The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[MikeNovack]

I don't claim to know that there is no god,

Then you're not an Atheist (or atheist) at all. You're an agnostic. It's there in your own wording: "I don't claim to know..." That, definitionally, is agnostic, because "a+gnosis" means "not+know."

You can stop defending Atheism, therefore. You aren't one.
[/quote]

There is a problem here with how words are being used.

We USUALLY mean "agnostic" to mean claiming not to know or decide on the existence of God having seen arguments of at least some merit on both sides.

We USUALLY mean "atheist" to mean disbelief in the existence of a God based on not seeing convincing arguments for AND having classed the proposition among those "preposterous, unreasonable, unlikely, etc." in other words, things needing strong arguments FOR before bothering to look at arguments against.

When somebody says "I don't believe in pink unicorns with purple hooves" we don't USUALLY ask him or her to produce evidence of their non-existence. We don't usually tell this person, "You don't really disbelieve; you are just agnostic about their existence."

IC, the only reason you see these two situations as different is YOUR belief in God << you consider belief in God much more reasonable than belief in those pink unicorns >>

That said, in my personal experience I have encountered people who thought they were Atheist and latter decided Agnostic. USUALLY this was because coming from a religious claiming to be the only truth. They came to disbelieve in God (as described by this religion) but still retained "the only truth" they were raised in and so called themselves "atheist". However at some time in the future, having encountered other religious thought, came to realize that they hadn't reason yet to disbelieve in any and all possible conceptions of deity, just THAT ONE (which they had rejected)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Jungian. Do you imply that Trump is a father figure, or a wise old man Jungian archetype? If so you may be right. Jesus Christ I have never seen depicted as a wise old man; which Jungian archetype do you suggest fits JC. The Caregiver, or the Hero?

I have not gotten down into the weeds on this one. However, Trump has been associated with the biblical Cyrus and whatever role he has was taken up and invested with great historical significance by Israelis and diaspora Jewry. As the battle against Edom rages.

I suspect that The Savior is its own archetype. But frankly Jesus Christ is a melding of various figures, including the mother & child. You may remember that I view the mythological picture of Osiris, Isis and Horus, with the evildoer Seth as the perennial chaos-agent, as a more coherent mythological map if examined psychologically.

A god must have a female counterpart, and the madness and twisted sickness of Yahweh calls forth the more balanced figures of an enlightened godly man, a fully female woman, and a divine child. It seems to me that Yahweh is like a horrifyingly complex and unresolved chord that must be ‘repaired’ and resolved through a more wholesome union. Better music if you will.

But the way I see it modern Judaism, as with Mark Levin and Dennis Praeger, wish to reinvest Jesus with Jewish messianic historical intentions. So they reconvert Jesus into an observant Jew, and weirdly try to resolve a conflict that has plagued Judentum: the anti-Semitism of Jesus himself, and the doubly weird turn of god against god, sort of in the Titanic sense.

What is really quite weird to watch unfolding is the conflict between the pro-Israel camp of maddened loons, and the notable strain of anti-Israel sentiment that always conceals the classical lines of antisemitic reasoning. These circle one another and feed off each other.

Trump has placed himself so much at the center of this that projection is inevitable.

I never heard that The King is a Jungian archetype.

I continue reading Christopher Dawson’s Religion & Culture and in it there is a chapter on Kingship. Just as relevant as the priest or the prophet. I am unaware of writing by Jung on the king figure. But it certainly is one that would naturally be charged with power.

What I cannot figure out is my own archetypal role. In the first part of the week I generally believe I am Prophet. Then toward Wednesday I mellow into Benign Priest. But come Friday I genuinely feel like the Avenging God with a scimitar or like a vengeful planet hurling toward the Earth …

Well, I guess I’ll figure it out eventually.

[Belinda]

Jungian. Do you imply that Trump is a father figure, or a wise old man Jungian archetype? If so you may be right. Jesus Christ I have never seen depicted as a wise old man; which Jungian archetype do you suggest fits JC. The Caregiver, or the Hero?

I have not gotten down into the weeds on this one. However, Trump has been associated with the biblical Cyrus and whatever role he has was taken up and invested with great historical significance by Israelis and diaspora Jewry. As the battle against Edom rages.

