GOD(S) CAN'T EXIST AND HERE IS WHY.
#1
If creation is possible then god(s) can exist and if creation is possible then an Apple can pop out of nowhere? No need for an Apple TREE? If we can divide an apple into two parts we mean 1/2 and if we can destroy an apple into zero then it is 1/0 but an apple can't be destroyed into nothingness and an apple can't come out of zero. If 1=0, creation and destruction are possible but " ONE is not equal to ZERO " So, creation and destruction are not possible thus, god(s) can't exist.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
[Image: cw_zpsc1036163.jpg]
#2
(13-Feb-2011, 01:30 PM)way12go Wrote: If creation is possible then god(s) can exist and if creation is possible then an Apple can pop out of nowhere? No need for an Apple TREE? If we can divide an apple into two parts we mean 1/2 and if we can destroy an apple into zero then it is 1/0 but an apple can't be destroyed into nothingness and an apple can't come out of zero. If 1=0, creation and destruction are possible but " ONE is not equal to ZERO " So, creation and destruction are not possible thus, god(s) can't exist.

Let me set down here several objections about this 'proof', NOT because of any theistic agenda, but just so that we ourselves don't base arguments on the very fallacies that we readily (and rightly) lambast the other side for using.

It is a non-sequitur to say that 'The Law of Conservation of Mass Energy implies the non-existence of a supernatural being'. Specifically, one type of non-sequitur in this argument ( 1) If creation, then God, 2) No creation 3) Hence no God) :
is denying the antecedent. Addressing just one reason, here creation, for the possible existence of God(s) does not eliminate all other reasons.

The term 'God' itself is left so undefined that any claim for His/Her/Its existence would be unfalsifiable. It is only falsifiable statements that can be demonstrated to be false and even when unfalsifiable statements are false, no demonstration can be provided for the same. What we CAN do is to falsify claims of religion whose consequences are empirically discernible, but we CANNOT do is demonstrate the falseness of the unfalsifiable claim that 'God exists'.

Once again just in case, I am not saying that God exists and all that I am saying is that what has been provided is not a proof for the same.

This may seem like hair-splitting but when we claim to be advocates of reason, we cannot afford to use terms like 'proof' so loosely and cannot base our arguments on such flimsy foundations and end up unwittingly supplying fodder for our opponents.
[+] 5 users Like arvindiyer's post
#3
If creation is possible then god(s) can exist and if creation is possible then an Apple can pop out of nowhere? No need for an Apple TREE? If we can divide an apple into two parts we mean 1/2 and if we can destroy an apple into zero then it is 1/0 but an apple can't be destroyed into nothingness and an apple can't come out of zero. If 1=0, creation and destruction are possible but " ONE is not equal to ZERO " So, creation and destruction are not possible thus, god(s) can't exist.

First what is your definition of God ?

You have given a definition that creation is possible then god(s) can exist
So if creation is not possible then god(s) can't exist.

Now what is creation ? what is existence ?

If nothing is created then nothing is destroyed and both are inter-related. If nothing is created and destroyed and only changes its molecular structure then the only thing constant is change.

Next does this change occurs randomly or through some rule of law ? who has got answers ? We can argue even god exists in non-existence and vice-versa. The existence and non-existence of god depends on the definition of existence.

#4
(30-May-2012, 09:37 PM)Hariom Wrote: If creation is possible then god(s) can exist and if creation is possible then an Apple can pop out of nowhere? No need for an Apple TREE? If we can divide an apple into two parts we mean 1/2 and if we can destroy an apple into zero then it is 1/0 but an apple can't be destroyed into nothingness and an apple can't come out of zero. If 1=0, creation and destruction are possible but " ONE is not equal to ZERO " So, creation and destruction are not possible thus, god(s) can't exist.

First what is your definition of God ?

You have given a definition that creation is possible then god(s) can exist
So if creation is not possible then god(s) can't exist.

Now what is creation ? what is existence ?

If nothing is created then nothing is destroyed and both are inter-related. If nothing is created and destroyed and only changes its molecular structure then the only thing constant is change.

Next does this change occurs randomly or through some rule of law ? who has got answers ? We can argue even god exists in non-existence and vice-versa. The existence and non-existence of god depends on the definition of existence.

Please rephrase your statement because the above quoted passage made no sense WHATSOEVER.
"It's alright, I rarely meet anyone who's able to read it properly. Although personally, I never thought that it to be an odd of a name. Once I give people the pronunciation, they tend to remember my name by easily associating me with it. A unique face, a unique moniker."
[+] 1 user Likes nick87's post
#5
(31-May-2012, 01:11 AM)nick87 Wrote:
(30-May-2012, 09:37 PM)Hariom Wrote: If creation is possible then god(s) can exist and if creation is possible then an Apple can pop out of nowhere? No need for an Apple TREE? If we can divide an apple into two parts we mean 1/2 and if we can destroy an apple into zero then it is 1/0 but an apple can't be destroyed into nothingness and an apple can't come out of zero. If 1=0, creation and destruction are possible but " ONE is not equal to ZERO " So, creation and destruction are not possible thus, god(s) can't exist.

First what is your definition of God ?

You have given a definition that creation is possible then god(s) can exist
So if creation is not possible then god(s) can't exist.

Now what is creation ? what is existence ?

If nothing is created then nothing is destroyed and both are inter-related. If nothing is created and destroyed and only changes its molecular structure then the only thing constant is change.

