Argument for the non-existence of God

Author: Fallaneze ,

Posts

Total: 27
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
(1) we have observed that all conscious persons also have physical bodies.

(2) any conscious person who is posited to exist without a physical body contradicts this observation.

(3) God is posited to be a conscious person who exists without a physical body and therefore contradicts this observation.

Conclusion: therefore, on these inductive grounds, God probably does not exist.




Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
I tweaked it a few times. What do you think of this? This is not my original argument but I tried formulating it best I could.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The Ultimate Reality exists

The Ultimate Reality is God

Therefore God exists.


In light of these facts, your argument is nonsensical.



Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @Mopac
Rocks exist.

Rocks are God.

Therefore God exists.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Fyi "hypostases" is really the word rather than "person".
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Fallaneze
You don't get to make up the meanings of words.


We, the church, understand God as being The Ultimate Reality, which truly, if you understand what that means, is beyond defining.

Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @Mopac
You've derailed my thread with your nonsense but since nobody else has responded yet I guess I'll oblige.


The Merriam Webster defintion you're fixated on delineates the "ultimate reality" of God into two parts - and in both parts God is referred to as either a being or a mind. What you're trying to do is make the defintion vague so that it applies in all possible cases. Even atheists agree that there's a prime reality - they just disagree that it consists of consciousness. 

You've also used a defintion of God straight from Merriam-Webster which directly contradicts your assertion that it is "beyond defining."




Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Fallaneze
No, I am actually using the dictionary properly. If you want, there are instructions on how to use the dictionary hosted on their website that make it clear what is subsumed, what is exhaustive, etc.


Also, Christian Scientists are heretics, I am not a Christian Scientist.

But Merriam-webster is certainly not as authoritative as 2000 years of Church Tradition, and I know from the writings of countless monastics and saints that God is understood as That which Truly Is, Was, and Forever Will Be.

So we understand God as The Ultimate Reality.


And it isn't nonsense. You trying to argue against God is nonsense, as are all arguments against God.
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @Mopac
Feel free to point out how the argument I've presented is nonsense. 

I don't care to discuss things with people who don't feel the need to rationally justify their claims and assertions. Someone who believes that they have infallible knowledge, such as yourself, have nothing to say that I regard to be important.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Fallaneze
Is that the view you have of me? Well... that certainly is not how I see myself. I am not infallible, and can even say that I have misspoke many times even on this forum. I am by no means perfect. I am very imperfect.


You say God is a person. I will tell you that this word is a translation, and the proper word is Hypostasis. Really if you want to get deeper into it three hypostases. We Orthodox always refer to God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet really, 1 Hypostasis. It's a mystery that is integral to the whole thing.

Hypostasis though, That alone right there should clear a great deal up.


Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @Mopac
Fair enough, I'm glad you don't consider yourself to have infallible knowledge.

Here is the defintion of hypostasis: "an underlying reality or substance, as opposed to attributes or that which lacks substance."

By "person" I mean "a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness." 

Referring to God as "the ultimate reality" is compatible with atheism. Atheists believe that the material world is the ultimate reality and that consciousness is emergent from matter. 




Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Fallaneze
What you are describing is not really atheism then, because atheism is the rejection of ultimate reality.


There is no consistent atheist belief. Atheism in its truest form is nihilism.


What happens when you reject ultimate reality? You have materialism. That is, what matters to me ism. And sure enough, atheism even among those who profess it in ignorance tends to take the form of the embrace of arbitrariness.




Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @Mopac
Materialism, the philosophical viewpoint, is different than being materialistic. Your definition of God is too vague to be useful. Atheism might logically entail nihilism but being an atheist does not mean you hold nihilism to be true. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Fallaneze
There is nothing vague about the definition.

Reality As it Truly Is exists.

To deny this is idiotic and self defeating.

Atheism is at best uncertainty that there is a reality as it truly is, and at its most nonsensical denial of there being a reality as it truly is.

Either way, atheism is an invalid position.




Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @Mopac
All you're doing is equivocating the term "God" with "reality." Theists and atheists both agree that reality exists. Atheists probably believe that the material world is the "ultimate reality" whereas theists believe that consciousness is the "ultimate reality." "God", how you're defining the term, is too ambiguous to be meaningful. You're saying that someone who believes that the material world is primary is considered a believer in God. This is utter nonsense.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Fallaneze
If you believe in ultimate reality, you believe that God exists.

You having a faulty understanding of God doesn't really change this.


You say the material world is the ultimate reality. You are saying the material world is God. I would say that the material world is creation.


You aren't really an atheist though.

And that should be good news for you, because there is nothing insightfult about making an identity of one's inability to admit that ultimate reality exists.


disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Mopac
What you are describing is not really atheism then, because atheism is the rejection of ultimate reality.


Why do godists always get this wrong.
Atheism is the quite justified rejection of the unsupportable man made claim that gods exist. Do try to tell the truth in the future.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Men create gods.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
Yet you can't tell the difference between God and gods, so in your ignorance you still deny ultimate reality when you deny God.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Mopac
There is no difference, that's exactly what destroys your argument.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
Say, "The Ultimate Reality exists".

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Mopac
You and merriam webster claim that since 1969 the ultimate reality is your god. Your god according to you began to exist when merriam webster defined it, good luck with that god it was invented by men as are all gods.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Fallaneze
It's obvious that you have never examined the arguments in support of your man made god.
Supply arguments for the non-existence of every god you don't believe exists.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Fallaneze
Look how dumbscusted can't say the ultimate reality exists. He is willing to go even this far to deny God. He isn't the only one around here either. 

You don't want to be like them, they are fools.

I hope this reveals something to you about atheism.

Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
So this isn't a good argument then? Looks like there are no good arguments for atheism after all.