I suspect that The Savior is its own archetype. But frankly Jesus Christ is a melding of various figures, including the mother & child. You may remember that I view the mythological picture of Osiris, Isis and Horus, with the evildoer Seth as the perennial chaos-agent, as a more coherent mythological map if examined psychologically.

A god must have a female counterpart, and the madness and twisted sickness of Yahweh calls forth the more balanced figures of an enlightened godly man, a fully female woman, and a divine child. It seems to me that Yahweh is like a horrifyingly complex and unresolved chord that must be ‘repaired’ and resolved through a more wholesome union. Better music if you will.

But the way I see it modern Judaism, as with Mark Levin and Dennis Praeger, wish to reinvest Jesus with Jewish messianic historical intentions. So they reconvert Jesus into an observant Jew, and weirdly try to resolve a conflict that has plagued Judentum: the anti-Semitism of Jesus himself, and the doubly weird turn of god against god, sort of in the Titanic sense.

What is really quite weird to watch unfolding is the conflict between the pro-Israel camp of maddened loons, and the notable strain of anti-Israel sentiment that always conceals the classical lines of antisemitic reasoning. These circle one another and feed off each other.

Trump has placed himself so much at the center of this that projection is inevitable.

I never heard that The King is a Jungian archetype.

I continue reading Christopher Dawson’s Religion & Culture and in it there is a chapter on Kingship. Just as relevant as the priest or the prophet. I am unaware of writing by Jung on the king figure. But it certainly is one that would naturally be charged with power.

What I cannot figure out is my own archetypal role. In the first part of the week I generally believe I am Prophet. Then toward Wednesday I mellow into Benign Priest. But come Friday I genuinely feel like the Avenging God with a scimitar or like a vengeful planet hurling toward the Earth …

Well, I guess I’ll figure it out eventually.

Jesus deliberately staged key actions to signal his messianic role — symbolic and intentional, not accidental.

Donkey ride into Jerusalem → Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4–5

Cleansing the Temple / teaching → Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11; Mark 11:15–17

Reading Isaiah in synagogue and claiming fulfillment → Isaiah 61:1–2; Luke 4:17–21

Predicting his suffering (Suffering Servant) → Isaiah 53:3–5; Matthew 16:21

Passover timing & messianic acclamation → Psalm 118:25–26; Matthew 21:8–9

[promethean75]

"Jesus deliberately staged key actions to signal his messianic role — symbolic and intentional, not accidental"

I see. Then, let us waste precious time forwarding various hypotheses about what certain events and statements that may not have even happened mean and signify. Riding donkeys, guessing that someone will do something commonplace like suffer (jeez, that's like the power to see into the future!) and the significance of reading certain words while standing in structures called temples.

These are all mysteries that should have us fully committed to solving the meaning of once and for all.... even though we're going on year two thousand and the people who call themselves christians can't even agree on what any of it means.

How many different things might we learn from a man riding a donkey? Ah, this man riding this donkey must be trying to say something profound and not so obvious... we better analyze his every move and if he starts speaking in weird metaphors, write it down for christ sake! (pun?)

[Age]

So you agree that their explanation for how the world came to be is nonsense.
Not true; all the big bang hypothesis demonstrates is that the visible universe, the bit we can actually see, appears to have sprung into being about 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. Few cosmologists are rash enough to insist there were no previous conditions in which this event took place. The main failing of Lawrence Krauss's book 'A Universe from Nothing', is that he equates relativistic quantum fields with nothing, which they clearly are not. It is just one hypothesis, but if the basic premise is tenable, I have no problem with anyone who wishes to call one or more quantum fields 'god'; if that was all there was, they were everywhere and capable of anything and, in fact, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that anything that could happen does. A god that creates every possible world is vastly more "Supreme" than yours who could only manage one, clearly flawed world.

1. Why do you perceive and claim that 'the world' is flawed?

2. What is the word, 'world', referring to exactly?

As it happens, Alvin Plantinga evokes possible worlds in his hopeless ontological argument:

A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
If that is true, then a god that only appears in one possible world isn't maximally great. Your god is too small to be what you believe it to be, and the reasons given for why such a god is so withered are bullshit.

What we have found out, that the ancients didn't know, is that if the biblical account of creation is the word of God, then God talks bollocks.

