Christian God Disproven

Post Reply New Topic

In thinking about time, I believe that Einstein's general relativity indicates that time is linked to matter and space; and so it follows, then, that God probably created time right along with matter and space. And so God, as the creator of time, is not limited to the dimension of time, and therefore is outside of time.

What does it mean "to be outside of time"? Every dynamic action requires a passage through time. Without time, nothing changes. To say something is outside of time is speaking about something totally unknown and has no part of understanding of anything.

Okay, here's something to "disprove":

God defies explanation in words. Words attempt to define Him a context comprehensible to human beings and another sentient beings. As He is beyond comprehension and definition, He is beyond words. Any logic built on words will fail to touch on Him.

Fin.

If you disprove this:

lhlwkdjl,d23lf,mwkmd63;dnmmndkmd

By making Him totally incomprehensible you have totally destroyed His significance to any value whatsoever.

Looking at this thread its really about people going on with their best guesses. When we go on though about our senses or our levels of logic determining what can and can't be real though, we're really saying that we're the measure of all things - which for a group who've only broken from apes a flash point in time ago and are nothing more than apes acting more like bees or ants in a lot of societal senses; regardless of our medicine, or grasp on quantum physics at this point, biology, chemistry, mathematics, we seem to have the problem of only having ourselves to compare us to and to bounce our ideas off of.

That's the whole problem with pinning an absolute answer, trying to shove one view down another's throats. We all come at this with different neurology, different thought structures and methodologies, our brains being limited to our craniums can only go so far in capacity so that straps us to having inherent strengths and weakness in both ability to drill into reality or our ability to imagine how many possibilities work. As genius as we may look to ourselves compared to...say...sheep....it means very little in the absolute sense. For that reason I think its fair to say that only going on hearsay without seeing any worthy revelations - the true dead-center agnostics are the most objective, and I agree with the person earlier who said that it doesn't necessarily mean that their right - could be the atheists, could be the deists, could be the theists. The rest, its us making up, inventing, the structure of whatever argument we throw at it to fit our own comfort zones (at least to some extent) or at least fit the most honest things that we can do with our degree of knowledge from our own life perspectives and how we sense the world.

And the logic behind this is...?

Him being incomprehensible (although I mistyped in that regard, and I apologize. It is more that he is incomprehensible in words than that he is entirely incomprehensible, hence why I stipulated logic "built on words") doesn't reduce his significance at all. To the average person, calculus is incomprehensible. Does that destroy its significance? Is the Theory of Relativity completely without significance if you can't understand it?

You cannot know more than you can know. To posit an unknowable and declare it the ruler of the universe is to assume the universe is basically unknowable. It is the basic unproven assumption of science that the universe is knowable and the business of science is to find out. To retreat to declaring that the basics are a total and undiscernable unknown is to declare defeat and sink into dumb ignorance. Not a very useful posture.

This is the infallible proof of the existence of God wether you accept it or not!

I am always right.
If I say that God exists
then I cannot be wrong.
Therefore, God must exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Of course, that only works if you are God. Good that you finally have made a definitive appearance.

Sir Isaac Newton is unknowable to me, but that doesn't apply to calculus. To assume that the universe is unknowable merely because its creator is skips a few steps in the logic chain (all of them, actually). God may be able to change the rules on a whim doesn't mean He does on a regular basis, or even at all. In fact, things have been pretty static for quite some time. Or are there tales in the Bible of gravity suddenly pulling people East that I somehow haven't read? God created the universe as it was because that's how He liked it. He didn't create the universe and then say "I'll fix all these laws of gravity and relativity just as they're sure they're true."



Careful saying that around a Discordian:

Well, no posture is useful if you take it to absurdity and declare all clouds white or all toads brown. To say that there is either faith or science with no gray area for circumstance or facts that we're able to collect on the ground in relation to our own local matters and our ability to get our heads around them or tame them ourselves - scope and profundity almost makes it apples and oranges and I daresay it keeps the atheism/deism/theism debate well shelled off into the world of philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, etc.. It stays there because we wouldn't even know how at this point to define such a scientific experiment to test whether human beings have any other sorts of abstract entity or spirit, or maybe all other animals as well to be contiguous and call all things equal in the eyes of evolution. Its like that that we also have a problem attacking or rectifying any sort of God as the concept of God is so liquid and to an astute believer would be in part aided in clarity by science rather than defeated by it. Dogma of an organized religion can be attacked easily enough but when you think about organized anything and what human beings do to it - what your left with is quite often something a straw man compared to the original idea as it trickles down through lesser and lesser minds and particularly when those minds happen to be courtiers and sycophants, which will feed at any trough of power that they can get to.

I assume you know what you're talking about. I don't.

