organized possibility. This conflicts.

Good thing we have science for answers.

You aren't going to understand this conversation.

 

[dybmh]

Could be? . I know many people do consider could be's but not I, once the could be's are firm "it is" i will take a look.
E=MC2 is not a could be. It is a proven relationship.

No, what I said is, there could be a seperation between God and the physical. I am not saying God is proven to exist, I am saying the argument against is a fail.

I'm not asking you to "take a look", I'm asking for an honest acknowledgement that "it's not physical" does not prove God doesn't exist.

 

[ChristineM]

No, what I said is, there could be a seperation between God and the physical. I am not saying God is proven to exist, I am saying the argument against is a fail.

I'm not asking you to "take a look", I'm asking for an honest acknowledgement that "it's not physical" does not prove God doesn't exist.

Could, without evidence doesn't mean much to me

I have never said i prove god doesn't exist. I have said some of the attributes bestowed on god are impossible

 

[dybmh]

Could, without evidence doesn't mean much to me

I have never said i prove god doesn't exist. I have said some of the attributes bestowed on god are impossible

Non-physical is not impossible, correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Non-physical is not impossible, correct?

That is a heavy one. I would say that we don't really know that, but rather that in practice it is not if it is psychical, but rather if it is objective or subjective.

 

[F1fan]

That question denies the possibility of it's own answer. So we will never know.

Word salad. An insincere reply. You make these dubious claims, trying to suggest gaps exist for your God to fit into, and when called on it you waffle even more.

You aren't going to understand this conversation.

And then the condescending insult as if you are great, powerful Oz. All this tells me is that your were caught making bogus claims that you can't answer, and you lask out against me for asking. Is this is impression you want to reveal? You claim some sort of superiority through your religious belief but then get caught saying nonsense. I suggest you be honest with yourself and admit you don't seek truth, but seek confusion.

 

[PureX]

Word salad. An insincere reply. You make these dubious claims, trying to suggest gaps exist for your God to fit into, and when called on it you waffle even more.

I guess you think it was clever to ask a 'what if' question that no one can answer because no one can know the answer. And you thought it was some sort of rebuttal. But I really don't see that as clever at all.

For anything to happen it must be possible for it to happen. For something specific to happen all the other possibilities must have been denied. This is logically self-evident. Therefor, for existence to happen as it has happened and is still happening it must first have been possible, and all the other possible ways it could happen (if such can even be said to have been) must have been denied.

And then the condescending insult as if you are great, powerful Oz. All this tells me is that your were caught making bogus claims that you can't answer, and you lask out against me for asking. Is this is impression you want to reveal? You claim some sort of superiority through your religious belief but then get caught saying nonsense. I suggest you be honest with yourself and admit you don't seek truth, but seek confusion.

Sorry, but there are concepts that other people can understand that you can't understand. And I can tell by your responses that this is one of them. It's a philosophical construct and you are only able or willing to comprehend "scientific" constructs.

It is what it is.

 

[F1fan]

I guess you think it was clever to ask a "what if" question that no one can answer because no one can know the answer. But I really don't see that as clever at all.

You opened the door, and I asked you to clarify. You lack answers. You can't even admit or explain that you opened that door. Learn to be accountable.

Is it clever to open doors that you can't follow through with answers when questioned? Not all of us like confusing ourselves with such thinking as you do.

Sorry, but there are concepts that other people can understand that you can't understand. And I can tell by your responses that this is one of them. It's a philosophical concept and you are only able to comprehend "scientific" concepts. It is what it is.

Yes, there are explanations in science that I don;t understand and that is because they use words that I don't understand, but i could if I looked up the definitions.

You aren't talking science, you are bluffing some sort of mystery that you like to create and allow to fester in these discussions. I think you dislike the answers that science provides, and these answers don't allow any gaps for you to squeeze your idea of God into. Then you try to accuse critical thinkers of "not getting something", but do it so poorly that the bluffing is obvious. I find it interesting thet you never seem ashamed or embarrassed when caught doing this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You opened the door, and I asked you to clarify. You lack answers. You can't even admit or explain that you opened that door. Learn to be accountable.

Is it clever to open doors that you can't follow through with answers when questioned? Not all of us like confusing ourselves with such thinking as you do.

Yes, there are explanations in science that I don;t understand and that is because they use words that I don't understand, but i could if I looked up the definitions.

You aren't talking science, you are bluffing some sort of mystery that you like to create and allow to fester in these discussions. I think you dislike the answers that science provides, and these answers don't allow any gaps for you to squeeze your idea of God into. Then you try to accuse critical thinkers of "not getting something", but do it so poorly that the bluffing is obvious. I find it interesting thet you never seem ashamed or embarrassed when caught doing this.