Just like those who claim/ed the earth is flat, is in the centre of the Universe, and/or the Universe began and/or is expanding are also talking so-called 'bollocks'.

No really. You cannot prove your god exists, any more than an "Atheist" can prove it doesn't. You are both labouring under fundamentally the same delusion.
Well, as an atheist, rather than an "Atheist", I don't claim to know that there is no god, so find an "Atheist" and ask them for "evidentiary warrant".

The very reason you two, here, have not uncovered what they actual Truth is, exactly, is because you two, still, have not even discussed what the definition for the 'God' word is, yet. your own personal versions of God are clearly both ridiculous.

Age, the usual way to understand what somebody means by a word is the context of the utterance.

you, here, appear to be claiming that you understand what 'those two' mean when they uttered word, 'God', in the last time they uttered 'that word', so, if you are, then will you please inform 'us' readers, here, what they meant, exactly?

If no, then why not?

Still, I agree it's helpful for posters to provide a definition of their terms.

I will, again, suggest that providing a definition is actually more than just helpful.

Doing so actually decreases misunderstanding, confusion, conflicts, disagreements, fights, and even wars and killings.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Jesus deliberately staged key actions to signal his messianic role — symbolic and intentional, not accidental.

See, that’s what I’m talking about. I rode on a donkey up a long trail to The Valley of the Kings in Egypt when a boy. It must had had a lasting effect on me and my Destiny. But it was not staged, it happened, organically, providentially.

Things are getting clearer, day by day!

[Age]

So you are asking me to explain why I have a belief I don't have.

No. I am not. I am asking you for a more complete inventory of your beliefs.

You don't believe god exists - fine. I heard do you.
But you still haven't told me whether you do; or don't you believe that god doesn't exist.

Er, yes I did:

What "skepdick" is trying to get to, (and of course Correct me, here, if I am Wrong "skepdick"), is that if you do not believe that God does not exist, then 'you' are, what is called, an "agnostic", and not an "atheist".

[Alexis Jacobi]

Doing so actually decreases misunderstanding, confusion, conflicts, disagreements, fights, and even wars and killings.

Why oh why do you want to take all the fun out of life?!?

[Age]

Not at all, of course. Why would I, when God announces His own name? We're not just making these things up, you know.

The very first verse of the Bible — Genesis 1:1 uses Elohim, which comes from the same ancient Semitic root as Allah.

The name of God is spelled in Hebrew "YHWH," sometimes pronounced "Yaweh," in English, because the Hebrew has no vowels. "Allah" apparently was the moon god of the Arabs, who was said to have the stars as daughters. (Arabs and progressivist anthropologists don't like this fact, and so you'll find no end of them who attempt to deny this, but the historical evidence is good. "Lah" was the chief God of the ancient pagans in that region, from which Mo derived the term "Al-Lah," meaning, "the god.) If you ever wondered why Islam's symbol is the crescent moon, now you know.

In any case, "Al-Lah" was not known as Allah until after Mohammed...which even Islamists claim was his 'great' contribution to Arab religiosity. You'll also find that Allah has very, very few of the same qualities or values as the Hebrew YHWH or the Christian equivalent name, "God." The reason it always seems like Mohammedans follow a different god is because...they do.

Lol exactly like you "immanuel can" who follows a different God from every other human being does.

[Age]

Neither of us thinks that.

So you agree that their explanation for how the world came to be is nonsense.

No, I agree that ancient peoples had to rely on revelation, not imagination...just as we have to. For nobody was present but God Himself in the starting moments of the universe.

The Universe did not start. And, only a fool would believe It did.

In fact, modern cosmology has been very helpful in exposing the follies of the eternal-universe hypothesis, and getting us to move beyond it.

Not true; all the big bang hypothesis demonstrates is that the visible universe, the bit we can actually see, appears to have sprung into being about 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

You've just undermined your own point. If the BB is the start of the universe, then what caused the BB, and from what did it explode and expand?

But, it is impossible for the Universe, Itself, to begin. So, any presumption or belief that It did, is just a fabrication of the imagination, itself.

Few cosmologists are rash enough to insist there were no previous conditions in which this event took place. The main failing of Lawrence Krauss's book 'A Universe from Nothing', is that he equates relativistic quantum fields with nothing, which they clearly are not.

