Proof that there is no god?

June 2, 2012

Paul S says:

A definitive proof there is no god.

Such claims have been made. But fail do to the fact one cannot logically prove negative.

Now if one was to show that there is something else other than a god to account for everything, that could be such a proof.

Now on the premise that there is in fact no god. That should indeed be possible prove that there is something else other than a god, I would think.

To show this is the case, let’s look at the question, “Does God exist?”

The question presumes existence. And does not presume a god.

Existence is here. And existence is in evidence. God in the question is not. The point being existence exists without the need for any kind pf a god. Existence is the only self existence entity. And not in need of any kind of a god.

Now there not being any kind of a god. The universe exists as it is now. All the theist arguments which may convince many there is a god. Are still false, there not being any.

Furthermore can any theist show this premise that there is no god to be an absurd premise, being that there is no god?

Paul S.
a professed Christian.

Advertisements

Do Atheists Judge God’s Morality?

December 6, 2011

Mike Johnson asks:

Question for discussion: If morality is exclusively human in origin and relevance, why do we judge the God of the Bible with it?

Explained:

On the premise that human moral values and obligations are a product of human evolution, they would necessarily only apply to human beings and useful in governing and judging human behavior, and would be subject to change and further “evolve” over time.

Many atheists object to what they conclude are “immoral” acts committed by God described in the Bible, i.e. murder, commanding genocide, incest, slavery, etc.

How can morality that only applies to contemporary humans be used to make moral judgments against a hypothetical Creator God, who, if He existed, would not be bound to moral laws from human conceptualization, based on descriptions of immoral acts that the Bible portrays as occurring thousands of years ago? Doesn’t this show that even the atheist who would make such objections holds that morality is universal and absolute regardless of time, place or person, thereby placing the origin of moral values and obligations somewhere outside the scope of human convention?


Divinely Guided Evolution: a Profile of God

September 25, 2011

While the vast majority of believers accept that evolution occurs, they hold that the evolution is guided by God.  They believe that God created us, but He used the process of evolution to do it.  In this post, I’ll explore what this implies about the nature of God.

Evolution in a Nutshell – a simplified account

When an individual’s genome is altered, the change in the genome on rare occasion is advantageous: it gives the individual an edge over others of its species.  This individual might be stronger than average, or more resistant to some threat in its environment for example.  If the individual passes on the genetic alteration to its progeny, and if the progeny are more likely to reproduce than the others in the population who don’t have the genetic alteration, then over a long stretch of time, this new genetic alteration becomes more and more prevalent in the population until the majority of individuals in the population have the alteration.

Any species tends to split into a number of isolated populations.  Isolation can occur due to migration of different populations in different directions to seek out new resources, or due to changes in geography to name a few examples.  As different genetic alterations take place in different isolated populations, the gene pool of any one of the populations begins to “drift” apart from the gene pool of the other population.  That is, the gene pool of any one population continues to accumulate alterations and steadily becomes less like the gene pool of the other populations. At some point, the differences in the the population’s genetics are enough that individuals in the population can no longer reproduce with individuals from the other populations.  The population becomes genetically distinct – it becomes a distinct species which will continue to evolve independent of the other populations.

While this is an gross oversimplification of the process of evolution, it is accurate enough for the purpose of this discussion.

Evolution – the “losers”

We tend to focus our attention on the “winners” in the process of evolution, the ones who evolve into new species.  However, the vast majority if individuals are “losers”.  Some are losers because changes to the their genome are detrimental to the extent that they are disadvantaged in some critical way, perhaps by some sort of deformity at birth or some other inability to thrive.  Perhaps they are more susceptible to agonizing diseases, or they slowly starve because the are unable to adequately compete for food.  They suffer and die.

The majority are losers because they weren’t fortunate enough to receive the advantageous genetic trait.  The population with the advantageous trait is able to spread because its members can out compete the “normal” non-advantaged majority for resources in the environment.  The “normal” individuals are less adept to compete for resources and they often slowly starve or are killed by their stronger rivals.  Eventually, the advantaged population grows to become the new majority – who will subsequently be losers to a new minority population which acquires some new advantageous trait.

Profile of God – guided suffering

The product of evolution is creatures that die, and few of those deaths are painless.  All of “God’s creatures” suffer. If God has a plan, suffering is an integral part of it.  The vast majority who are “losers” in God’s game of evolution tend to suffer even more than the winners.  If evolution is guided, it is guided by a cruel Hand.

