Best argument for god? ... From an atheist

originally posted by: Blue Shift
The best argument for the existence of an omniscient transtemporal supernatural superentity capable of creating reality and controlling everything in it is that if there actually are multiple universes, and an infinite number of those universes, then there has to be at least one where such a being exists. And if it exists in one universe, then it exists in all of them.

The problem, of course, will always be in defining "God." I have yet to see a definition for god that doesn't have an inherent paradox built into it, making it useless. The primary fault will always be defining a god that is ACTIVE. After all, if you define a being that is essentially everything everywhere and always, then what kind of deficiency would it have that would stimulate it to create a universe? It's already all-encompassing. What could it possibly need such that it would say to itself, "I think I need to create reality. Let's start with light, so we can see what we're doing." So which is it? Is this being everything, or is it missing something? Can't have both. In fact, even referring to it as a separate thing / entity / consciousness is limiting it by separating it from the rest of everything.

If you're going to believe is such a being, I think the Gnostic Christians had a fairly decent response. They said that since the creator entity is essentially unfathomable and completely beyond understanding by our weak human minds, it kind of becomes a non-issue. You can't deal with it, and worshiping it is just foolish. It has humanity trapped in a horrible existence and there's nothing that can be done about it -- except -- we still feel pain and pleasure no matter what, so why don't we just maybe treat each other better to make the best of a really bad situation? Rather than just fighting all the time, let's cooperate and help each other make this existence slightly more tolerable while we're in it. I could get behind that.

Your first paragraph warranted a star.

I think the activity of such a God as you describe in your second paragraph assumes that nature would be 'other' than God. In that paradigm, everything in nature is a subset, an expression, of God's existence.

Also, atemporality means that God must be fairly static (from our temporal view), otherwise he would be changing his changes to the universe, recursively. Which would make his actions within the universe pointless and arbitrary, constantly being overwritten.

God is not subservient to the realm of the universe, he does not reside within it. He pre-existed it. Therefore, applying the universe's rules to God, especially in regard to the arrow of time, is not consistent.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition;
Keter

Keter is so sublime, it is called in the Zohar "the most hidden of all hidden things", and is completely incomprehensible to man.

And then there is Ein Sof

..God so transcends human understanding as to be practically non-existent.

Everything comes from some where, underpinning infinite regress is God.

a reply to: chr0naut

Also, atemporality means that God must be fairly static (from our temporal view), otherwise he would be changing his changes to the universe, recursively. Which would make his actions within the universe pointless and arbitrary, constantly being overwritten.

Seems like an accurate conclusion. But then why call it god.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Is God outside of spacetime?
Do atheists believe that is what Christianity/Judaism teaches

Love to hear gnarly or bluemans opinion...they act like they know all

Don’t know TC, who says God is out of spacetime, where do you get that from?
Just asking, not sure myself

kgov.com...

See what chronaut posted.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
All the circular pointless arguments aren't helping us understand why we exist so let's try a different tactic.

I'm curious to see if us godless heathens could argue for a skydaddy convincingly.

Or to the religious amongst us, I would like to hear your arguments for a pointless godless existence.

Why should a godless existence be pointless? Seems like a presumption

Why would it have any point then?
Just animals, eat breathe and breed
Why presume any value?

Why not presume value? Do you need permission to have hope and respect? A god given license to feel and show love? You shouldnt need a higher power to confirm those feelings for you, isnt it enough that you can decide for yourself?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Agnostics aren't atheist, sir. We allow for the existence of God, but we know there is no way to prove it either way. If there is a God, chances are the religions are wrong about him. Ya cant all be right, sir. No disrespect.

I always thought that anything that had the power to create a universe, or creatures in a universe probably had a different understanding of time.

So if you can accept that something is much more powerful than you then it shouldn't be a stretch to say a potential was placed in the building blocks of life then started down a path, while the creator that started the science project went off to handle other projects, coming back ever so often to check on things before heading out again.

What may be moments for someone of that size and strength could be a millennia for us, cause everything about the earth seems a little to perfect for me to accept it was 100% random chance that brought us to this point.

Whether that be named god, allah, YHWH , Jehovah, great spaghettis monster, buddha or (insert name here) it doesn't matter to me.

I'm amazed by how easy this is now. Atheists used to make me frantic. Still I have no idea what I am dealing with here.

The argument against is just four words... Not Needed, So Why?

The universe doesn't need a God to be what it is, and throwing God into the mix goes down the path of the chicken or egg, as in where did God come from? If we want to use God in the traditional sense to explain everything we do not know yet, then yes we can say God did everything we do not understand.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Where do you get all of this?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

Where do you get all of this?