Agreed. But if there were any "previous conditions," then it's not true that the BB is the origin point of the universe. Rather, it's a secondary step, which had to be preceded by some "previous conditions."

Now you are, finally, 'catching on' "immanuel can".

And in all cases, you're now arguing for a finite universe. If you call either the BB or the "previous conditions" the beginning of things, then you're saying the universe isn't eternal -- which is exactly what I'm pointing out is necessarily true.

LOL 'necessary true' points to and shows and proves just how absolutely closed you really are, here, "immanuel can".

And all we're arguing now is the cause of the original event, not its existence.

You cannot prove your god exists,

Let's see. What will you accept as proof for the existence of God?

You cannot prove your god exists,[any more than an "Atheist" can prove it doesn't.

But Atheism is the one making the claim that one can decisively disprove the existence of God. So you can see where they're placing the burden of proof...on themselves.

It is this simple "immanuel can", if you really do want to claim that God exists, and created the whole Universe "himself", the prove it.

Now, if you can not prove 'your claim', then why is that, exactly?

You are both labouring under fundamentally the same delusion.

If that were true, then it wouldn't save Atheism. It would just express an "et tu quoque" fallacy.

I don't claim to know that there is no god,

Then you're not an Atheist (or atheist) at all. You're an agnostic. It's there in your own wording: "I don't claim to know..." That, definitionally, is agnostic, because "a+gnosis" means "not+know."

You can stop defending Atheism, therefore. You aren't one.

And, you can stop 'trying to' defend your version and interpretation, because you will never ever be able to.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't claim to know that there is no god,

Then you're not an Atheist (or atheist) at all. You're an agnostic. It's there in your own wording: "I don't claim to know..." That, definitionally, is agnostic, because "a+gnosis" means "not+know."

You can stop defending Atheism, therefore. You aren't one.

There is a problem here with how words are being used.

We USUALLY mean "agnostic" to mean claiming not to know or decide on the existence of God having seen arguments of at least some merit on both sides.

No, it's not that specific. All it means is one who admits "I don't know [for certain] one way or the other. He may see evidences on both sides, or see no evidence at all.

We USUALLY mean "atheist" to mean disbelief in the existence of a God based on not seeing convincing arguments for AND having classed the proposition among those "preposterous, unreasonable, unlikely, etc." in other words, things needing strong arguments FOR before bothering to look at arguments against.

Again, too specific. All it means is somebody who says, "There's no God or gods." And that claim is always open for questions of warrant, justification or evidence. And Atheism has none.

When somebody says "I don't believe in pink unicorns with purple hooves"

Is it your claim that the belief in God, held by the vast majority of the human race and throughout history, is generally conceded to be no more than a belief in pink unicorns? I think you'll find that at least 96% of the world's population, and more throughout history, take exception to such an assumption.

If the equivalency proposed is false, the analogy is inapt. It's a case of the "false analogy" fallacy.

Now, why would you resort to an obviously inadequate analogy? You obviously know it's not apt and tilts the floor in favour of Atheism, with no warrant for so doing. On what basis should we suppose that belief in God is as silly as belief in pink unicorns? What's your evidence for that equivalency?

And we're back to the same old Atheist problem: that all they've really got is categorical and gratutitous ridicule, but devoid of evidence, reasons or proofs. They hope to "embarass" their opponents into silence, perhaps, by pretending that they are wise and their opponents are superstititous, but without having to give reasons, evidence or proofs for their own basic claim -- namely, to the non-existence of God.

That said, in my personal experience I have encountered people who thought they were Atheist and latter decided Agnostic. USUALLY this was because coming from a religious claiming to be the only truth. They came to disbelieve in God (as described by this religion) but still retained "the only truth" they were raised in and so called themselves "atheist". However at some time in the future, having encountered other religious thought, came to realize that they hadn't reason yet to disbelieve in any and all possible conceptions of deity, just THAT ONE (which they had rejected)

I think that's fair. And if somebody has been taught about false gods, it's really good for them to awaken to the faults in what they've been taught. It's much better than remaining a slave to a false spiritual view. Or if they've been taught a rubbish view of the real God, it's great for them to see the holes in it, and shake it off. I'm all for that. It clears the ground for the truth.