Next does this change occurs randomly or through some rule of law ? who has got answers ? We can argue even god exists in non-existence and vice-versa. The existence and non-existence of god depends on the definition of existence.

Please rephrase your statement because the above quoted passage made no sense WHATSOEVER.

Which statement ? can you please be specific ?
#6
All of it. No offense but your entire passage is undecipherable.
"It's alright, I rarely meet anyone who's able to read it properly. Although personally, I never thought that it to be an odd of a name. Once I give people the pronunciation, they tend to remember my name by easily associating me with it. A unique face, a unique moniker."
[+] 1 user Likes nick87's post
#7
(31-May-2012, 09:55 AM)nick87 Wrote: All of it. No offense but your entire passage is undecipherable.

Thanks. Let me rephrase my thought again.

I meant, equating creation with god. The thread starter equates god with creation and not otherwise.
That is why I had asked for the definition of God. Because the term "god" should be primarily defined, some other philosophy may define a god that doesn't create but just administers or organizes.

Next. when you say god can't exist because he has not created you are making a definition of your own god.

I understand the thread starter becomes a theist by bringing a definition to his own god.

Secondly what is the definition of existence ? You mean by sensual perception ?






#8
The term 'God' itself is left so undefined that any claim for His/Her/Its existence would be. It is only falsifiable statements that can be demonstrated to be false and even when unfalsifiable statements are false, no demonstration can be provided for the same. What we CAN do is to falsify claims of religion whose consequences are empirically discernible, but we CANNOT do is demonstrate the falseness of the unfalsifiable claim that 'God exists'.

When it is a unfalsifiable claim that how could it be termed as "falseness" ? Doesn't sound rational for me..

Using the same language, What we CAN do is to falsify claims of so called atheist whose consequences are empirically discernible, but we CANNOT do is demonstrate the falseness of the unfalsifiable claim that 'God doesn't exists'.[/b]
#9
Again your statements were not very clear.
Some comments

(01-Jun-2012, 12:50 PM)Hariom Wrote: but we CANNOT do is demonstrate the falseness of the unfalsifiable claim that 'God doesn't exists'

That is the point of something being non-falsifiable. You can never prove it wrong. But there is the other side of the coin. You can also NEVER PROVE IT RIGHT.
#10
Forgive me if I'm rehashing old arguments here but just to get this whole "god proving" business out of the way and move onto bigger and better things.
Science works based on evidence and observations. Sometimes when direct observations cannot be made, if the math or science holds true, then the theory can hold credence. Also every theory should be falsifiable and that is the hallmark of a good idea. That said, every theory needn't be given the same amount of respect or introspection. Creationism needn't and shouldn't be given an audience even though it's a theory, simply because the tenets are untenable and (easily falsifiable in some aspects), but rather it takes faith to believe in as opposed to hard, firm evidence.

As to the question of God and his/her/its definition- there is no consensus. Most people assume it is a supernatural entity capable of suspending the very fabric of the universe at a whim, concerned with our personal thoughts, obsessed with us praising it constantly and also imparts its wisdom once in a blue moon through cranks and archaic texts.
We can't prove God exists- No technology can reach him, no mind can understand his mind, we can't sense him through our senses, we can't prove he/she/it reads our thoughts and prayers let alone answer them and above all it takes only faith to prove his existence. This argument is enthusiastically used by theists: Atheists cannot prove God exists (and here's the leaky logic), therefore he must exist.

Also the concept of a god is beyond a mathematical rationale; we can't write out a ten page math derivation and write "thus God does not exist".
What we can however is to disprove the arguments put forward by theists that support the existence of their God. We can counter the All-mighty-all loving nonsense with a quote from Epicurus; counter the "good news" of the Bible, the Koran and even the Bhagavad Gita with reason and wit and logic; counter the anthropic view with Victor Stengar's peerless thesis on the value of universal constants...
In other words, if we cannot prove that ice exists- we can do the next best thing: find out the purported properties of ice and decimate them.
"It's alright, I rarely meet anyone who's able to read it properly. Although personally, I never thought that it to be an odd of a name. Once I give people the pronunciation, they tend to remember my name by easily associating me with it. A unique face, a unique moniker."
#11
I personally believe that the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven. Its not a laboratory kind of work using chemicals to prove something by repetition. It all depends on your personal belief system.

Real intelligence is understanding that God cannot be perceived through intelligence.

Real intelligence is understanding that the definition of God is beyond definitions.

Real intelligence is understanding that the meanings of existence and non-existence are same.

The process of rational thinking should continue towards its end, after which there are no questions. After all
as swami Vivekananda famously quoted "Science ends where philosophy starts"
#12
(01-Jun-2012, 10:51 PM)Hariom Wrote: I personally believe that the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven. Its not a laboratory kind of work using chemicals to prove something by repetition. It all depends on your personal belief system.

Real intelligence is understanding that God cannot be perceived through intelligence.

Deepity 1

(01-Jun-2012, 10:51 PM)Hariom Wrote: Real intelligence is understanding that the definition of God is beyond definitions.

Deepity 2

(01-Jun-2012, 10:51 PM)Hariom Wrote: Real intelligence is understanding that the meanings of existence and non-existence are same.

Deepity 3

The above three statements are worthless in the amount of information they contain.
Kindly resist writing such things which avail to nobody's benefit in a discussion.
[+] 1 user Likes Kanad Kanhere's post




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)