100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Science Fan]

Rhodnar: I'm an atheist, so please don't confuse me with a theist. Who says a god would have to be worthy of worship to exist? A god could exist, and this god could be completely unconcerned about people, and justice, morality, but that does not mean that logically it could not exist, because you feel it would not be deserving of worship.

Concepts of good and evil do not necessarily come from "intelligence." This is not what neurobiology and evolutionary biology are telling us. It's also not what logic tells us as one cannot assign truth values to moral statements. Without a moral sense that is biologically wired into us, it is doubtful anyone could simply use rational arguments to establish morality. Also, the fact we are evolved social primates is why we have the moral debates we do. If we were evolved reptiles, we would be having substantially different moral debates than we currently have.

Morality seems to be an outgrowth of our evolved nature, although, this does not mean that biology determines what is moral. It does, however, get us out of the starting blocks and provides the framework in which we work under regarding moral issues. Reason alone could never have done this.

[Rhodnar]

What I thought was fairly straight forward seems to have caused some confusion. Perhaps it's too conceptual. Like an instruction manual written by somebody who knows “How”, and makes assumptions about how much the reader knows. I'll define terms in the hope of clearing up some of the confusion.

God – A term used to describe a being in a hierarchical system. God, king, noble, serf.
“Truly Just” - Perfectly just in regard to scope.
Scope (as it pertains to justness) – An all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent being's justness isn't limited by ability, or knowledge, the way that ours is.

Also “justness” and “justice” are very distinct terms, “justice” has no requirement to be “just”.

A hierarchical system creates inequality, and although necessary, in our scope, it does not apply to an all-powerful, omnipresent, omniscient, 'truly just' being or beings. A 'truly just' being that can do anything, and knows everything, living in a system with other beings who cannot, must not do anything to influence their lives. For to do so, would negate the their freewill.
I realize that this is a point of contention, but if you actually take the time to think about it, you'll understand it. To paraphrase “Dontaskme”, I cannot explain to you how something tastes, I can describe it, but to know how it actually tastes, you'll have to taste it for yourself.

Socratic method:

Is your God perfect?
If yes, then it follows that it's perfectly just. Or else it would have a flaw, and thus be imperfect.
If no, then it's just a flawed powerful being.

That is where I lose some people. It looks like an assumption. After all who am I to impose qualities on a 'god'. Well, I'm truly just. Therefore; any being that isn't 'truly just' is morally inferior. So why would I regard it to be my 'god'?

Given that I am a truly just being, should I consider myself superior to you?
If I did, I wouldn't be truly just. Catch 22'ish.

Therefore:

Not 'truly just' = Not a 'god'
'Truly just' = Not a 'god'

'Gods' do not exist.

'Truly just' beings do.

The existence of all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, 'truly just' beings, remains to be seen, or not. It really makes no difference to me. I know “what it tastes like”.

However; if they do exist, this would be a perfect system in which to reproduce them.
https://youtu.be/xCorJG9mubk

[Rhodnar]

Concepts of good and evil do not necessarily come from "intelligence." This is not what neurobiology and evolutionary biology are telling us. It's also not what logic tells us as one cannot assign truth values to moral statements. Without a moral sense that is biologically wired into us, it is doubtful anyone could simply use rational arguments to establish morality. Also, the fact we are evolved social primates is why we have the moral debates we do. If we were evolved reptiles, we would be having substantially different moral debates than we currently have.

Morality seems to be an outgrowth of our evolved nature, although, this does not mean that biology determines what is moral. It does, however, get us out of the starting blocks and provides the framework in which we work under regarding moral issues. Reason alone could never have done this.

A concept requires a thought process in order to be conceptualized.
A thought process is intelligence.
"Good and evil" are concepts as are "good and bad". "Love and hate" are biological. "Morality" is a combination of the biological, sociological, and the conceptual.
Any successful, social, sufficiently evolved, intelligent life would automatically develop morality as a by product of the structure of its own existence.
"Right" and "wrong" are concepts too, but despite some grey areas, any moral being knows the difference.
If you want to know "why" when it comes to emotions it is always best to view the emotion in evolutionary terms.
A case in point: Racism, and factionalization, date back to when as a species our group was competing for resources for our survival. "Them" and "Us", but that doesn't mean that we can't overwrite that bit of bad code. Identifying bugs in our program, and debugging is how we become 'truly just'. "Them" and "Us" is still essential to our survival, but its by products, racism, and factionalization, aren't.

[Science Fan]

Rhodnar: You keep assuming things. You assume an unequal society is unjust. How so? You assume a God would be concerned about justice. How so? There is certainly no logical basis for these claims, you are merely asserting them, and then you can't comprehend why others aren't going along with your assumptions. It's because it would be illogical to do so.

Your argument, by the way, is simply a rehashing of the old problem of evil and is nothing new. It does not rule out every conception of god, only some conceptions of god. That's also a point you are failing to grasp. I'm not sure how else to state this, but not every conception of god consists of the one you are using. It's also not the case that everyone who believes in justice is using your concept of justice.

[Rhodnar]

Rhodnar: You keep assuming things. You assume an unequal society is unjust. How so? You assume a God would be concerned about justice. How so? There is certainly no logical basis for these claims, you are merely asserting them, and then you can't comprehend why others aren't going along with your assumptions. It's because it would be illogical to do so.

Your argument, by the way, is simply a rehashing of the old problem of evil and is nothing new. It does not rule out every conception of god, only some conceptions of god. That's also a point you are failing to grasp. I'm not sure how else to state this, but not every conception of god consists of the one you are using. It's also not the case that everyone who believes in justice is using your concept of justice.

I never said that an unequal society was unjust, I didn't even mention an unequal society. Again, this is more a question of scope anyway.

