Why God can not exist- logical arguments, and why religion is nonsense

[mlecyq]

Examples:
1.   God knows if you go to heaven or hell and you can’t change it but he gives you free will- contradictions.
2.   God creates something out of nothing . It’s like equation 0+0 = 1.
3.   God is immortal and can commit suicide because he can do everything- illogical
…
More examples and explanations on Youtube Video, link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-5M6lgCM8

[frosty]

I'm an Atheist, but I've debated with Theists so much I know how they will respond back. So I'll say it here:

1. God would know if you go to heaven or hell based on your actions derived from free will, but ultimately based on those he would then make his decision. You get a certain amount of time, you do the right thing or be punished based on the scriptures.

2. You are applying the laws of the creation itself to something that exists outside of what we known in this realm of creation. God exists outside of our own bubble of existence, he created it, therefore he is not subject to the specific laws we must live by. Math is a by-product of God's creation, it doesn't apply to him.

3. No, God has a plan, death as we know it does not apply to him because he is perfect and he is not bound by restrictions like suicide or a finite existence because the properties of his existence surpass that. You are applying human actions and consequences to a perfect deity that created everything.

There you go.

[mlecyq]

I know how hard is to talk to those people but actually they refer to the following points in a way that:
1. It means that he (God) doesn't know the future so he is not almighty.
2. Well, the believers apply the laws of logic to understand and explain God. How can they explain him if he is not logical.
3. So God can not do everything as it is said in the Bible so the Bible is wrong.

I mean he can not be understood if he is not logical. One can not use logic to prove that logic is wrong. It's like using language to show that it doesnt exist.

[SGOS]

I mean he can not be understood if he is not logical. One can not use logic to prove that logic is wrong. It's like using language to show that it doesnt exist.

While theists will often fall back to an argument that "God is too mysterious for our minds to comprehend," they also seem to think they know him quite well.  Some even claim to have a personal relationship with him.  This has always perplexed me.  How do you comprehend the incomprehensible?

[Solitary]

If religious people were sound and rational in their thinking they wouldn't be religious in the first place. To understand them would be like trying to understand a small child that believes in fairy tails and Santa with the same results. Belief in real magic. Solitary

[Contemporary Protestant]

0^0 = 1

something from nothing

(edit) why would a lawgiver break his own laws (in response to number 3)

And I don't see how disproving the christian god disproves god

That man also created a straw man, catholics do not believe that people were made to worship god, church doctrine states that man was made to interact with god

The video failed to give a clear definition of omniscience or perfection

if omniscience is defined as knowing all possible outcomes, the being knows all things, and free will still stands

because If i jump off a bridge, the being knows I will die and people will be hurt, if I don't, I continue living

I choose whether or not to jump off said bridge, but either way the being is not surprised and is still aware of what future will unfold due to the succession of events

[Hijiri Byakuren]

0^0 = 1

something from nothing

And I don't see how disproving the christian god disproves god

To paraphrase Discovering Religion's latest video:

"If something can't come from nothing, then the universe was never created (i.e. it has always been there), and you don't need a god.

"If something can come from nothing, as new discoveries in physics are beginning to suggest, then the universe can pop into existence on its own, and you don't need a god."

And per Occam's Razor, if a variable is not required, 9 times out of 10 it can be cut from the equation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I am not attempting to argue for the existence of God, I am stating that facts presented in the video above are wrong

however with new answers come new questions, never eliminating the relevance of a variable such as a higher power

[frosty]

I am not attempting to argue for the existence of God, I am stating that facts presented in the video above are wrong

however with new answers come new questions, never eliminating the relevance of a variable such as a higher power

I would ask, how exactly is this higher power relevant? Is it relevant because you choose to include it in the situation? Take your own biases and perceptions out of all this and then explain to me why it is relevant.

[Hakurei Reimu]

0^0 = 1

something from nothing

Isn't it cute when the religious try to do math?

0^0 is an indeterminate form. It has no unique answer.

(edit) why would a lawgiver break his own laws (in response to number 3)

Why not? Our own lawgivers break the law all the time. Yes, even laws they made.

The video failed to give a clear definition of omniscience or perfection

Mostly because there is no way to do either.

if omniscience is defined as knowing all possible outcomes, the being knows all things, and free will still stands

because If i jump off a bridge, the being knows I will die and people will be hurt, if I don't, I continue living

I choose whether or not to jump off said bridge, but either way the being is not surprised and is still aware of what future will unfold due to the succession of events

This would imply a god that doesn't care about your well-being, and as such there is no heaven or hell for you to go to because he doesn't give a shit about you either way.

It's not the individual inconsistencies that makes apologetics a farce; it's the entire picture, when you try to put many pieces of apologetic arguments together into a coherent whole.

