100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Immanuel Can]

Lost me there. You told me wars are caused by religion and then asked me why I think that wars are caused by religion. At no point did I suggest that ALL wars are caused by religion.

Let me try again.

You suggested religion causes wars. My response is essentially, "No, it doesn't."

Once you exclude Islam, you could not even remotely say that more than 3.5% of wars even contained a religious motive. By any fair reckoning, that's a tiny causal factor of wars in general. And, as I continued, some religions have caused 0% of the wars.

So indicting "religion" point blank, for allegedly causing wars fails to recognize that there's no monolithic entity out there called "religion" that does such things, and some never have caused a single war. Talk about losing control of the facts. What you were doing is like, say, indicting all males because of something that was only possibly done by 3.5% of men, amid other factors, and by many men never done at all, even once.

And in conclusion, I just wondered why you were buying into such contrary-to-fact codswallop.

[Greta]

I'm assuming Apes don't have the sense of life is happening to me, whereas human do have that sense. And that is where God enters the scene for the human experience as it instantly rushes in to repair the breach.

I see. So, for you, God is the difference between humans and other animals.

Then again, as young children we were very much less aware than an adult ape so at what point does God start filling us up? Why refer to a concept like sentience as "God"? Why not just call it "sentience"?

... When the sense of self awareness arises..awareness of other..this forms a breach...a separation of the whole appears within itself..which is quickly repaired...since there is nowhere for other to exist..the sense of other is an illusion, it simply cannot be found anywhere to exist because the position is already filled by the one light of God.

In the context of the thread, you are arguing against the OP's premise on the basis that God is the ground of being. It's as much of as assumption as the OP's. Why is "I don't know" so difficult for so many to embrace? We don't know. None of us do. Some of us feel we have have inklings, which may either be intuition, red herrings or illusions. We don't know which but that doesn't stop many from pretending that they do.

Your distinction between human and animal sentience remains unsatisfying. The individual difference is not so great, noting that it takes us humans some years to become distinct from other animals; during infancy we were each much less sentient than even an adult mouse. The human difference comes with our collectives. When humans were nomadic and unorganised, they were just one other intelligent predatory species competing with others for survival. The humans capacity to cooperate and pool resources has resulted in their growing groups being powerful enough to dominate all local wildlife almost everywhere.

While not forced to worry about and flee from predators, humans had the opportunity to technologically progress and press home their advantage. Our dominance provided the space needed to further ourselves. Now the difference between humans and other species is exponential in scope, depth and rate of progress but this comes about mainly due to the power of collectivism. Our individual human capacities are mainly of use in communicating with other humans but not much else.

[Noax]

What does any of your prior post have to do with your topic? You're supposed to be proving (100%!) that there are no Gods, not pointing out that religions are inconsistent.

I did, twice.

If a being is not truly just it isn't a god.
If a being is truly just it isn't a god because it doesn't want to be viewed as one.

So you believe in such a being, but the being is known to be unjust (how do you know this???), therefore no 'God' title? That would be a language game. I don't think an unjust supreme being would be too concerned about your reluctance to paste some human title on it, except to exact unjust vengeance perhaps.

Your 'proof' seems not to preclude a completely just god that makes zero demands. Just trying to figure out the logic.

[thedoc]

Lost me there. You told me wars are caused by religion and then asked me why I think that wars are caused by religion. At no point did I suggest that ALL wars are caused by religion.

Let me try again.

You suggested religion causes wars. My response is essentially, "No, it doesn't."

Once you exclude Islam, you could not even remotely say that more than 3.5% of wars even contained a religious motive. By any fair reckoning, that's a tiny causal factor of wars in general. And, as I continued, some religions have caused 0% of the wars.

So indicting "religion" point blank, for allegedly causing wars fails to recognize that there's no monolithic entity out there called "religion" that does such things, and some never have caused a single war. Talk about losing control of the facts. What you were doing is like, say, indicting all males because of something that was only possibly done by 3.5% of men, amid other factors, and by many men never done at all, even once.

And in conclusion, I just wondered why you were buying into such contrary-to-fact codswallop.

The confusion arises when some group cites some religion as the basis for their war, when the actual purpose is the acquisition of territory or resources or both.

[Science Fan]

Why are you claiming that a god would have to be just? Some conceptions of god make that claim, but not all conceptions of god do. I see no logical reason why a god would have to be just. Or, a god could be just, but not all-powerful, and, therefore, not able to avoid the occurrence of injustice. Your argument simply raises the well-known issue called the problem of evil, which only refutes a certain conception of god, but does not rule out the numerous other conceptions that are out there.

[thedoc]

Why are you claiming that a god would have to be just? Some conceptions of god make that claim, but not all conceptions of god do. I see no logical reason why a god would have to be just. Or, a god could be just, but not all-powerful, and, therefore, not able to avoid the occurrence of injustice. Your argument simply raises the well-known issue called the problem of evil, which only refutes a certain conception of god, but does not rule out the numerous other conceptions that are out there.

Why do you blame everything on God? when it is commonly believed that God has granted man free will, therefore man can choose to do evil, it is not God's choice or doing. Also being all-powerful does not mean that you have to be all-powerful all the time, just when you choose to be.

[thedoc]

If a being is truly just

When is the being "truly just", If it's after death, then we know nothing about it.

[seeds]

The irony of your assertions is that most religions - at their core - are attempting to counter the negative human traits mentioned above.

I stated that if ALL humans became truly just...Not if ALL religions were abandoned.

What you stated is:

When you let go of religion and become 'truly just', all becomes clear.

...followed with an example of what that clarity entails:

No more questions about the nature of existence.

How in the world does becoming “truly just” clear up all questions regarding the “nature of existence”?

Furthermore, in your OP, you stated the following:

To be worthy of the title 'God', a being must be 'truly just'.

Are you suggesting that regardless of a Being reaching a level of power and intelligence that allowed it to create a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets (i.e., all of reality as we understand reality to be – including us), it is nonetheless unworthy of the title of “God,” simply because it does not seem to fit your arbitrary requirements?

And lastly, in your OP, you stated that:

The 'truly just' consider all beings to be equal.

Do you eat meat?

If yes, then how could you, yourself, be “truly just” from the perspective of cattle, or pigs, or chickens, or fish (as in “all beings” allegedly being “equal”)?
_______

[thedoc]

The 'truly just' consider all beings to be equal.

Do you eat meat?

If yes, then how could you, yourself, be “truly just” from the perspective of cattle, or pigs, or chickens, or fish (as in “all beings” allegedly being “equal”)?
_______

What about plants? are they living beings? and don't they deserve equal treatment, or do you feel it's OK to torture and kill any other living being so that you can survive?

[Immanuel Can]

The confusion arises when some group cites some religion as the basis for their war, when the actual purpose is the acquisition of territory or resources or both.

Well, yeah. Absolutely.

It's interesting, though, that skeptics rush to say that the nominal "religious" motivation -- even in such rare cases -- was the "real" or "most important" one, when the truth is that it's far more likely one of the major war motives, like secular ideology, nationalism, language, territory, economics or culture is really to blame. They take as very telling that the Nazis used "Gott mit uns" as a slogan, but as entirely unimportant that the Nazis loved Nietzsche, had a whole eugenics program (which was rationalized from selective breeding, Social Darwinism and secular evolutionism) and had historical geographical conflicts with France and Poland, to say nothing of language differences, and so on. It's like, for these people, religion is the only explanation for war, if it's a possible one at all.

But that makes sense. The whole point of Atheism is to find a reason -- any reason at all -- to slander God and dismiss all thought of believing in Him. And historical explanations that have to do with sensible things like economics, natural resources, geography, colonial territories, tribalism or politics don't deliver that to the Atheist. For Atheism, it's never been about truth at all; it's just been about finding a way to bolster the bad conscience of Atheism itself. The "religion causes war" canard is, perhaps, the clearest example of that.

[Greta]

The whole point of Atheism is to find a reason -- any reason at all -- to slander God and dismiss all thought of believing in Him. And historical explanations that have to do with sensible things like economics, natural resources, geography, colonial territories, tribalism or politics don't deliver that to the Atheist. For Atheism, it's never been about truth at all; it's just been about finding a way to bolster the bad conscience of Atheism itself. The "religion causes war" canard is, perhaps, the clearest example of that.

Silly! Immanuel, you are an atheist (infidel) to Islamism and you don't believe in Allah. What's the difference?

Actually, most atheists generally simply don't much care about the God question any more than they care about the Allah question or Zeus question. They don't believe in deities per se and are thus more interested in the non mythological aspects of life (unless students of mythology).

If other people want to believe in the old myths, nobody minds - whatever your poison, so to speak - just as long as believers don't use mythology to surpass hard-won learning in science classrooms and hospitals.

[Dontaskme]

In the context of the thread, you are arguing against the OP's premise on the basis that God is the ground of being.

No, I'm not, I'm counteracting the premise.

It's as much of as assumption as the OP's. Why is "I don't know" so difficult for so many to embrace? We don't know. None of us do. Some of us feel we have have inklings, which may either be intuition, red herrings or illusions. We don't know which but that doesn't stop many from pretending that they do.

Why is "I don't know" so difficult for so many to embrace?
For the same reason Why is "I do know" so difficult for so many to embrace?

One simply cannot claim one premise without including the other....I'm assuming you've heard the Neti Neti analogy ''not this'' ''not that'', ''both'', ''yet neither''? ......what a conundrum eh? ...which is it to be? or not to be? ...

To fully unravel the Neti Neti analogy...a person does not know anything, a person is a concept known. No concept has ever been seen, concepts are known by that which is unknown, and unseen. I've repeated this many times on this forum.

That which is known ie: the concept, cannot know..there is only knowing...by the only knowing there is and that is consciousness.
In other words the knower is unknowable.

The fact that these words are appearing now and are being read and understood, points to a rational living mind...this cannot be refuted, it is self evidence ...thoughts about what the mind is are unseen too....along with the mind.

So how and where does reality come from, if it's unknowable & unseen ?....except it appears as via language/knowledge/concept...in that knowledge informs this illusory reality... only from knowledge is a world of things born...where before, there wasn't anything...except pure silent presence.

Your distinction between human and animal sentience remains unsatisfying. The individual difference is not so great, noting that it takes us humans some years to become distinct from other animals; during infancy we were each much less sentient than even an adult mouse. The human difference comes with our collectives. When humans were nomadic and unorganised, they were just one other intelligent predatory species competing with others for survival. The humans capacity to cooperate and pool resources has resulted in their growing groups being powerful enough to dominate all local wildlife almost everywhere.

While not forced to worry about and flee from predators, humans had the opportunity to technologically progress and press home their advantage. Our dominance provided the space needed to further ourselves. Now the difference between humans and other species is exponential in scope, depth and rate of progress but this comes about mainly due to the power of collectivism. Our individual human capacities are mainly of use in communicating with other humans but not much else.

Forget about the story of creation for a minute. That's just all His Story....meaning it's history..there is no need to keep bringing up the past here, this stuff is already known, it's common knowledge, found in any good library ... forget all that, I'm always talking about the emptiness of the present moment...the unknown. I'm more interested in the Hard problem of consciousness and how the blank space of unknowning awareness instantaneously fills itself up with the known? Who does that? ...all we know about that is the mind does that, but we don't even know what that is, just that it is, and we believe it.

I'm talking about that which is looking out of your eyes, and out of the eye of every other sentient living creature...the one looking out of all those eyes is the same empty awareness.

.In other words there is nothing looking through your eyes. And yet it seems like there is a person behind those eyes. < That's what God is/not.

In other words, No thing knows because everything is known, but not by you, you are known. You cannot know what knows you, no more than a mirror can see itself...a mirror can only reflect itself as a mirror image/ mirage. The mirror has to be empty in order for it to reflect an image.

Now all we have to do is work out how and who this illusion is appearing to and why is looks so real ....?

.

[Greta]

Now all we have to do is work out how and who this illusion is appearing to and why is looks so real ....?

If it didn't look real, there'd be no point. Everyone would shrug, sit down, chew on lotuses and die, because it simply would not matter.

Those in the past (yes, I again raise the much maligned and underestimated past) who believed that our apparent reality isn't real would probably survive and produce less offspring than those who took their apparent reality seriously. So now all the survivors today are genetically and culturally wired to take seriously the idea that our apparent reality is, if not actually real, at least real enough in terms of cause and effect to take seriously.

I don't find "Don't worry, because it's all an illusion" of help in life, whether life is one or not. Rather, I prefer "Don't worry, because it won't help". More than anything, if life is an illusion what do we call the things we normally refer to as illusions, such as the subjects of hallucinations? Why is an oasis more real - less of an illusion - than a mirage?

[Londoner]

For those still having a problem with my proof, the following examples may serve to illustrate my point.

Not truly just = not a god.

You understand here that you are describing what you mean by the word god? It does not concern 'existence'. See below:

Kim Jong-il considered himself to be a god incarnate. He even created a whole mythology to support his case, that all his followers believe absolutely. However; I think that we can all agree, that even if he was a god incarnate, he wasn't somebody we would want to follow into the here-after.
I know that's a bit of an extreme example, but a being cannot just call itself a god because it feels like it, and we can't call it a god because we want to. To be a god a being must first be worthy of being a god, or the term god is utterly meaningless.
Might does not make right.

But Kim Jong-il existed. You do not think he fits the criteria of 'god', but he still existed.

Truly just = not a god.

A person sees a child drowning in a lake and dives into the lake and rescues the child. On the News that night the person is called a hero, and says “I'm not a hero. I just did what anybody else would have done.”.
A truly just being feels the same way “I'm no different from anybody else. I'm just a being.”.

But they do exist. Whether they count as a 'hero' depends on what people think the word 'hero' means. It is possible to disagree, for some people to think they are a hero, and others that they are not. But they are not disagreeing about whether the person exists.

(I see that seeds has also made the same point)

[Londoner]

It's interesting, though, that skeptics rush to say that the nominal "religious" motivation -- even in such rare cases -- was the "real" or "most important" one, when the truth is that it's far more likely one of the major war motives, like secular ideology, nationalism, language, territory, economics or culture is really to blame....

If we argue that way, with religion just being part of a mix with all those other things, then the price is that religion is no longer different from those things. We understand secular ideologies, nationalism etc. through the social sciences. Are you happy to do the same for religion?

For example, we might explain the reasons somebody becomes a fascist by looking at their psychology (insecurity, a need to belong etc.) and by sociology (they are poor, their society is undergoing change etc.) Are you OK with the same being applied to religion; that we can explain religious belief as purely an individual response to social pressure?

In other words, if you say the "real" or "most important" motives for choosing to go to war are secular, why can't we argue the same about our choice of religion? That if people are Christians (say), then secular ideology, nationalism, language, territory, economics or culture is really to blame.