The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Gary Childress]

Well, not "depend upon," but yes, God is a person.

That's not even true. But if it were, it would still not make your case that that was necessary. People finish things they create all the time.
And nobody can drink the ocean. But you can take a cup. And you can stand on the rim of the Pacific somewhere, and truthfully say, "I've seen the ocean," though you cannot span it all, far less drink it.

So what's your point? Nothing is obvious from what you say.

Unlike God, the ocean is easily visible.

I think God is, too. You can know him from the natural world, from your own nature, from conscience, and from revelation...all of which he's made available to everybody. I find it personally amazing how hard people keep working to keep themselves from seeing it. But we all really know. See Romans 1.

Some people don't accept evidence as evidence. Again, that's their problem, not a lack of evidence.

The world is a shit fest.

It's not, actually. It's a mixture of good and evil. And some people experience more of one than the other, and some experience more of the other than the one. There's no simple link between being good and getting good, or being bad and getting bad, in this present world. The oldest book in the Bible, the Book of Job, says no less.

Yes, it's a mixture of good and evil and good suffer as readily as evil profits and visa versa. That's not the definition of "benevolence" in a creator. The world is mostly full of miserable people who have suffered frustrations in life and many of the rest have experienced absolute horror. Why else would the stoics preach austerity and asceticism for a "good" life. Nothing that we seek in the world brings happiness. The only road to happiness is to become numb.

[Immanuel Can]

Unlike God, the ocean is easily visible.

I think God is, too. You can know him from the natural world, from your own nature, from conscience, and from revelation...all of which he's made available to everybody. I find it personally amazing how hard people keep working to keep themselves from seeing it. But we all really know. See Romans 1.

Some people don't accept evidence as evidence. Again, that's their problem, not a lack of evidence.

The world is a shit fest.

It's not, actually. It's a mixture of good and evil. And some people experience more of one than the other, and some experience more of the other than the one. There's no simple link between being good and getting good, or being bad and getting bad, in this present world. The oldest book in the Bible, the Book of Job, says no less.

Yes, it's a mixture of good and evil and good suffer as readily as evil profits and visa versa. That's not the definition of "benevolence" in a creator.

Well, you'll find it's part of a much larger story. You'll have to look past your personal tragedies and feelings to see it, though. It's not a story about how evil wins, but about how it doesn't, and how a greater good comes out of a lot of human failure than we might have imagined.

Nothing that we seek in the world brings happiness.

Maybe because you were never supposed to be seeking it in this world anyway.

[Gary Childress]

I think God is, too. You can know him from the natural world, from your own nature, from conscience, and from revelation...all of which he's made available to everybody. I find it personally amazing how hard people keep working to keep themselves from seeing it. But we all really know. See Romans 1.

Some people don't accept evidence as evidence. Again, that's their problem, not a lack of evidence.


It's not, actually. It's a mixture of good and evil. And some people experience more of one than the other, and some experience more of the other than the one. There's no simple link between being good and getting good, or being bad and getting bad, in this present world. The oldest book in the Bible, the Book of Job, says no less.

Yes, it's a mixture of good and evil and good suffer as readily as evil profits and visa versa. That's not the definition of "benevolence" in a creator.

Well, you'll find it's part of a much larger story. You'll have to look past your personal tragedies and feelings to see it, though. It's not a story about how evil wins, but about how it doesn't, and how a greater good comes out of a lot of human failure than we might have imagined.

Nothing that we seek in the world brings happiness.

Maybe because you were never supposed to be seeking it in this world anyway.

And why would God give us hormones and instincts that lead us to value things that we can't attain? Some kind of sick "divine" joke? Maybe in between catastrophic floods killing everyone, God likes to see people flail helplessly?

[Belinda]

Immanuel, your claim that God both made nature and intervenes in nature must depend upon God's being a person.

Well, not "depend upon," but yes, God is a person.

This what persons do with their creations when they regard their creations as ongoing processes.

That's not even true. But if it were, it would still not make your case that that was necessary. People finish things they create all the time.

...no human being can penetrate the mystery of God's essential being.

And nobody can drink the ocean. But you can take a cup. And you can stand on the rim of the Pacific somewhere, and truthfully say, "I've seen the ocean," though you cannot span it all, far less drink it.

So what's your point? Nothing is obvious from what you say.

