Existence of God disproved!

Castiel said:
Nice argument. Or not as the case may be. It doesn't alter the point however that by most standards of belief God isn't subject to our existence as therefore the question posed is indeed quite redundant as it assumes God is subject to the same limitations as we and the universe are.
Click to expand...

Saying that God is, by most standards of belief, not subject to our existence and not subject to the same limitations is ridiculous. It is simply an argument spouted by people with faith after they have ran out of lucid arguments.

For example, when religious people say "but what created the amino acids?" like on the first page of this thread for example. I'm pretty sure the response, "Ahh but amino acids aren't subject to the same limitations as everything else!" would, and rightly so, be dismissed as nonsense.
 
It's disappointing we still have to disprove the existance of somebody of which there is no evidence ever existed, other than some books writen by a man or woman.

Great book, but that's all it is.
 
Castiel said:
The simple answer is, He didn't. God is transcendent of normal human or universal experience therefore the question you so confidently says destroys the idea of God is redundant and so doesn't destroy the idea at all, but only underlines it.
Click to expand...

What you are describing is make-believe. If you seriously put any credence into that line of thought then you are not the man I thought you were.

The whole concept of transcendence in relation to the god question is the exact same concept that you can apply to any other made up deity or religion like the pastafarian brotherhood or jedi knights. Just because these are newer "religions" does not make the argument any less valid when you apply it to them.

I didn't say that my question proved or disproved anything, simply that it destroys any argument that one might have. There is simply no logic behind the idea that there may be a god.

There are so many logical explanations that back up the idea that god and religion is a construct that was created to control people and maintain power for certain people and groups that it seems almost idiotic to believe that there is a god if you take a wider view of the subject.
 
Most people are indoctrinated into religion, very few choose it.

I have a great life because I don't have to think about pleasing something that doesn't exist.
 
ebilcake said:
It's disappointing we still have to disprove the existance of somebody of which there is no evidence ever existed, other than some books writen by a man or woman.

Great book, but that's all it is.
Click to expand...

Not even that great a book lol... if you wrote novel with as many inconsistencies and contradictions as the bible, you would be laughed out of the publishers office.
 
Dolph said:
I am just going to leave this here in the hope of educating some of the posters in this thread.

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-logical-and-vs-rational/

Religious belief is not at odds with either logic or rationality when the terms are actually used correctly. It only becomes a problem when you add in a priori assumptions taken as gospel.
Click to expand...

Ok i have read the definitions... now please tell me what logical basis there is for religious beliefs/ belief in god?

"Math is logical as there is no other way to arrive at a conclusion or the correct answer other than following logical steps." How can one apply this to the wishy washy teachings of religion, or taking religion out of it if you wish, what logical basis there is for belief in a god, of any type?

Edited for clarity
 
Last edited:
I thought this was settled By Douglas Adams:

The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy said:
"The Babel fish, is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish. Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his bestselling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
Click to expand...
 
Dolph said:
your posts require that kind of leap of faith with regards to the a priori assumptions of the scientific method. You can't believe in scientific realism without faith.
Click to expand...

He seems to and this is part and parcel to what Spoffle may have been referring too earlier on and him being not able to recognise that fact ;)
 
Last edited:
mattscold said:
Saying that God is, by most standards of belief, not subject to our existence and not subject to the same limitations is ridiculous. It is simply an argument spouted by people with faith after they have ran out of lucid arguments.

For example, when religious people say "but what created the amino acids?" like on the first page of this thread for example. I'm pretty sure the response, "Ahh but amino acids aren't subject to the same limitations as everything else!" would, and rightly so, be dismissed as nonsense.
Click to expand...

You don't distinguish adequately between the different classes of "substances" being referred to in your description though do you? By definition they are classes of different "substances". More so it is quite easy to show what limitations amino acids are "subject" to?
 
Last edited:
OldCoals said:
Most people are indoctrinated into religion, very few choose it.

I have a great life because I don't have to think about pleasing something that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

No. For the most part you have to think about pleasing those that do. Science isn't immune to prejudice or peer review either.
 
If there is a God he's shown very literal interest in involving himself in the existence of mere mortals, if there isn't a God then he is incapable of involving himself in the existence of mere mortals.

Given that this debate has been raging since the beginning of time and is no nearer a meaningful conclusion; and given that the outcome of this debate, if settled, will not make the answer any more relevant to everyday life; would we not be better served spending our time on something useful?

The question is not "Does God exist" it's "Why does it matter?".
 
The only place god exists is in the imagination of the brain-washed gullible, the delusional and the insane, same as the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Bogeyman, Leprechauns and ghosts exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom