Why The Religios God Cannot Exist

Consider the following. God is ascribed certain attributes in religion; among these are "perfect", "omnipotent, omniscient and good", and "the creator of all things". There is the idea of a sustaining force of the universe that is prevalent throughout human thinking. However, religion has bastardized this notion and attributed subjective characteristics to this God.

First, we must come up with a way to include God in the universe.

1. The universe contains all of existence.
2. If something is not contained in all of existence, then it is in the realm of nonexistence.
3. God must exist inside the universe.

With that in mind, we must concede a few key points.

1. What we perceive exists.
2. What we perceive is the extent of what exists.
3. The universe is logical.

Next, we must deduce why an illogical thing cannot exist. Firstly, we must accept another point:

Well based on our third accepted point, we must accept that while a thing's cause may not BE known, a thing's cause that definitively CAN'T be known cannot exist. As a thing exists, it performs a certain function of existing in the process. But a thing that exists and produces effects without an inherent cause has no existential makeup.

Keeping all that in mind...

PERFECTION

Perfection is an argument not usually followed through by most religious people, as it is something completely subjective and unable to be properly supported, even though the notion of a "perfect God" is a constant theme throughout religion. A few theologians/philosophers have reached into this idea, though. Among them would be the rationalist Renee Descartes, who formulated the following ontological argument for the necessity of God's existence.


Quote:
1. I exist.
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect thing.
3. As an imperfect being, I would not have the ability to create such an idea. (Descartes believed that all ideas were the effects resulting from a cause; that cause would be the idea's source existing)
4. This idea must have been caused by a perfect being.
5. God must exist to be perfect.
6. God exists.

This is an awful argument in and of itself, but what's even more detrimental to the argument is that the idea of "perfect" is fallible in so many ways; only BEGINNING with the fact that "perfect" is completely undefinable and subjective. The ONLY possible way that a "perfect" thing could exist would be to encompass all of existence, or none of existence. But there's another, very simple way to debunk a "perfect" God.

1. God is perfect.
2. The universe is imperfect (as it is not God).
3. There cannot be two separate perfect existences.
4. Perfection cannot beget imperfection.

CREATION

Every religion makes a certain number of claims about God and its role in the creation of all walks of life. The base point, however, is that there is God (and his kingdom, or...whatever) and then there is the world in which we exist. God is perfect; our world is imperfect, in classic definition and in logical necessity. But there are a number of reasons why God could not have created the universe as we know it. Firstly...

1. A creator must be separate from its creation.
2. God must exist in the universe (the entailment of all of existence); to exist outside of all of existence would be to not exist.
3. The universe could not have been created.

Furthermore, there is the problem that - ASIDE from the fact that "perfection" can only entail all of existence - a perfect being would have no reason to create something.

1. God is perfect.
2. God retained its perfection separate from the creation of the universe.
3. Creation requires a motive.
4. As a being that encompasses perfection, God would have no will/desire/ability to facilitate change.
5. A perfect being could not have created the universe.

God is also described as the "first cause"; as the universe is empirically governed by causality, it would appear that every single causal event in the universe could be traced back to the beginning cause of the universe. However, God could not have been this cause.

1. Causality is a natural property of the universe.
2. God, as necessarily separate from the universe, would not be governed by causality.
3. The first cause must be of the universe, as it is linked into the chain of causality.
4. God was not the first cause.

ALL-KNOWING, ALL-SEEING, AND BENEVOLENT

God is classically described as omniscient, omnipotent, and good. Well, for this angle of ethical philosophy, I present to you the tried and true argument for the problem of evil. It is apparent that God cannot be all three of these things, for that brings a very large inherent contradiction. A God that is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient could very easily prevent evil. So why is there evil in the world? If God is more powerful than Satan (which he would obviously have to be), then we need to understand the true nature of God.

1. If God is omniscient and good, then he is not omnipotent, as he is powerless to prevent the existence of evil.
2. If God is omnipotent and good, then he is not omniscient, as he would be able to see all evil and eradicate it consequentially.
3. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then he is not benevolent, but malevolent, as he would purposely allow us to endure harm and escape salvation.

Simple.

 

Please explain how point 2:

2. What we perceive is the extent of what exists.

follows from what you have stated above.

 

And point 1 and 3 while he's at it.

 

All that exists are the ideas created by the mind itself and those that are impressed upon the mind by the senses. If an object/idea definitively cannot be perceived in any form then it cannot exist.

As such, we must assume that what we perceive (or have the ability to perceive) is the extent of what exists.

---

Point 3 is addressed the line after it's written.

"we must accept that while a thing's cause may not BE known, a thing's cause that definitively CAN'T be known cannot exist. As a thing exists, it performs a certain function of existing in the process. But a thing that exists and produces effects without an inherent cause has no existential makeup."

Think cause and effect. There must be a cause for every effect and must be an effect for every cause.


The things that're addressed before perfection aren't really related to the points that I'm trying to prove - that's why I don't go more in-depth with them. If you're that interested in those then I'd suggest doing some outside reading, since I probably wouldn't be the best person to explain them to you.

 

You state that as though it is self evident. Believe that it is neither self evident nor correct.

How do you know? That is not an a priori truth, so are you relying on empirical evidence?

I have done some outside reading and I think that whole view is wrong.





I'm guessing you've done an AS level philosophy course and have got a bit carried away with pretentious philosophizing. You've said nothing original and almost nothing correct.

 

Yay!

Kudos!

No one diety could be perfect. IMO, if any single diety achieved omnipotence, the world would be enslaved in a tyrranical theocracy based on the singular views of whichever single diety achieved it.


One little typo in your title though. Religious, not Religios.

 

LOL. PWNED.

 

What in the world is PWNED?


And, one more thing, Who says the universe is not divine (God, Goddess, pick your poison..)?

 

Indeed. After all, if the gods are part of the universe, and the universe is imperfect, than the gods are likewise imperfect.

Assuming that's true, and the Divine is imperfect, so what? Suck it up and get on with life.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

Not necessarily. Who's to say that the Gods themselves are the Divine? Why could the Gods not simply have Divinity within them? Why does a spirit have to be purely divine to be a God?

Also, what makes the universe imperfect? Why could not the universe, a self-sustaining realm of existance, be perfect?

 

Now we're splittin' hairs. Is Divinity "Divine" because the gods make it so (because Divinity is merely a "by-product" of godhood), or is it the other way around, like Plato's Forms? Kind of hard to say.

I'm not saying it couldn't be, just that it isn't. I don't know anyone who thinks that the universe is perfect. Perhaps it's just my perception of the universe is imperfect, but since I'm part of the universe, and I'm imperfect, then the universe (or at least that small part I occupy) is thus imperfect. What fun!

-Mark

 

Splitting hairs? I think not. It's quite simple really.
Who says Divinity is the 'By-product' of godhood?!?! Could it not be the essence thereof?
The way I see it, the Gods are NOT Divinity in itself. Maybe divinity in its purest sense has no form. Maybe each and every living thing has a spark of divinity. Just a spark. And maybe... just maybe... The Gods simply have a lot more of it than people.
Ever think of it that way?

 

Many, many ways.

There's no way to prove it one way or the other. Either Divinity is a quality dependant on and derived from the Gods, or the Gods partake in Divinity. Cosmic chicken and the egg.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

Or the Gods don't exist and divinity is just a manmade concept. Or am I missing the point .

 

Not really. The universe is big. Ants are a part of the universe. Ants are not big.

Why has this argument turned into a trivial discussion of the word "divine"? It is clear that the original argument uses the word "divine" in a way synonymous with "god", so any other interpretation is irrelevant to the argument.

 

And anyway, how can you have a god that isn't religious? I ask only for information.

 

Is god real? most likley in my opinion, we all are spiritual we all have the "god gene" in our dna that gives us spirituality. The problem today is with religion its been messed with too much most likley to devide us as people. The leaders of religion most likley sold them selfs out, remember the current pope when he said that islam is bad and its about killing others or something like that? Then he had to say sorry to all muslims when they went crazy burning his image on tv for what he said.

I still think that the "holy war" between catholics and muslims is still going on, we all supposibly belive in the same god so we should just have 1 religion for all. Then you get usa saying terrorists attack them out of no where for their freedom like they dont do anything bad to them to cause this behavior...they got military bases in over 130 countries around the world their army controls alot of the middle east. They simply attack and suicide bomb cuz they dont want them there, usa been in the middle east for i think 40 years now.....Imagine someone going into your country telling you how to live and run your own country? how would you feel? im sure tons of people would fight back like they do.

 

I guess to find divinity in god you would have to find divinity in yourself. The answer lies elsewhere not in the question. Divinity it self is not the question either but more of what you think is divinity. The question is not if you are thinking and that makes it real but its who is realy thinking and if who is thinking knows they are thinking. To assume I wrote this is for me to assume falseness, for you to assume I didn't write this is for you to assume the unkown & that in its self is a question. So it is not who is thinking and if they know they are thinking or even if to assume the unknown or falseness, but divinity is the moment. the from which all is derived all that ever was and ever will be is in the moment in one spark of divinity.

 

lol lateral thinking

 

:topic:
XT18, learn to spell.

As for the topic, no further input at this time. Getting dull.