There is No God and You Know It

An explination by the infidelguy that god(s) make zero freaking sense. The ideology of God is mythical. It is illogical. It is superstition. It is unreasonable. ITS TIME TO WAKE UP. Stop using God as a scape goat. Stop being closeminded. Start being open minded and accept that you may be wrong, instead of saying "oh God did it".

Even though im taking your side Summit, though your lack of evidence at this point will fail to persuade many people. Unless that other item that for some reason is not opening on this computer has your evidence. Though I am more for them keeping there faith then uderally destroying it, let them belive still for it gives up hope but let them know that in realtiy they are wrong. They can stay in their dream world for all I care.

This guy decimates traditional ways of thinking about the concept of God, which I'll give kudos for. But he does little to nothing in promoting atheism, in this particular podcast anyway. That aspect of his discussion is severely lacking and it should have been the focus, givin the title.

Here's a better title: Story of God, A Classic Fable

I don't understand summit's obsession with the question of God's existence. I once put the odds of God's existence at about one and a billion if not higher. But, then that would make us mere animals. Now take every species of Earth and not one is even close to the advancements that humans have made. As cave men we were more advanced. What are the odds that one species out of a billion or more excelled so much faster than all the rest. That doesn't make sense. I personally don't believe in God the way most people do. As a man who looks down on us and loves us and takes care of us. I honestly think that we are his version of TV.

Eliasan- I understand where your coming from, and indeed all theologists resort to the concept of faith for security. Yet this seclusion is hiding from the logical evidence available to them. Anyways, I'm sure you know that discussion of evidence has been conducted in a few existing threads.

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." - David Brooks

Wyote: The motive of his podcast was to elucidate the somewhat apparent contradictions present in theology. He has been in existence for over 7 years. And his discussion is evidentially extended in his dvds.


JackerJ: We should have a logical reason to believe, not a duty to believe.

I know what your explaining, but just to reinform; that odds of a Gods existance simply states nothing. Because the ideology of god is simply an idea. It is simply a conceptual construction, lacking logical evidence and reasoning. It is contradictory. Why? because an odd as a probability requires logic. The ideology of 'God(s)' is illogical. One cannot put an illogical concept into a probable odd. As cave men we were more advanced? No, we were more primitive. Not sure what your were trying to get at there. Anyways, if you wish to know the odds of the evolution of humans it requires multidiscinplinary analysis, in biostatistics, genetics, molecular ecology, paleontology and geology. Approximately 99 % of all the species that have ever lived on earth were already extinct before humans ever walked on this planet. The pace of evolution is an irrelevent factor in the consideration of how advanced our species has become. Instead, the factors involved in these logical odds require the analysis of mutation, genetic drift, migration, recombination, natural selection and phylogenys over our evolutionary past.

Anyways, just to present a few more clips.
Noah's Ark
Souls

Yeah but doesn't every fact come from an idea? I don't believe in duty's infact I think you misunderstood. I'm more saying it's possible. Like think how weird this is. Were here on a planet with billions of other species and everything every animal, plant, whatever can't even come close to how dominant we are. What I meant about the cave man thing was that even from the beginning we were different we could easily surpass anything. Like a rhino is born strong it's the way it is. But, humans make something to be as strong as a rhino.

The ideology of "god" is simply a conceptual construction of the supernatural, lacking logical evidence and reasoning. Possibility requires logic.

Humans are ~98% genetically linked to Chimpanzees. Despite this, yes, humans have evolved to be dominant within our environmental niche compared to most species. BUT dominance doesn't necerssarily equal success. A species doesn't have to be dominant in order to be successful. In evolutionary terms, a successful species has to maintain a reproductive and survival advantage. This is accomplished by evolutionary forces that shape genetic variation- mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection. That is all that matters, in order to evolve.

If whales could draw a God they'd draw a whale.