[Contemporary Protestant]

How does mocking me accomplish anything?

Fine, my point about 0^0 is wrong, our universe still came from nothing

And sorry I forgot to specify in my bridge example. that this being prefers I not jump


And how is a higher power not relevant? the relevancy of a higher power cannot be analyzed without bias, everyone is biased, I am biased, you are biased


Im not interested in arguing, I just thought the video was a bit ridiculous

its a false dilemma to think there is no god, or there is a god, because there isn't enough evidence to draw a definite conclusion, just because there isn't a lot of evidence for something doesn't mean its false. For the longest time, people believed in a static universe, this is false

I am gnostic because I think there is a god but I acknowledge there might not be one

tbh im sick of being mocked, it isn't necessary, it doesn't make your argument better

I will not be responding to you anymore

Regards,

CP

[frosty]

How does mocking me accomplish anything?

Fine, my point about 0^0 is wrong, our universe still came from nothing

And sorry I forgot to specify in my bridge example. that this being prefers I not jump


And how is a higher power not relevant? the relevancy of a higher power cannot be analyzed without bias, everyone is biased, I am biased, you are biased


Im not interested in arguing, I just thought the video was a bit ridiculous

its a false dilemma to think there is no god, or there is a god, because there isn't enough evidence to draw a definite conclusion, just because there isn't a lot of evidence for something doesn't mean its false. For the longest time, people believed in a static universe, this is false

I am gnostic because I think there is a god but I acknowledge there might not be one

tbh im sick of being mocked, it isn't necessary, it doesn't make your argument better

I will not be responding to you anymore

Regards,

CP

I understand your dislike for being mocked in these types of discussions, it happens to me and you and everyone else with these types of discussions. Considering how I've very recently argued with an awful religious fundie that on Facebook has a history of mental illness and domestic abuse, and I did my best to talk with him yet he kept insulting me, I understand the position you are in right now. This type of stuff happens with political and religious discussions, I think it has to do with the fact that these are sensitive topics and we are missing the face to face, human element 'connection' you would get in real life.

You would find that most members on here are Agnostic Atheists, they are not certain of "God" not existing but they do not see enough sufficient evidence to convince them that "God" does exist either. An Atheist that is absolutely certain "God" does not exist would be a Gnostic Atheist. You already seem to be of a different stripe than the religious thumpers I usually talk to and observe, so I'm sure you'll understand this. In my view, most Atheists that exist seem to be Agnostic Atheists, and I am one as well.

The issue is not that we are totally convinced "God" does not exist, it's just that we see no legitimate evidence that "God" does exist. Whenever a religious person presents us with "evidence", it seems to be anecdotal, biased and cannot hold up intense objective scrutiny. Another problem is that religious people don't seem to understand this. They think we are awful demon-possessed freaks who are threatening their religion, but in reality we simply cannot see any legitimate evidence to convince us that their subjective deities are real.

[mlecyq]

To Protestant

You: catholics do not believe that people were made to worship god
Me:
Luke 18:1
,,Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." - He needs prayers cause then he supposedly gives them reward.

You: why would a lawgiver break his own laws
Me: Well in the bible you can read about alimighty god. The word almighty refers to being able to do everything which is logically contradictory.
If the definition is wrong tell us what is a clear definition of omniscience or perfection, because I think something like that does not exist. That's the point.

You:if omniscience is defined as knowing all possible outcomes, the being knows all things, and free will still stands
Me: Are you kidding me... What would be life worth if you were doomed from the birth to go to hell?

You:because If i jump off a bridge, the being knows I will die and people will be hurt, if I don't, I continue living
Me: But knowing everythig would mean that god knos from your birth that you will jump so you can not change and you must jump.

You:I choose whether or not to jump off said bridge
Me: Sorry it's not possible cause god knows if you jump tomorrow and you can't change it.

[pioteir]

...
  How do you comprehend the incomprehensible?

Uhh I guess the same way You expect the unexpected? :))

[Contemporary Protestant]

Um you quoted Luke 18 out of context, its a parable about persistence, and you are saying the point of it is god needs constant prayer. The purpose of prayer is communication, according to doctrine.

Second, allow me to clarify my point of the bridge story. The word omniscient does not appear in the bible as much as the phrase "beyond understanding" my point was to show that God can be omniscient and we can have free will. I think a more appropriate word would be extrascient, from the root "extra" which means beyond, instead of "omni" which means all.

I tried to show that omniscience is hard to conceptualize and can mean a number of different things, I think people try to hard to think what it would be like to know all things

Again redefine omniscience as knowing all possible outcomes, and free will still stands because said being knows what can happen but not what will happen, this is not a lack of knowledge because the being still knows the future and was not surprised by said decision