| Subject: Re: god, who can't logically exist. |
Author:
avalanche
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04:46:25 09/01/00 Fri
In reply to:
Terry
's message, "Re: god, who can't logically exist." on 10:49:45 08/31/00 Thu
> You had some really good points in here. But the fact
> of it is, is that you cant prove God exists, nor can
> you prove he doesnt.
actually i can, and i have. if you define god along certain lines, then you can quite easily prove that he doesn't exist. if for example, you define god as a being who can do EVERYTHING, then you can easily prove his non-existance by asking a simple question:
"could god make an object that is so heavy that even he can't lift it using whatever means available to him?"
he wouldn't be able to make it or, or he wouldn't be able to lift it. theists often make weird and vague replies to it that makes them believe they have proven that god CAN do both of these things, but that's why we add the "using whatever means available to him", no matter what he would do, if he could do them both, that would fall under whatever means available to him. so no matter what the outcome, he isn't all powerfull, and that means, we have proven the non-existance of virtually every definition of god that exists. this is quite simple.
> But mabey we are nothing more than a game. Thats why
> God gave us intellegence instead of only instinct.
> Mabey thats why he let Adam and Eve eat from the tree.
> He created us for nothing more than his own amusement.
> Kinda the whole point to the movie DOGMA. You know...
> where the woman asks Alanis (God) why we are here and
> Alanis reaches out and "honks" her nose. Were a game.
> Amusement. I bet the universe was boring before we
> were here.
if god is omniscient, (which people like you claim), he would know EVERYTHING that would happen in the future, he could by definition not be surprised at anything (another argument for his non omnipotence), you bet wrong thus.
> But good points. Nothing I can really say to refute
> and argue against them because as I said, cant prove
> God exists, cant prove he doesnt, and all answers lead
> to another paradoxal question.
in any situation where you can't prove or disprove the existance of something, the favour automatically falls to non-existance. imagine that i'm an inventor, and i claim to you that i have invented a time machine. obviously you will ask that i prove that yes indeed, it is a timemachine, but what if i replied: "prove that it isn't"? you would call me quite mad, yet this is exactly what christians (and people of other religions) usually do when an atheist asks them to prove that god exists. "prove that god doesn't exist", naturally people like that are quite mad. If i can't prove that my machine is in fact a timemachine, then you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that it is, and seeing as that is the case, neither i, nor you have any reason to believe that god exists. nothing in reality requires the existance of god, quite the opposite in fact.
we see so many contradictions in religion, so many horrors and logical impossibilities, who in their right minds could still take religious belief serious? only those allready infected by it.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 