To paraphrase Epicurious’ Riddle: is God willing to prevent his creatures from suffering but unable?  Then God is not omnipotent.  Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then why do his creatures suffer? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?


God is not Necessary

August 3, 2011

According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there is no such thing as absolute zero energy (also called vacuum energy) in infinite space for infinite time.  In fact, energy fluctuations in empty space cause virtual particles to spontaneously come into existence all the time.  According to Lawrence Krauss, virtual particles account for most of the mass in the universe (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=relmfu)

If it is impossible for energy not to exist, then by definition energy is necessary.  Therefore God is not necessary for the existence of energy.

If energy is the cause of virtual particles, then virtual particles are contingent upon virtual energy and not upon God.  Virtual particles are a type of matter.  Then God is not necessary for the existence of  all matter.  If Krauss is right, that virtual particles make up most of the mass of the universe, then God is not necessary for the existence of most of the matter in the universe.

Edward P. Tryon proposed back in 1973 that the entire universe was the result of a large-scale energy fluctuation.  Work to understand how the matter we observe can come into existence from energy fluctuations is still underway.  A new class of high-energy experiments will shed new light on this question now that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)  is online.  Rather than speculating now that all matter is contingent on energy and not on God, let’s stop here and be content to narrow God’s gap.  In the mean time, we’ll continue to ask theists to justify their special pleading when they claim that “everything is contingent… except God.”


Atheism and Free Will

February 18, 2011

PhoenixGray says:

Hi, I was wondering if there is an atheistic explanation for the phenomenon of free will?

To try and put the question into specific terms so that there is no confusion:

1. We have the experience of being able to choose. This may be manifested in a course of action or merely a belief to be held.

2. If our choices are merely a reflection of the particular brain chemistry involved, or of any other physical process, we cannot be said to have a true choice in any sense, as there is nothing outside the physical realm to be influencing the action of the brain and body, which are physical things. Therefore, it seems that any physical explanation for free will is by definition faulty, including any potential future knowledge we may uncover.

3. The standard way out of this, and the way that I took as an atheist, is that there really is no such thing as free will and we merely experience the illusion of choice. This begs the question of who is experiencing this illusion, but apart from that, if we have no choices that are not determined by physical law, then how did we arrive at that conclusion? In order to exercise rational thought, you must be able to make a free will choice between two alternatives according to which you believe is more weighty. If there is no free will, on some level you have no choice but to believe this and it is not rational in any sense.

A1. Now of course, the argument made in point 3 does not mean that the hard determinism theory is false, merely that if it were true we would have no way of knowing that, since the belief itself invalidates the process which led to the belief.

A2. Randomness is not the same as choice. Demonstrating that not everything can be predicted in its behavior, even with a hypothetical infinite body of knowledge about the original state, does not mean that this randomness is an explanation for choice, any more than a roulette wheel chooses the number the ball falls into.


Who created God?

January 27, 2011

Curious George says:

Who created God?

Obviously the origin of the universe is one of the oldest philosophical questions and debates.

The theist insists that someone had to create the universe and that someone must be God.

The atheist responds: “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?”

But I recently came across a “Christian Answers” link on this topic suggesting that Christians should respond using the the following reasoning:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

Please review the information presented at the above web link and give your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.


Was Jesus Always Perfect?

November 24, 2010

There are plenty of verses in the Bible that we can take to mean that Jesus was perfect (“a lamb without blemish”, etc), but the Bible doesn’t say outright that Jesus was always perfect. On the contrary, Hebrews implies that Jesus was not always perfect, but rather became perfect at some point. Hebrews 5:7-9 (NIV) says:

During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

According to this passage, Jesus was not the source of salvation until after he was made perfect. This has important ramifications. It means that people who lived before Jesus was made perfect, did not have a source of salvation. Without a source of salvation during their lifetime, God’s most faithful servants, like Moses, King David, King Solomon, and the prophets, went to hell when they died. It also means that if Jesus was always God then God isn’t necessarily perfect. Alternatively, it means that Jesus wasn’t always God (because God is always perfect).

There is good evidence that the author of Hebrews didn’t believe that Jesus was God, at least not in a way that makes the Father and Jesus one and the same. Here is a good presentation of the evidence: www.prudentialpublishing.info/hebrews_view_of_Jesus.htm

Which do you think is true…

1) Jesus was always God but God can be imperfect
2) Jesus became God after he became perfect
3) Hebrews is not the Inerrant Word of God

…and why?


%d bloggers like this: