How can God not exist?

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Yes - at least 3,200 years old, I think. Possibly up to 5,000 or so.

Why does this matter?

It doesn't matter to me.
It's good that you have this openess of mind.

Do you think people were stupid back then?

Of course not.

You think they weren't capable of astronomy?

Hey, I'm okay with that.

They fortunately seemed to have a large and stable enough civilisation to allow people time to ponder such matters.
That their society then collapsed and much of their learning lost... unfortunate.

Kali-yuga.

Are you suggesting a more rational alternative?

I think you're doing quite well.
What about their knowledge of God?
Do you still believe it was invented?

jan.

[glaucon]

What about their knowledge of God?
Do you still believe it was invented?

jan.

Firstly: what do you mean by "knowledge of God"? To my mind, there is no such thing....

Secondly: if, by "knowledge of God" you simply refer to what is said by believers about God, then clearly, you're using some irregular usage of the term "knowledge".....

[wynn]

Firstly: what do you mean by "knowledge of God"? To my mind, there is no such thing....

Secondly: if, by "knowledge of God" you simply refer to what is said by believers about God, then clearly, you're using some irregular usage of the term "knowledge".....

If we acknowledge the possibility of divine revelation and that some people simply have it - then we're kind of stuck in this discussion, and are left to either accept their claims or not.

I think that for the sake of the argument, we must accept that possibility.

[glaucon]

If we acknowledge the possibility of divine revelation and that some people simply have it - then we're kind of stuck in this discussion, and are left to either accept their claims or not.

I think that for the sake of the argument, we must accept that possibility.

I couldn't disagree more.

Even if one were prepared to accept such a thing, by no means whatsoever would it qualify as "knowledge"....

I do however, think that you've successfully noted exactly why these kinds of discussions are meaningless....

[wynn]

I think that for the sake of the argument, we must accept that possibility.

I couldn't disagree more.

Why shouldn't we accept that possibility (even if just for the sake of the argument)?

Even if one were prepared to accept such a thing, by no means whatsoever would it qualify as "knowledge"....

Why wouldn't that qualify as knowledge?

I do however, think that you've successfully noted exactly why these kinds of discussions are meaningless....

I didn't say they are meaningless, just that there is a point when discussion comes to a halt and the only way forward is for one party to unquestioningly submit to the other. It's like this everywhere, though, religion or astrophysics.
It comes down to accepting the apriori tenets of a field or discipline; and these tenets cannot be further explained or anaylzed.

[wynn]

From elsewhere -

If you believe in reality instead of fantasy and magic, does your God disappear?

Here's a way for God "not to exist": by believing that our everyday life as we tend to live it in modern society is reality, and all else fantasy.

[SciWriter]

If we acknowledge the possibility of divine revelation and that some people simply have it - then we're kind of stuck in this discussion, and are left to either accept their claims or not.

I think that for the sake of the argument, we must accept that possibility.

This is difficult to accept since the Bible has been shown to be incorrect in this area, even in its foundational sections.

[wynn]

This is difficult to accept since the Bible has been shown to be incorrect in this area, even in its foundational sections.

Riiight.
Because you are God.

[Cowboy]

How is it possible to come with the concept of Got out of having absolutely
no idea of God?

Is it possible to think of something that does not exist?
And by ''not exist'' i mean not related to any pre-existing thing, or concept.

jan

It's easy to think of things that don't exist. And "God" is related to pre-existing concepts, anyway. People have always credited the unexplainable (to them, within the limits of their knowledge for the time) to the supernatural.

[wynn]

People have always credited the unexplainable (to them, within the limits of their knowledge for the time) to the supernatural.

I just don't see why some people make this step.

When I find something that I cannot explain, I think "I am sure there is a perfectly rational explanation for it."
I never blame Murphy's Law or "bad luck" or "God" or "it's a mystery".
I really don't understand why some people do that.


More importantly, it is not clear how there would be a common, what to speak of necessary relation between not having the explanation for something and concluding said thing must have been caused by supernatural forces.

So I am not at all convinced by the idea in the quoted post.

[Sarkus]

I think you're doing quite well.
What about their knowledge of God?
Do you still believe it was invented?

I think it the most rational explanation.
I think the origin of belief in God is lost to us entirely. We will never be certain how it came about, but I would envisage that it began long before even this civilisation, and was first conceived when Man was able to observe patterns (such as the sun, moon cycles etc) but not understand why.

Once the belief in God becomes prevalent, it pervaded society (via the marketing genius of religions and the desire/need for traditions and maintaining patterns) although with the concept of God being pushed back with each new level of understanding of the natural world.
At some point they would reach an understanding of God that put it beyond all further examination, and thus ""future-proofed" it from further (possibly conflicting) understanding of the natural world.

Once at that point it is just a matter of continued advertising and marketing.

[glaucon]

Why shouldn't we accept that possibility (even if just for the sake of the argument)?

Oh, sure, for the sake of the argument, that's fine.
Naturally though, we must also therefore accept the possibility of the opposite. I know you realize this, but a number of people in here do not seem to see this, which is the cause of their misunderstanding...

Why wouldn't that qualify as knowledge?

Because it doesn't satisfy any recognized conditions thereof.

Moreover, such an 'experience' (sic) is strictly, and necessarily wholly subjective....

I didn't say they are meaningless, just that there is a point when discussion comes to a halt and the only way forward is for one party to unquestioningly submit to the other. It's like this everywhere, though, religion or astrophysics.
It comes down to accepting the apriori tenets of a field or discipline; and these tenets cannot be further explained or anaylzed.

I agree with what you say here, for the most part.
However, you fail to note that there are some conceptions that are not amenable to such analysis, usually because the consist solely of a priori; thus: meaningless. There is such a concept relevant to this 'discussion'.

I think it the most rational explanation.
I think the origin of belief in God is lost to us entirely.

Once at that point it is just a matter of continued advertising and marketing.

Well put.

[SciWriter]

Riiight.
Because you are God.

Now you know that SciWriter is just a mammal romanticist who likes science as much as the liberal arts and that the foundational cosmology and unevolution sections of the Bible have been shown to be 100% incorrect, even in the two different divinely inspired versions of Genesis.

[NietzscheHimself]

Three steps to God's existence:

1: being created from god?

2: imagining god

3: becoming god

One is an assumption. Two is a fact. Three is almost impossible these days.

[Cowboy]

I just don't see why some people make this step.

When I find something that I cannot explain, I think "I am sure there is a perfectly rational explanation for it."
I never blame Murphy's Law or "bad luck" or "God" or "it's a mystery".
I really don't understand why some people do that.


More importantly, it is not clear how there would be a common, what to speak of necessary relation between not having the explanation for something and concluding said thing must have been caused by supernatural forces.

So I am not at all convinced by the idea in the quoted post.

Well, 4000 years ago, we didn't even have the scientific capabilities to understand things that seem like common knowledge today. When you can't even understand why the sun rises every morning, it probably skews your view on pretty much everything.

[wynn]

Well, 4000 years ago, we didn't even have the scientific capabilities to understand things that seem like common knowledge today. When you can't even understand why the sun rises every morning, it probably skews your view on pretty much everything.

Really, it is known why the Sun rises?

[wynn]

However, you fail to note that there are some conceptions that are not amenable to such analysis, usually because the consist solely of a priori; thus: meaningless. There is such a concept relevant to this 'discussion'.

The theists say though that if one practices according to their instructions, then one will come to the same conclusions as they.
This is unassailable.
It is also a tall order, for most people.
In fact, it is such a tall order that it seems practically impossible to follow through with it.
This is probably why the whole theist/atheist debate is doomed to be hopeless.

[Sarkus]

Really, it is known why the Sun rises?

Oh yes. Because it has no choice... given that both the sun and earth are dancing to an entirely predictable tune from that great artist called Gravity.

[wynn]

Oh yes. Because it has no choice... given that both the sun and earth are dancing to an entirely predictable tune from that great artist called Gravity.

We can still ask why it is that they have no choice.

[wesmorris]

Really, it is known why the Sun rises?

I know why the sun rises.

I mean, I'm damn sure I understand why it appears to rise.

What does that really mean?

Does that mean it's true?

If everyone everywhere for instance, believed something analogous to what I believe, would that mean anything except for what each person perceives it to mean?

Facts are a very convenient means of rapid communication, but they don't always mean what one thinks they should. Depends exactly on the implicit "to whom".

Pardon my diversion from the topic, I'm tired and I think part of my brain is asleep.