Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 1, 2011 at 9:53pm

I already put that entire concept out before you.. You might want to go back and study lol.. Wow, how many airplanes fly over your head in a day Johny D?

 

It's like you didn't even comprehend this statement:

And You know what doesn't have informational value John D.. NOTHING lol

 

The bell is ringing but I don't think you can hear it. ;)

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 1, 2011 at 10:06pm

And You know what doesn't have informational value John D.. NOTHING lol

 

This plane will buzz over your head for a very long time John D :) And I am still waiting for you to take up my challenge so I can worship you!

Try posting without using information, energy, or material-physicality. .. WOOO WOO!! Right??  You seem to avoid this like the plague >:)

Lets see.. without information, Johny D wouldn't even have a Language? Without language there is no understanding? hmmm :)

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 1, 2011 at 10:27pm

It is therefore a complete fiction!

This is Golden right here!.. Information is "Fiction"! lol I'm glad we have a professor Johny D to tell us information is fiction! I don't know how I would ever understand if I didn't know information was fictitious O.o

<insert face palm here>

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 2, 2011 at 1:16am

You make a reasonable argument.. My original argument was only to address an all OMNI GOD.. I think we can reasonably rule that out. However, gods in general are just simply concepts of opinion regardless if the object of the opinion exists or not. It can only be a GOD if it's worshiped as such, and is only a GOD to those who would worship it as such. Otherwise it's simply not applicable as a concept to those who don't.. And when Theists say there GOD is made of nothing, it's quite evident no scientific proof can be given for it's existence. But for those of us who actually understand the definition of the term "nothing", a nothing GOD simply doesn't exist by definition. It only exists as an Idea, concept, or belief. And ideas, concepts, or beliefs are not the objects of those ideas, concepts, or beliefs. Theists don't seem capable of comprehending the difference between the idea of GOD and what is supposed to be the object of the idea. And they probably do so by intention because its the idea they grasp on to. And in order for it to survive, it must be kept alive by keeping people believing in it. Thus duplication of the idea through indoctrination becomes a critical part of the ideology's future. Hence, what is a GOD with nobody to worship it as such?

However, the absolute proof of no GOD's exist is very simple. I wouldn't view or worship anything as a GOD. Thus the GOD concept is entirely irrelevant, and such things simply don't exist.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on March 8, 2011 at 6:28pm

I hold a copyright on this disproof and a version of it entitled The Biblical God Concept - Nullified has been published by The Freethinker which is the online magazine of the Science and Rationalists' Association of India:

The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident. One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.

The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality. Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness. Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do. Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality. Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time. Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.

The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist. In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.

The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

We shall proceed with a logical technique that utilizes reductio ad absurdum. That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition. This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete. As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.

By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it. By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so. Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence. However, they are beings. By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions. Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect. In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.

This is the absurdity. Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed. Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived. Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect. That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate. In this, even supposing that a free desire to be worshipped could be moral, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this presentation. It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey more than that the Biblical god concept is self-contradictory. It is meant to convey that, as our ability to know an external reality (if one exists) is scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature, meaningful development for us may only be realized in the form of internal rewards. That is, it may only be realized through decisions that afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.

Therefore, in that these all involve goodness of motive, more significantly than that the Biblical god concept is self-contradictory, this presentation is meant to convey that meaningful development must accommodate the personal conscience.

As the personal conscience assesses the appropriateness of subscription to the Biblical god concept it encounters the following: ‘Loving beings are characterized by selflessness, not egotism. They do not wish to be worshipped, narcissistic ones do. They wish to inspire others to be as good even better than they, not render them prostrate. There may be no double standards in the definition of love.’

Accordingly, fully informed and free subscription to the Biblical god concept is unconscionable. Consequently, it is incongruous with meaningful development even apart from the self-contradictory nature of the of the Biblical god concept.

Resultantly, in the interest of intellectual and emotional maturation, subscription to the Biblical god concept should be held repudiated not only in that it involves a self-contradictory notion but, more insistently, in that it cannot in full knowledge and goodness of motive be freely enacted.

John Jubinsky
MA-Mathematics, CPA

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ockraz on June 15, 2011 at 10:28am

If I were a believer concerned about proofs and disproofs of the existence of god,  I would question the move from, a being is "a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality" to "it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions".  If knowledge of the truth of X isn't equivalent to an acknowledgement that X is true, then it would appear that while your conclusion may be true, your argument would not be deductively valid.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on June 15, 2011 at 5:10pm

Implicit in the statement that a being is a perceiver that cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality is that there might not be one. In this it is impossible for a being to acknowledge (in the absolute sense) the existence anything more than its perceptions. This argument was originated by Descartes and has stood the test of time for 400 years. Moreover, Hawking acknowledges the validity of it on p#45 of his new book The Grand Design.

 

Now, the Biblical god demands that beings worship him. Therefore, it expects them to acknowledge his existence absolutely. Since it is impossible for them to do this the Biblical god expects them to do the impossible. As such it cannot be good and, in this, is inconsistent with its own definition. Accordingly, a Biblical type god cannot exist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ockraz on June 16, 2011 at 11:39am

I'm not clear about what "acknowledge (in the absolute sense)" entails. What Descartes maintained was, to the best of my understanding, that one cannot have knowledge of the existence of god (at least until he went further and posited an easily refutable argument to the contrary).  Of course, the definition of 'knowledge' is not something on which there is any consensus amongst epistemologists.  Moreover, Descartes' criterion (an inability to be doubted) was set much higher than that of any contemporary theory of knowledge with mainstream adherents.  

 

I don't have 'The Grand Design', perhaps if you told me more about it I could better understand what you mean by 'acknowledge' in this context.

 

Perhaps there is a meaning of 'acknowledge' which is used specifically with reference to theological questions of which I am ignorant.  As I understand it, the word 'acknowledge' is not one which refers to belief or some epistemic state of affairs, but is rather a matter of behavior such as giving a sign of recognition.

 

I am not trying trying to be difficult.  It seems to me that these are significant distinctions because one could certainly express belief in something when there is not certainty so strong as to exclude all doubt.  If worshiping only requires acting the way that one would reasonably expect one to act IF they had knowledge of god's existence, and especially if 'knowledge' is used in accord with modern theories of knowledge, then worship would be quite possible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on June 16, 2011 at 4:01pm

I am not going to spend a lot of time on this because the meaning is actually very simple and is explained in detail in the definition of a being that I presented in the disproof.

 

To acknowledge that something exists as the word is used in the disproof means to self-honestly know beyond any doubt whatsoever that it exists. Since we experience our perceptions we can self-honestly know beyond any doubt that they exist. However, we must jump to a conclusion to hold that they validly reflect any external reality that might exist.

 

Perhaps you should get Hawking's last book, The Grand Design, and read p#45 of it. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnsky on June 15, 2011 at 10:37pm

Basically, I look at statistical data.

With that said, everything falls within statistical norms...

 

IF there was a god, and that god interfered in any way with this world, it would show up as a glowing statistical anomaly... basically what science would reluctantly agree is a "miracle".

But there are none.

No statistical anomalies pertaining to heavenly bodies.

No hand of god.

 

So that renders all prayer pointless.

And it renders any belief of gods intervention pointless, at least in the present tense.

 

So either god doesn't give a crap about what happens to his followers enough to intervene...

... or he doesn't intervene, because he doesn't exist.

 

The bible teaches you that you get what you pray for.

This is therefore a complete fallacy.

 

You get what you strive to get.

You accomplish what you push to accomplish.

No god will help you.

No god has helped anyone, for as long as we've been paying attention.

 

Any claims to the contrary are bull****, otherwise those events would have been detected as an anomaly, and scientists would be clamoring to research it further.

If the Christians, Muslims, or any denomination were the "followers of the truth" or the "chosen ones", they would show up with an anomalous statistical trend that shouldn't exist.

 

But they don't.

They have the same death rates.

The same rates of agonizing deaths.

The same poverty rates amongst the uneducated.

The same everything.

 

... clearly, they aren't chosen, favored, or paid attention to at all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by A3Kr0n on June 16, 2011 at 8:35am

I don't argue for the non-existence of God. I don't argue for the non-existence of the invisible pink unicorn, which is incredibly pink, yet invisible at the same time. I don't go down the street, and think to myself "that woman is very non-pregnant". How far do I need to go with this, I'm having fun with it!

People who believe in God either need to prove God's existence, or admit that they believe in something that has absolutely no reason for being true.

The best I can do is point out the errors in the bible, which is the infallible word of God, and let them decide what else might not be true in their perfect book.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on June 16, 2011 at 4:46pm

It is possible to prove the negative of the existence of a Biblical god as follows:

 

1.) A Biblical god is good - by definition of a Biblical god.

 

2. A Biblical god wants to be worshiped - by definition of a Biblical god.

 

3.) Good beings do not want to be worshiped - by definition of good.

 

4.) Therefore, a Biblical god does not want to be worshiped - from 1.) and 3.) above.

 

5.) Consequently, a Biblical god both does and does not want to be worshiped - from 2.) and 4.) above.

 

6.) Resultantly, the concept of a Biblical god is self-contradictory and, as such, a Biblical god cannot exist in reality.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page