You do understand how come it is methodological naturalism, right?

 

[PureX]

You opened the door, and I asked you to clarify. You lack answers. You can't even admit or explain that you opened that door. Learn to be accountable.

Is it clever to open doors that you can't follow through with answers when questioned? Not all of us like confusing ourselves with such thinking as you do.

Yes, there are explanations in science that I don;t understand and that is because they use words that I don't understand, but i could if I looked up the definitions.

You aren't talking science, you are bluffing some sort of mystery that you like to create and allow to fester in these discussions. I think you dislike the answers that science provides, and these answers don't allow any gaps for you to squeeze your idea of God into. Then you try to accuse critical thinkers of "not getting something", but do it so poorly that the bluffing is obvious. I find it interesting thet you never seem ashamed or embarrassed when caught doing this.

Philosophy is not in your cognitive wheelhouse. And you get all indignant when you can't understand it. There's no reason for me to be bothered by this.

 

[ChristineM]

Non-physical is not impossible, correct?

Depends on your definition of non physical.

But I don't see what that has to do with my post

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Depends on your definition of non physical.

But I don't see what that has to do with my post

Well, it also depends on the definition of physical and if a definition makes it a fact just by being a definition.

 

[dybmh]

Depends on your definition of non physical.

But I don't see what that has to do with my post

If the conversation is scrolled back to the beginning, I think the objection you raised was to the description of God being non-physical. It seemed that your challenge was to identify non-physical things, and if those could not be identified, then this is an argument against God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you had to choose one, and only one, argument against the God of Abraham as described in the Bible ( both Hebrew and Christian ), what would it be?

I don't need an argument against the existence of any gods to be an atheist. I need a compelling argument for a god to not be one.

the "only physical things exist" argument against God doesn't work without further elaboration.

But it works well with that elaboration. To exist means to exist in space and time and to interact with other things that exist. Everything that can do this is part of physical reality, and nothing that it is said can't do that can be called real. Can this deity interact with physical reality at various times and places? If so, it is part of physical reality. If not, why even think about it?

there are concepts that other people can understand that you can't understand.

Perhaps, but there is no concept that you can understand that people reading along here cannot understand. No belief that you have stated is difficult to understand. The ideas are rejected because they are insufficiently supported, not because they are arcane mysteries. The lotus eating navel gazers like to fancy themselves as seeing further, and sharply rebuke the skeptic ("materialist," "scientism," "myopic") for being tethered to evidence and reality, but ask them what they see, and all you get is fluff, not deep thought.

One of the things I find to be the greatness of Judaism is the concept of trusting in God without questioning or reasoning/judging the relevance of the faith.

Really? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. It's antithetical to skepticism, which is probably the best idea man has had. It's the one that ushered in modernity and elevated the human condition.

 

[ChristineM]

If the conversation is scrolled back to the beginning, I think the objection you raised was to the description of God being non-physical. It seemed that your challenge was to identify non-physical things, and if those could not be identified, then this is an argument against God.

I didn't introduce non physical, i introduced E=MC2. Other posters made the claim god was non physical therefore energy is irrelevant. Now i would like evidence that god is non physical which, i believe, does not exist

Of all the examples shown, each requires energy in some form

 

[PureX]

I didn't introduce non physical, i introduced E=MC2. Other posters made the claim god was non physical therefore energy is irrelevant. Now i would like evidence that god is non physical which, i believe, does not exist

Of all the examples shown, each requires energy in some form

I like this argument, but it doesn’t address what energy is … what is it’s physical content? (If, as you claim, it must be a physical phenomenon to qualify as existing.) Nor does it address the question of source. What generates it?

 

[ChristineM]

I like this argument, but it doesn’t address what energy is … what is it’s physical content? (If, as you claim, it must be a physical phenomenon to qualify as existing.) Nor does it address the question of source. What generates it?

What needs to generate it?


In a closed system energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form of energy to another.

it appears that the universe is a closed system

 

[PureX]

What needs to generate it?


In a closed system energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form of energy to another.

it appears that the universe is a closed system

What needs to have created God? I think the energy argument is getting very circular and tautological. And ultimately undefined. All the same characteristics that people use to discredit the God proposal.

If energy is a force that does work, what is generating that force? If nothing, then it’s clearly magic. And what is it’s physical content? If it has none, then how does it exist? And what determines what work it can and can’t do? Because whatever that is, it clearly transcends energy as the basis of existence.