But rejecting one possible view of what god(s) might be thought or said to be doesn't come close to a justification for Atheism. The point of getting rid of a false or inadequate view of God is to refine to a true and adequate view of God. And since Atheism cannot justify its bold claim that no God exists, there's perhaps no better middle place for a person to hover temporarily than agnosticism -- provided it's a mind-opened uncertainty, and not something as silly as Atheism.

And agnosticism has its own form of quasi-Atheist brainlessness, in the form of those dogmatic agnostics who extend their personal uncertainty into a unwarranted insistence that "since I know nothing about this, you can't know anything either, and neither can anybody else." That latter dogmatic agnosticism would require its own proof, and one just as impossible as any proof for Atheism: namely, the proof that what one person fails to know, nobody else can possibly know either. And that's also ridiculous, obviously.

Open-minded agnosticism, however, I'd be in favour of. It's a good stepping stone to knowledge.

[Walker]

Now, why would you resort to an obviously inadequate analogy? You obviously know it's not apt and tilts the floor in favour of Atheism, with no warrant for so doing. On what basis should we suppose that belief in God is as silly as belief in pink unicorns? What's your evidence for that equivalency?

Inadequate analogy? It's downright stupid, ignorant, and disrespectful.

Do you think that kindly, rationally, pointing this is out is more apt to shift the view that generates unicorn comments, than to say ... answer a fool with their own foolishness?

That seems to be more in-the-world-but-not-of-the-world, than above-the-world.

I tell ya IC, you're a true Christian with great patience for foolishness.

[Immanuel Can]

I tell ya IC, you're a true Christian with great patience for foolishness.

I'm nothing special, Walker.

Reason, logic, evidence...they're the stuff of honest dialogue. Honest dialogue is always favourable to Theism. That's why Atheism relies so heavily on unsubstantiable claims, unreason, illogic, and various forms of abuse, such as ad hominems, false analogies, unfair allegations, reductios, unearned postures of superiority, ridicule, and so forth. When one has nothing else in hand, one resorts to such measures, if one is loath to give up one's position.

So why get upset? Cool, polite reason favours Theism. And those strategies the Atheists favour are merely unethical, irrational and indicative of nervousness.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Reason, logic, evidence …

…and Original Mating Pairs. Can’t forget the essential!

See, here is the curious thing. All evidence simply based on the fact that existence exists, and that there can be no alternative to existence, does indeed place a thinking man (if sensitive and elevated as Alexis Jacobi) in a position of wonderment that here I am, here we are. It’s inconceivable. And proposes many mysteries.

And it is very true that Man has, from before recorded history, always conceived of divine potencies, in one form or another …

But the problem people have with you, my dear Immanuel, and by extension with Christians in so many forms in our world today, is very different from what you allow yourself to conceive. So you must be labeled and the label helps. You are a man who has been trained, to a degree, in rhetorical technique. You can operate, within your scope, a mathematical logic — as if working an Euclidian proof.

So far, so good.

But the material you work with, and because you are unquestionably a bible literalist, presents us with a skilled rhetor working within the framework of a nut-job (literalist) theology. You suppose, because of your skill and training in logical principles of debate, that the material you work with must be ‘true’.

All your interlocutors must therefore bow their knee before Jesus and become the disciples of Jesus. And do not forget the “or else”.

God might very well exist as originator. Again, so far do good. That is an innocuous assertion in most senses. But the god defined by the projection of abstractions … cannot be the god of this world, nor biological being.

And those you speak to (with or without condescending, self-assumed piousness) have few or perhaps no good reasons to bend their mental knee to your expertly presented rhetorical equations of sheer nuttiness!

You must be studied. How it is that a man manages what you have managed is what inspires wonderment. Your mind is a fortress staked out in the territory of the absurd! You are a Quixote who seeks out those lands filled with windmills of “Atheists”.

My Teaching has you transcending your brutal Hebraic superstitions and ascending to far higher levels. I will lend you the decoder ring! You too, Walker! You too!

[Immanuel Can]

My Teaching has you transcending your brutal Hebraic superstitions and ascending to far higher levels. I will lend you the decoder ring! You too, Walker! You too!

So much talking.

So little content.