Just because it is highly unlikely an anthromorphic God, does not mean that God does not exist, but the definition of God is flawed. If you trace back one event ad infinitum where do you end up?

quote:

---

Just because it is highly unlikely an anthromorphic God, does not mean that God does not exist

---

Possibility requires logic.
The ideology of god contains no logical basis, evidential reasoning nor justification. The existence of a supernatural being must be decided on the basis of evidence and reasoning, there is no room for an appeal to faith. Arguements for the existence of god cannot contain theistic presuppositions. The theist cannot assume as true something that requires demonstration.

What is the scientific explination of claiming that I know that there is no God.

How does anybody claim that they know what I know and tell me to be honest about it.

I mean - give me the notes on the experimentation so that maybe I can determine this for myself so that I won't accidently believe that you have assumed something and call it a fact.

Okcitykid, first things first....realise that science is based on testable hypotheses who accept or refute theories. Religion on the other hand claims fact. Belief in a god is unreasonable. An Atheist doesn't need to "prove" the nonexistence of a god. A person who asserts the existence of something will assume the burden of proof. The theist, on the other hand, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as baseless. For Atheists there is no reason why they should believe in a god.

Theologists haven't proved the existence of a god. Any such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now accept that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason. This is where a theologist's belief fails. By believing on faith abandons the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. Faith doesn't give you knowledge; it only deludes you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest.

So if God can make plans, think logically or exist, then logic is an arch-power that encompasses God and gives reason for god's existence which appears to refute the idea that God could be the creator of logic.

The God as first-cause argument is slightly undermined. If there is no logical reason why God exists then it is more likely that there is no logical reason why the Universe exists, and that instead of assuming that the organisational force is a 'god', it's simpler and more rational to assume that it is the universe itself.

I'll also note that; a creator-gods cannot possibly exist. If God is placed "beyond logic" this is a contradiction. And if it is said that Human logic is incapable of realizing such metaphysical truths, then this also undermines any argument that can be made by one human to another, for the existence of god.

If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic created God, is all-powerful and restrains God. If there is no logical reason why God exists, then it holds that the Universe could exist for no logical reason and therefore require no creator. If God has logical thoughts then logic is more powerful than God. If God chose to create anything it must have had reasons to do so, therefore logic will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception.

If God thinks logically, then logic must have existed before God and God did not create logic. If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic is more potent than God and restrains God. If there is no logical reason why God exists, then it holds that the Universe could exist for no logical reason and therefore require no creator. If it is true that God exists outside of time and therefore "everything has a cause" does not apply to God then it is equally possible that logic, not God, is what exists outside of time and requires no cause.

To say that god doesn't obey logical rules, to say that God could create a round square, for example, is to say that the abilities of god are abilities that cannot logically exist.

One flaw in your statement: ...realise that science is based on testable hypotheses who accept or refute theories. Religion on the other hand claims fact. Belief in a god is unreasonable. An Atheist doesn't need to "prove" the nonexistence of a god. A person who asserts the existence of something will assume the burden of proof.

quote:

---

For the Athesist to state that GOD doesn't exist then the burden of proof is upon him to supply proof . . .

---

the theory of science states the existence of a Graviatational Constant, prove it exist => if it exist & is constant you must show that it exists & is constant in all existence, relative to our own system? One of the great premises underlining of all sciences is that we exist in a closed system . . . energy (matter) is neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form while generally accepted as correct has no prove of valitity. Science is based upon Mathematics but even Mathematics has underlining of conjectures (fundamentals) which form the premise upon which it is formed.

Summit - you should run for public office - you've ignored the question yet provide a lengthy explination for your stand on Atheism.

Are you an Evangelist for Atheism?

Why do you feel it so important to convert as many souls as you can?

Getting back to the question - How do you think you know what you think I know by quoting another as saying there is no God and I know it.

You and your friend are wrong. I don't have to admit that I know that there is no God, because I don't know any such thing.

I do know that you don't believe in God and that belief in God you believe is stupid.

I do know that this is your opinion and not all of science agrees with you, Einstien didn't.

Thanks Decius - I'm not to good with techno babble, so you might be right, I might be missing something.

