The christian god disproved
Pedro Freudenberg
For each type of god there is a way to demonstrate that the concept
is self-annihilating. Time is by far the most suitable means of
disproving the existence of the almighty christian/jewish/ muslim god.
First we need to define the word "universe". If we define universe as
"everything that exists" that would leave us with two alternatives:
either god is not part of the universe and therefore does not exist.
Or he does exist and is therefore part of the universe (remember, the
universe is EVERYTHING that exists).
With the temporary assumption that there is in fact a god, let us now
define "almightiness". Almightiness requires control over every system
in existence including energy, matter, space, and time as well as the
relationships between them. At this point we must distinguish between
temporary and "eternal" almightiness. Temporary almightiness would
either involve a period of limited or no power BEFORE almightiness was
achieved or a voluntary surrender of power by the almighty being since
- the being has control over time as well - it could otherwise prevent
time from reaching the point where almightiness is lost. This
distinction is philosophical anyway since the god we are talking about
is said to have been almighty from the beginning and is also said to
not have any intentions of voluntary relinquishing its superior status.
For the reasons mentioned above the alleged god must have created
the universe and everything in it. Or more correctly, as proven above
the part of the universe that is commonly referred to as "god" created
all other parts of the universe. "All other parts" means you and me and
every other instance of matter, energy, space and - time? Time as well?
Let us take a look at what exactly the four available options for a
relationship between god and time are:
1. God created time
Creation of A by B requires B to have been in existence before A. Since
the relationship "before" is only meaningful within the framework of
time - it requires time to have passed - the whole idea would negate
itself.
2. Time existed before god
Possible, but this would make god relative to and therefore inferior to
at least one other concept which, of course, is time.
3. Time and god have always existed or have begun existing together
Also possible, but this would make god and time rank equally at least
at the point of their appearance, making "eternal" almightiness
impossible.
4. Time is an aspect of god
Again possible but, as dear Dr. Einstein discovered, and as everybody
who has access to a very fast moving device can find out, we can
easily manipulate the flow of time by moving at certain speeds.
Almightiness would rule out the possibility of being manipulated
at will.
Just because we don't know how the universe came into existence, that
doesn't mean we don't know how it didn't.
Me Thinks
> 4. Time is an aspect of god
>
> Again possible but, as dear Dr. Einstein discovered, and as everybody
> who has access to a very fast moving device can find out, we can
> easily manipulate the flow of time by moving at certain speeds.
> Almightiness would rule out the possibility of being manipulated
> at will.
What if what you think is *your* will, is actually a manifestation of
His will?
In other words, the relationship that dear Dr. Einstein discovered,
and your claim to have control over time, is actually, as per His
Divine Design?
> Just because we don't know how the universe came into existence, that
> doesn't mean we don't know how it didn't.
I don't understand how your knowledge on your ignorance has anything
to do with the proof of non-existance of God.
And oh, btw, why, "The *christian* god disproved"?
Pedro Freudenberg
> [Big snip]
>
>> 4. Time is an aspect of god
>>
>> Again possible but, as dear Dr. Einstein discovered, and as everybody
>> who has access to a very fast moving device can find out, we can
>> easily manipulate the flow of time by moving at certain speeds.
>> Almightiness would rule out the possibility of being manipulated
>> at will.
> What if what you think is *your* will, is actually a manifestation of
> His will?
This would mean that I am actually a part of that alleged god while the
christian, jewish, and muslim religions postulate that we are separate
beings. According to your logic, god would have let the people in the tale
of Sodom and Gomorra act according to his will only to punish them for
doing that. It would rule out anybody turning against him.
> In other words, the relationship that dear Dr. Einstein discovered,
> and your claim to have control over time, is actually, as per His
> Divine Design?
See above. That would rule out me using that relationship against him. AFAIK
the relationship has never failed to function just because someone used it
for a purpose that contradicted his intentions.
>
>> Just because we don't know how the universe came into existence, that
>> doesn't mean we don't know how it didn't.
> I don't understand how your knowledge on your ignorance has anything
> to do with the proof of non-existance of God.
>
> And oh, btw, why, "The *christian* god disproved"?
Correct, that should read "christian, jewish and muslim".
Apostate
>What if what you think is *your* will, is actually a manifestation of
>His will?
What if what you think is a manifestation of *his* will is actually
a manifestation of **mine**?
You can "what if" all day, and it gets you nowhere.
Are you prepared to offer proof of what is "his" will?
That presumes the question, are you prepared to offer proof
that there is a "he" to have such a will?
Otherwise, your question is merely tiresome in this forum,
and probably a Trojan Horse to inveigle off-topic material
into the ng, a thing that will get you roundly plonked, if not
worse.
/Apostate
Me Thinks
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:07:31 -0700, <nos...@please.invalid> (Me Thinks) wrote:
>
>
> What if what you think is a manifestation of *his* will is actually
> a manifestation of **mine**?
> You can "what if" all day, and it gets you nowhere.
> Are you prepared to offer proof of what is "his" will?
> That presumes the question, are you prepared to offer proof
> that there is a "he" to have such a will?
to preach. I had objection to a specific point in the reasoning.
> Otherwise, your question is merely tiresome in this forum,
> and probably a Trojan Horse to inveigle off-topic material
> into the ng, a thing that will get you roundly plonked, if not
> worse.
>
> /Apostate
[grin] Never been plonked. Sounds like fun.
My only contention is that, however smart atheists are, there can be
no "disproof" of God, ever. Sooner we realise that, better for us.
- K
Vincent Kargatis
news:dc9b46a6.02073...@posting.google.com...
> My only contention is that, however smart atheists are, there can be
> no "disproof" of God, ever. Sooner we realise that, better for us.
There are no signficant misunderstandings of this issue - it basically boils
down to semantic issues that have been done to death here. Search this
newsgroup in google for threads like:
Atheism vs. Agnosticism (over 500 articles for your reading pleasure)
"strong" atheists
There is zero reason to beat this horse further. Consider your point
"realized".
v
David J. Vorous
> ...
> My only contention is that, however smart atheists are, there can be
There can also be no "disproof" of Super Man, Spider Man, The
Easter Bunny, and Tralfamidorians. Since there has been a
complete lack of proof for a god for hundreds of thousands of
years, and a complete lack of a valid theory about the
existence of a god, it would be illogical to believe that one
may exist. Lack of proof is not proof of existence. Sooner we
realize that, better for us.
--
David J. Vorous
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
Pedro Freudenberg
> Apostate <godl...@apostate.mailshell.com> wrote in message
> news:<mjhdkugc7gij1i6c8...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:07:31 -0700, <nos...@please.invalid> (Me Thinks)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What if what you think is a manifestation of *his* will is actually
>> a manifestation of **mine**?
>> You can "what if" all day, and it gets you nowhere.
> Exactly. Agreed cent percent. My point precisely.
Whenever you have an endless what-if-chain you've probably missed the exit.
I've pointed out that exit in my reply to your previous post.
> I don't wish to. And I know I can't. And I know nobody can. I didn't come
> here to preach. I had objection to a specific point in the reasoning.
See above.
> My only contention is that, however smart atheists are, there can be
> no "disproof" of God, ever. Sooner we realise that, better for us.
For sure, there can be one. As stated in the original post that for each and
every form of a god there is a way to disprove it. This one was about the
specific god that is described among others in the "bible".
Me Thinks
Under threat of being "plonked", me thinks me will write one last
message on this thread.
Pedro, I would like to know who would the target audience for your
"proof"
1. Yourself.
You want to convince yourself that God does not exist, atleast a
Christian God (CG) does not exist, and you have posted the reason why
*you* think for *you* CG does not exist. In that case, I have nothing
to say. I have reasons too why I feel God does not exist. For you, to
convince yourself, you don't *have* to have a logical proof. Anything
would do. A gut-feeling maybe..Or maybe you were a believer, and
something happened that made you feel cheated by God.
Whatever.
2. The Reasonable man.
You want to convince anyone who lives by reason, that God does NOT
exist. Personally, I don't believe such a proof is possible. One is
because of "semantic" reasons, as Vincent says. Not everyone would
agree with your definitions of God. Even assuming they did, the
definition could be so convoluted that it would not be possible to
disprove its existence.
And, lack of proof of existence is not a proof of non-existence
either.
I made my original post, because I felt, even with *your* definition
of God, there is a fallacy in the proof.
Quote.
> This would mean that I am actually a part of that alleged god while the
> christian, jewish, and muslim religions postulate that we are separate
> beings.
Unquote.
Well, what do you care about what those religions say? You have made
your own definitions of God, universe etc., and nowhere have you also
made a claim that we are "separate" beings, capable of acting on our
own free will. If you are ready to include that in your premise too,
then I would agree that an almighty God can't exist, as per your
defines, and under the conditions you have imposed.
3. To "convert" theists.
Let me tell you, this is impossible. We must understand that living by
reason is not a *must*. Theists don't always live by reason, and they
seem to do pretty well in life. You can't *reason* with a theist about
his belief in God, because, for him, the belief is unconditional.