To take a cup of water from the Pacific Ocean, or to swim in it, or to see it from an aeroplane all pertain to theophany (of Creation by God.). However they are not God's inscrutable essence.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, it's a mixture of good and evil and good suffer as readily as evil profits and visa versa. That's not the definition of "benevolence" in a creator.

Well, you'll find it's part of a much larger story. You'll have to look past your personal tragedies and feelings to see it, though. It's not a story about how evil wins, but about how it doesn't, and how a greater good comes out of a lot of human failure than we might have imagined.

Nothing that we seek in the world brings happiness.

Maybe because you were never supposed to be seeking it in this world anyway.

And why would God give us hormones and instincts that lead us to value things that we can't attain?

He gave us instincts and inclinations that should have led us in the right direction. But we are free creatures, too. We decided we wanted to go our own way. There are natural consequences to abandoning God and morality. And we are discovering daily what such consequences are -- the loss of good things.

We can't blame God for what we've done to ourselves. Nor can we expect a way back. Yet God has provided one anyway. If we're angry at Him, our anger is again going in the wrong direction.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, your claim that God both made nature and intervenes in nature must depend upon God's being a person.

Well, not "depend upon," but yes, God is a person.

This what persons do with their creations when they regard their creations as ongoing processes.

That's not even true. But if it were, it would still not make your case that that was necessary. People finish things they create all the time.

...no human being can penetrate the mystery of God's essential being.

And nobody can drink the ocean. But you can take a cup. And you can stand on the rim of the Pacific somewhere, and truthfully say, "I've seen the ocean," though you cannot span it all, far less drink it.

So what's your point? Nothing is obvious from what you say.

To take a cup of water from the Pacific Ocean, or to swim in it, or to see it from an aeroplane all pertain to theophany (of Creation by God.). However they are not God's inscrutable essence.

You're missing the point. The fact that you don't know ALL of the Pacific Ocean, or that you can't comprehensively take it all in and drink that ocean is no argument implying the non-existence of the Pacific Ocean. You can have a genuine experience of the Pacific Ocean. You can, in a very real sense, say you even understand things about the Pacific Ocean, or that you've "been to" the Pacific Ocean. That you cannot exhaust its dimensions doesn't imply you can't know anything about it. Not at all. Billions of people know something about the Pacific Ocean, experientially, personally and truthfully.

Consider the same in regard to God. To say that you can't know everything there is to say about Him, or His "essence," to use your terms, does not even remotely imply you cannot know God, or have experience of God, or learn things about God, or make correct and true statements about aspects of God.

[Belinda]

Well, not "depend upon," but yes, God is a person.

That's not even true. But if it were, it would still not make your case that that was necessary. People finish things they create all the time.
And nobody can drink the ocean. But you can take a cup. And you can stand on the rim of the Pacific somewhere, and truthfully say, "I've seen the ocean," though you cannot span it all, far less drink it.

So what's your point? Nothing is obvious from what you say.

To take a cup of water from the Pacific Ocean, or to swim in it, or to see it from an aeroplane all pertain to theophany (of Creation by God.). However they are not God's inscrutable essence.

You're missing the point. The fact that you don't know ALL of the Pacific Ocean, or that you can't comprehensively take it all in and drink that ocean is no argument implying the non-existence of the Pacific Ocean. You can have a genuine experience of the Pacific Ocean. You can, in a very real sense, say you even understand things about the Pacific Ocean, or that you've "been to" the Pacific Ocean. That you cannot exhaust its dimensions doesn't imply you can't know anything about it. Not at all. Billions of people know something about the Pacific Ocean, experientially, personally and truthfully.

Consider the same in regard to God. To say that you can't know everything there is to say about Him, or His "essence," to use your terms, does not even remotely imply you cannot know God, or have experience of God, or learn things about God, or make correct and true statements about aspects of God.

When Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist Jesus was confirmed as both God and human. When Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, it was a public sign that he was the Son of God.
He was both God and human from the moment of his conception, that is to say ----
the Incarnation.

[Will Bouwman]

1. Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness). It is a non-material, superstate, infinite.

Well, we on Earth have demonstrated that the only thing we can be sure of is that there is awareness; credit for that goes to René Descartes, so with you so far.

2. Energy (all energy phenomena, material bodies, and objects are from energy in different frequency states - from gases, liquids, to matter). It is finite, and it floats like a balloon in Pure Awareness.

Ah, now you have some work to do. How do you prove there is anything other than pure awareness?

[Impenitent]

1. Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness). It is a non-material, superstate, infinite.