I'm not sure your question? Get all what?

What in our experience pops into existence without some preconditioned reality behind it?

We can track our existence to not only some preconditioned physical fact—parents but also a “spiritual", situational and psychological facts, such as who introduced your mother to your father. Or even the situational reality behind your parents meeting each other in some random fashion. Or even to our grandparents, our Aunts, and uncles, etc, or even the person who introduced your father to your mother through a blind date. ALL those things and more( it cant be completely quantified) contribute to your existence...including who or whatever was the first human.

Therefore its kind of ignorant to say there’s no God or no creative agency behind our physical being.

What complicates the matter are the theologies( sometimes bizarre) behind religions which are based on the nuances of whatever is God. People kill over that, which in itself is ignorant and proves that we need some kind of control or religion over us.

But even those don't work to control the negative impulses in human nature.


The nuance in religion which covers the foul nature of humans is the Fall of Man motif.

originally posted by: chr0naut
God is not subservient to the realm of the universe, he does not reside within it. He pre-existed it. Therefore, applying the universe's rules to God, especially in regard to the arrow of time, is not consistent.

And I guess that proves my point. In order to even try to define God, you have to figure out some way to avoid the paradoxes, and you do it by simply saying the paradoxes don't apply because this being is somehow extratemporal and extrauniversal. Fine. But pretty much ever other definition has it that God actively interacts with our universe and reality, because if not what's the point of even having a god to attribute things to? Does your God NOT interact with the universe? Because even without getting into the whole "god is love" thing, I understood that the entity's interaction with us in this universe is the whole point. So you're still stuck with the "why." It has not motivation in the strictest definition of the word. No reason to do anything because it already is everything.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The argument against is just four words... Not Needed, So Why?

The universe doesn't need a God to be what it is, and throwing God into the mix goes down the path of the chicken or egg, as in where did God come from? If we want to use God in the traditional sense to explain everything we do not know yet, then yes we can say God did everything we do not understand.

Pretty much. God = "I don't know."

originally posted by: Willtell

What in our experience pops into existence without some preconditioned reality behind it?

We can track our existence to not only some preconditioned physical fact—parents but also a “spiritual", situational and psychological facts, such as who introduced your mother to your father. Or even the situational reality behind your parents meeting each other in some random fashion. Or even to our grandparents, our Aunts, and uncles, etc, or even the person who introduced your father to your mother through a blind date. ALL those things and more( it cant be completely quantified) contribute to your existence...including who or whatever was the first human.

Therefore its kind of ignorant to say there’s no God or no creative agency behind our physical being.

We can do the same with a plant all the way back to when that plant and humans were the same species. Everything you spelled out above is all human observation and human perception. Even the term life is a human created construct, so the reality is it is all only our perception of the reality we have created.

You didn't explain why God is needed in you post, because God is not needed...

a reply to: Raggedyman

So no one should comment on any holy book if they haven't studied it? A few terrible things in any holy book makes me personally discount that it's from a loving god.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Raggedyman

So no one should comment on any holy book if they haven't studied it? A few terrible things in any holy book makes me personally discount that it's from a loving god.

One of the quickest ways to become an atheist is to really read the Bible. Reading the Gospels in New Testament and paying attention to what Jesus does as opposed to what he says is particularly enlightening.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Eh?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The argument against is just four words... Not Needed, So Why?

The universe doesn't need a God to be what it is, and throwing God into the mix goes down the path of the chicken or egg, as in where did God come from? If we want to use God in the traditional sense to explain everything we do not know yet, then yes we can say God did everything we do not understand.

In the beginning was nothing. Nothing went bang, expanded into nothing, nothing became matter, cooled, formed, and we are descended from rocks.
How am I doing so far?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Raggedyman

So no one should comment on any holy book if they haven't studied it? A few terrible things in any holy book makes me personally discount that it's from a loving god.

One of the quickest ways to become an atheist is to really read the Bible. Reading the Gospels in New Testament and paying attention to what Jesus does as opposed to what he says is particularly enlightening.

Do elaborate. What does Jesus say that doesn't reconcile with what He does?

originally posted by: RandomPerson
a reply to: Raggedyman

Agnostics aren't atheist, sir. We allow for the existence of God, but we know there is no way to prove it either way. If there is a God, chances are the religions are wrong about him. Ya cant all be right, sir. No disrespect.

Agnostic, atheist, either, or, I understand them very well, don’t even think the position of either is unreasonable though there are many unreasonable atheists and agnostics, plenty of unreasonable people of faith as well.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Raggedyman

So no one should comment on any holy book if they haven't studied it? A few terrible things in any holy book makes me personally discount that it's from a loving god.

You do whatever you want.