God - I don't know what God is, but I do have an explination. If you took everything that there is and smush it all together, you would see God. Like a certain sect of jews believed, if you saw God, it would kill you. The best we can do is look at creation and see the artist in it, and that's the best we can do.

quote:

---

you don't believe in God and that belief in God you believe is stupid

---

quote:

---

You and your friend are wrong. I don't have to admit that I know that there is no God, because I don't know any such thing.

---

quote:

---

The best we can do is look at creation and see the artist in it, and that's the best we can do.

---

So Okcitykids main analogy is that of nature as a painting, and science's exploration of nature similar to studying the paints and canvas. This is straightforward enough (for, indeed, paints and canvas are a part of nature as well, so studying them IS studying nature). But Okcitykid then claims that "what we can do is look at creation and see the artist in it" for us to conclude that, just as a painting has a "creator" in the form of a painter, so nature must have some creator. Unfortunately, whether this is true or not, Okcitykids attempt is totally unjustified. To claim that one is wrong on no reasonable basis is ridiculous in a logical argument. But we have to recognise that the logic is only on one side of this discussion- Atheism. However, I am still left wondering, because the religious seem to pick and choose in what they do and do not believe in, whether you are fundamentalist in nature and therefore reject the idea of evolution, or you do not. So for the purpose of this post, I will assume you have fallen prey to the anti-scientific notion of a few thousand-year old Earth.

I have commented on various articles/posts written by evangelical and conservative Christians, and I can assure that you okcitykid have provided no more than paltry rebuttal. I will, after all, be commenting on material in your reply that was rather nonsensical. To start with, this is a thread about that there is no god and if you wish to make a statement against atheism, then your going to have to set it out in a logical manner. Secondly you asked, I, to provide a scientific explination on the basis that there is no god, for which you received a reply that you have foolishly ignored. Thirdly it therefore only highlights your severe inability to comment on this topic by ignoring and pretensiously making vague and misconstrued comments in the attempt to change the topic. And to only come up with "Einstein didn't agree" is simply a laughable matter. Clearly, you have misread my own writings - and my writings are intentionally set out on a logical framework so even a naive person should be able to grasp onto this. Curiously, this is exactly what we find in most religious replies...ignoring or pulling out of a logical arguement, and foolishly taking to the illogical conclusion that "oh god is the creator"...And it comes to no suprise at all. So what we have here is a couple of creationists who ignore, and dishonestly twist the minor disagreements into major ones in the hopes of misleading people who are unfamiliar with the debates. Quite the contrary, it is a poor attempt to support theology over Atheism without a logical arguement and evidential reasoning. So what we can see here is that a typical theologist will predominately use bad analogies, bad logic, and rhetorical appeals to emotions. Even a novice investigator could spot the deficiencies, to the extent that I wonder how theologists get by each day not being able to clearly see a logical viewpoint as more valid than a illogical approach taken by most Christians.

cturtle: Your post has unsupported assertions. I can't see any of your post that actually makes any sense at all. Are you actually trying to state something that is related to the context of this thread? If so, then comprehensively explain where the flaw in the statement is, and I may even consider responding to your reply. You choice of words is also disappointing. To state that matter is neither created nor destroyed as being invalid...how ignorant!

Decius:

quote:

---

So the amalgamation of all scientific theory, including analysis and observation, would lead (like on a graph with an asymptote) to a closer understanding of what it is that makes "God".

---

perhaps you could explain this a little more. I know that scientific theory doesn't aim to draw upon a closer understanding of the definition of "god". That is a role taken by most theology. Science makes no claims at all about the existence of a "God". There is no such thing as one definition of "god", because as all know, god is defined in a thousands ways. So therefore, appealing to a shared definition is obviously pointless because everyone upholds to a different opinion. I'm sure we would all agree on that note. But to provide our own definition of what we perceive as god to be can be constructive within a discussion like this. But it can only be constructive (and as you already alluded to) that a definition must be supported with reasoning and justification, and hopefully with the inclusion of logical reason.