Well, we on Earth have demonstrated that the only thing we can be sure of is that there is awareness; credit for that goes to René Descartes, so with you so far.

2. Energy (all energy phenomena, material bodies, and objects are from energy in different frequency states - from gases, liquids, to matter). It is finite, and it floats like a balloon in Pure Awareness.

Ah, now you have some work to do. How do you prove there is anything other than pure awareness?

I'll vouch for impure awareness...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

To take a cup of water from the Pacific Ocean, or to swim in it, or to see it from an aeroplane all pertain to theophany (of Creation by God.). However they are not God's inscrutable essence.

You're missing the point. The fact that you don't know ALL of the Pacific Ocean, or that you can't comprehensively take it all in and drink that ocean is no argument implying the non-existence of the Pacific Ocean. You can have a genuine experience of the Pacific Ocean. You can, in a very real sense, say you even understand things about the Pacific Ocean, or that you've "been to" the Pacific Ocean. That you cannot exhaust its dimensions doesn't imply you can't know anything about it. Not at all. Billions of people know something about the Pacific Ocean, experientially, personally and truthfully.

Consider the same in regard to God. To say that you can't know everything there is to say about Him, or His "essence," to use your terms, does not even remotely imply you cannot know God, or have experience of God, or learn things about God, or make correct and true statements about aspects of God.

When Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist Jesus was confirmed as both God and human. When Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, it was a public sign that he was the Son of God.
He was both God and human from the moment of his conception, that is to say ----
the Incarnation.

Okay...what does that have to do specifically with what I said? I'm not clear on that.

[daniel j lavender]

Energy can not be created or destroyed. That means that the god Creator does not exist because that is not possible. Energy is eternal, and this fact excludes the Creator god.

In the myth, god did not create the World from matter but from nothing (creatio ex nihilo).

The Bible does not explicitly declare creation from nothing. That is interpretation.

In fact the Bible explicitly declares “For with God nothing shall be impossible”, Luke 1:37.

[Age]

1. Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness). It is a non-material, superstate, infinite.

Well, we on Earth have demonstrated that the only thing we can be sure of is that there is awareness;

But, if the only thing that one can be sure of is awareness, itself, then any claim of 'a we', 'an earth', or 'a demonstration' is just speculation, only.

credit for that goes to René Descartes, so with you so far.

LOL Claiming that 'credit' for the claim that the only thing one can be sure of is awareness, itself, goes to 'a thing' with the label or called "rene descartes" is again, and obviously, just speculation, only.

2. Energy (all energy phenomena, material bodies, and objects are from energy in different frequency states - from gases, liquids, to matter). It is finite, and it floats like a balloon in Pure Awareness.

Ah, now you have some work to do. How do you prove there is anything other than pure awareness?

By the using of the very other thing, itself, proves there is something else other than 'pure awareness'.

See, what awareness, itself, is aware of, which can be known 'for sure', are 'thoughts'. So, by the very thing of thinking', 'this', itself, proves there is some thing other than 'pure awareness'.

Now, if the 'thing' labeled, here, called "rene descartes" put more 'thought' into its claim, and what 'you' give it 'credit' for, then it would not have made such an Incorrect claim.

[Will Bouwman]

...The fact that you don't know ALL of the Pacific Ocean, or that you can't comprehensively take it all in and drink that ocean is no argument implying the non-existence of the Pacific Ocean. You can have a genuine experience of the Pacific Ocean. You can, in a very real sense, say you even understand things about the Pacific Ocean, or that you've "been to" the Pacific Ocean. That you cannot exhaust its dimensions doesn't imply you can't know anything about it. Not at all. Billions of people know something about the Pacific Ocean, experientially, personally and truthfully.

Consider the same in regard to God. To say that you can't know everything there is to say about Him, or His "essence," to use your terms, does not even remotely imply you cannot know God, or have experience of God, or learn things about God, or make correct and true statements about aspects of God.

Is it not a fact that you cannot know ALL of god? It seems to me that your experience is just one more cup of seawater with no more claim to be true than anyone else's.

[Will Bouwman]

So, by the very thing of thinking', 'this', itself, proves there is some thing other than 'pure awareness'.

Which is the same mistake Descartes made. It does not follow from there is a thought, that there is a thinker.

[Will Bouwman]

How do you prove there is anything other than pure awareness?

I'll vouch for impure awareness...

-Imp

Ya know? I'm kinda in that ballpark meself.