All in all, I think there is no point in attempting such proofs.
As for David J. Vorous, I don't wish to flame further.
Ciao.
- K
David J. Vorous
> Me wonders whether me should continue..
> Under threat of being "plonked", me thinks me will write one last
> message on this thread.
>
> Pedro, I would like to know who would the target audience for your
> "proof"
> 1. Yourself.
No one needs convincing that a god does not exist. You either
follow the evidence, which shows there is no god, or you
convince yourself, in spite of the evidence, that one exists.
> And, lack of proof of existence is not a proof of non-existence
> either.
In this case it is.
Jim Rogers
...
> You want to convince yourself that God does not exist,
Gods could only be disproven one at a time, when their described
properties can be shown to be self-contradictory or contradictory with
other known facts. "Methinks" he chose the CG to pick on this time
because it's the one we most often get bludgeoned about the head and
neck with on a daily basis.
> ... Not everyone would agree with your definitions of God.
That is, certainly, a core problem.
> Even assuming they did, the definition could be so convoluted that
> it would not be possible to disprove its existence.
And if it isn't, already, it's generally not hard to convolve one to
make it impossible to disprove. The easiest twist is to have this god
_deliberately_ keep itself hidden (perhaps to everyone but select
prophets).
...
> 3. To "convert" theists.
> Let me tell you, this is impossible. We must understand that living by
> reason is not a *must*. Theists don't always live by reason, and they
> seem to do pretty well in life. You can't *reason* with a theist about
> his belief in God, because, for him, the belief is unconditional.
That, my friend, is an unwarranted absolute. There are probably very
many theists living with cognitive dissonance which they manage to
keep well-beaten down only with the help of their codependents.
Sometimes all it might take is finding the right straw, and pop goes
the camel's back.
> All in all, I think there is no point in attempting such proofs.
But in the end, I'd agree that there's _little_ point to attempting
"proofs" per se. Proofs aren't necessary, but exposing the rank
absurdity of the concept of gods, or of some particular god, can be
quite useful.
Jim
Pedro Freudenberg
> "proof"
> 1. Yourself.
> {... kept in mind ...]
Let me put it that way. I have never believed in any god or other forms of
"supernatural" powers. Of course, during my childhood, that was at
gut-feeling, i.e. a belief. As you grow older you question your beliefs and
try to validate them logically.
> 2. The Reasonable man.
> {... dto. ...]
There are two ways of proving that a theory isn't valid. Either by showing
that its preconditions are false or by proving its inconsistency. Since a
unified explanation for the existence of the universe is yet to be found
the first approach fails. The second approach is successful because it uses
two concepts that are part of the christian religion. God, which is being
mentioned explicitly, and time, which is accepted silently.
> because of "semantic" reasons, as Vincent says. Not everyone would
> agree with your definitions of God. Even assuming they did, the
> definition could be so convoluted that it would not be possible to
> disprove its existence.
The definition of "god" is that found in the bible and the quran.
> And, lack of proof of existence is not a proof of non-existence
> either.
I've deliberately avoided citing lack of proof for its existence as evidence
for its non-existence.
> I made my original post, because I felt, even with *your* definition
> of God, there is a fallacy in the proof.
Where exactly would that fallacy be? The proof refers to the god of the
bible, and that god only. If we dealt with a variation of that god, we'd
probably need to alter the proof.
> Well, what do you care about what those religions say? You have made
> your own definitions of God, universe etc., and nowhere have you also
> made a claim that we are "separate" beings, capable of acting on our
> own free will. If you are ready to include that in your premise too,
> then I would agree that an almighty God can't exist, as per your
> defines, and under the conditions you have imposed.
I don't need to make that claim. The bible does it for me.
> 3. To "convert" theists.
> Let me tell you, this is impossible. We must understand that living by
> reason is not a *must*. Theists don't always live by reason, and they
The ability to live by reason is the sole feature that distinguishes man
from animals.
> seem to do pretty well in life. You can't *reason* with a theist about
> his belief in God, because, for him, the belief is unconditional.
Correct. Therefore you cannot rely on prudence, personal experience etc.
when disproving gods. The point is that the concept itself is used to
demonstrate its non-existence.
Also, not everybody who is religious must be a fanatic. There are some
people, who can't be helped, no question about that. However, you can still
reach people who are uncertain or who do believe in god but are willing to
question their beliefs.
> All in all, I think there is no point in attempting such proofs.
BTW, the purpose of this post was to create a discussion that would help
improve the reasoning, e.g. by finding and correcting weaknesses.