I think I've said more or less what Henriksson is saying at least several times in this forum already. Although, I usually hold the contradiction to be between "all-knowing" and "loving god", such that if God knows all, we lack free will, and if we lack free will, and there is a hell, then were are predetermined in our fate (something that a loving god would not allow).

It works both ways though.

Let me jump in and get my feet wet...

Just because the terms are unclear to you, does not make them unclear.

Omnipotent - "almighty or infinite in power"

Omniscient - "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."



From a logical viewpoint, they are contradictions. You might disagree with the definition, even though the definition is quite clear, and you might disagree with the assumptions, but they are the same assumptions made by various preachers and pastors every day.



You're misunderstanding. It doesn't matter whether God uses said knowledge or not, his simply knowing the future makes that future absolute. If that future was not absolute, God would not know that is the future.



That is not an argument, it's a theological rambling. Epicurus is using a simple logic, Cicero is practically daydreaming.



God can exist outside of time and still be all-knowing, but if he is all-knowing, he knows of time, and he is aware of our perception of time. Being all-knowing, he also knows how we will experience time, and the decisions we will make within the framework of "time". Having God exist outside of time really changes nothing in the original argument.



You guys went off on an irrelevant tangent. Time is relative, or at least it would seem that way. And yet, it doesn't matter at all. Inside time, outside time, if God is all-knowing, he knows *everything*, he can even perceive of our perception of time.



But he *knows* whether that person will love him, he is all-knowing of course. If he knows absolutely what the person will choose, and he created us, and there is a heaven and a hell, then for those that don't choose to accept and love God, God has created that person *knowing* that said person will go to hell. Not very nice of him to do that.



I don't think you understand science. Personally, I take offense at the comparison.

Science doesn't absolutely prove things, it uses all available information to come to the most informed conclusion possible.

We believe that Newton existed because of the vast array of independent sources claiming so.



I think it's pretty weak actually.



You miss a key element. If God is all knowing, he not only knows what "Z" is, he also knows what "X" and "Y" are, and thus, they cannot change. It's not about one "correct" reality, the key is that if God actually is all-knowing, he knows absolutely which reality will occur. Anything less would mean the lack of omniscience.

It seems to me as though religious folk who argue this point, perhaps cannot perceive of "absolute". They like things to be open to interpretation, various possibilities, etc. However, "absolute" means no alternative whatsoever.



DING DING DING! You win the prize!



To be clear, you don't believe in the Christian God. Unless you say "there is no god", you aren't an Atheist. I've seen this sentiment a number of times from self-proclaimed Atheists, and it seems silly to me. You are either Agnostic or you are Atheist, just as in the original argument you posted, the two terms are contradictory.



This is the only argument that has any weight against the original post. It becomes a rather convoluted mess, and I would argue they are just trying to qualify themselves into a position where their belief system cannot be disproved with logic. It seems silly that a being powerful enough to create the universe is restricted by our relative perception of time.



Do we really need to provide you with the definition for agnosticism?

Agnostic - "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."



As the only path, it is a myth. As a primary path, it is the truth. There are many ways to become indoctrinated. You can even indoctrinate yourself. I would argue that this is likely what you have done. It is the path to faith that intelligent people often find themselves on. Life is tough, and we all want answers, even if at our core, we know better.



This is simply untrue. I spoke to this earlier in this post.

Part of the definition of Omniscience is being able to "perceive all things", and that includes time. Because time is a "thing", it would fall into the category of "all things".



But it doesn't matter at all and is an irrelevant tangent.

Aside from the so-called free will issue there is another aspect of religious procedure that comes under question with an omniscient God. Although some prayers are supposedly mere neutral contact with the deity, a good many prayers are in the form of a request.
With an all knowing God prayers become a totally useless activity and the multiple prayers required of Muslims seem very odd indeed, assuming Allah is also imbued with omniscience.

There is also the matter of Pascal's wager wherein one lives a life of conformity to the demands of religious dogma, not because one is convinced of the existence of God but because one has nothing to lose by behaving in accord with religion. But the all penetrating eye of an omniscient God cannot be fooled by mortal ruse and if true faith is not present God cannot be scammed. It is the height of impertinence to attempt to kid God.

And even beyond this, the forced so-called conversion of other faiths to Christianity falls into the same trap. Forced conversion (somewhat in the order of the current activity at Guantanamo in the matter of torture evoked confessions) is totally useless in the eyes of a God who knows it all and can differentiate between a true acceptance of faith and a mere fear of torture.

No, I don't believe in 'god' and that makes me an atheist. I don't really have to say 'there are no gods' to not hold that belief.

I'd think it'd be pretty simple that someone who doesn't believe in god is an atheist.