It's a wholly logical argument. To not 'go along' with it, is to not understand it. There are no assumptions in it. As an atheist this is probably an assumption that you are making yourself. In that, you cannot understand what I am saying, because of some preconceived notion of corrupt or imperfect religions or religious beliefs.

You still seem to think that because one being (theoretical or not) is more powerful than another, then by default, it has earned the title god. That is specious reasoning. Kim Jong-il was more powerful than his subjects, and called himself a god, you're essentially supporting his position.

The word god has come to mean a specific thing in most of the world's religions, and none of the major religions would suggest that their god isn't 'truly just', EVER! That would be saying that their god is an imperfect god.

What does any of what I've said have to do with evil?
I've never suggested that anyone, or anything is evil.

Justice is whatever you choose to make it. If you want to hack a person's head off for breaking wind in church, and call it justice you can. Justness is what tells you, that to do so would be unjust.

[Greta]

Funny, then, that Atheists spend so much time on this issue ... Atheism isn't rational ... Unless they keep rehearsing this issue, their unfaith would collapse ...

"Christian" posts like this are non-spiritual and insincere - just lending political support for the "Christian team". In context, "atheist" equals "Democrat". Your post simply bashes your political opponents and is not relevant to the OP's subject matter.

What of the actual topic and the responses to the OP? Do you have any interest at all in the metaphysics of reality? The spiritual aspects of life? If you had a spiritual bone in your body you might have spoken of what prompted your beliefs, the subjective evidence that swayed you.

Do you have any interest in spirituality and the nature of reality at all or does it all just get lumped under "God's mysterious ways"? I suppose, that frees you up for the important business of baiting godless Democrats

[Immanuel Can]

The text itself will arbitrate, in such cases. If my text says, "Love your neighbor," and even "Love your enemies," then it doesn't warrant crusades or jihad. But if it says, "When you meet the enemies of Allah, kill them," then it does.

The Crusaders and other violent Christians would beg to differ. Peaceful Muslims would too. You still do not explain how you know your judgement is any better than theirs.

Yes I did. The text. What the text says, the faith warrants. It's really terribly simple.

There's a discipline called "exegesis." Its purpose is to get the text right. Good exegesis leads to a clear understanding of the text. After that, it matters not at all what propagandistic uses are made by others: the text won't warrant what they say.

As for your questions about the Muslims, it's dead easy. Read the Koran. If you do, you'll know that the moderate Muslims are not supported by the text, but the radicals are. Moreover, you need to know the Islamic exegetical principle called "abrogation." If you know it, you'll understand why Muslims are being radicalized by their texts.

...the question is whether we are also asserting other people should think as we do.

Are you asserting I should think about this issue as you do, that "asserting what people should think" is somehow dubious? If you're not, you aren't making any point here. But if you are, you can't complain if I do.

If I am just 'culturally religious' and am aware of that fact, then I cannot use religion to "sanctify" secular desires. I cannot lie to myself; I cannot say both 'I do not really believe in God' and also 'God wants me to kill Muslims'.

Nobody has ever said, "God wants Muslims killed." It's not in the text. Go and look and you'll see I'm right.

Then religion is just one of many ideologies, all of which arise from psychological and sociological factors.

Again, "religion" isn't a particular ideology. It's a catch-all invented by skeptics, but it doesn't describe any belief in particular. It tries to embrace everything from Scientology to Zoroastrianism to Wicca to Buddhism, with no essential distinction. It's really a pretty unthinking use of the language.

Additionally, some religions are probably merely cultural. Maybe something like Santeria fits that bill. But that does not for a moment imply that they all are, or that culture is all there is to them. Some are much more than local, and some are actually world-wide, multi-cultural phenomena.

[Immanuel Can]

..."atheist" equals "Democrat".

Really? I wouldn't know...but if you say so. You must be living in the US.

What of the actual topic and the responses to the OP?

Go back to page 1, and you'll find I took his OP apart there. I showed that it's silly and won't work. I think the "100% proof" part was mere hyperbole on his part, and I say why.

...baiting godless Democrats

Are you a US Democrat? Do you feel "baited"?

[Greta]

..."atheist" equals "Democrat".

Really? I wouldn't know...but if you say so. You must be living in the US.

Oh, I had the impression that you were a Yank, I guess, due to the political evangelism.

What of the actual topic and the responses to the OP?

Go back to page 1, and you'll find I took his OP apart there. I showed that it's silly and won't work. I think the "100% proof" part was mere hyperbole on his part, and I say why.

Basically you addressed the incoherence of "truly just" and then went on your usual political rant about progressives ... er, atheists.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, I had the impression that you were a Yank, I guess, due to the political evangelism.

I'm curious...what's your interest in the Democratic Party US?

[Greta]

Oh, I had the impression that you were a Yank, I guess, due to the political evangelism.

I'm curious...what's your interest in the Democratic Party US?

I'm not interested as such, just that most people here are American and might not know about the Liberal and Labor parties.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not interested as such, just that most people here are American and might not know about the Liberal and Labor parties.

Well, you'll note I draw examples from both sides...US and UK...and elsewhere as well. So I know the US situation, but I'm not limited in my experience to that situation. The Dems are the party of slavery, the KKK and Segregation; did you know that? Many people do not.

[Rhodnar]

Some people have suggested that this thread was started in order to promote an atheistic agenda.
Just for clarity, I am not an atheist, anymore than I'm a theist.

There is an often overlooked term agnostic. I did see a Richard Dawkins video in which he gradates atheism, but to me it's an all or nothing term.
That being said, given that there is no proof of the creation theory, and that if the Universe was created by the 'truly just', there could never be any proof. I neither believe nor disbelieve the creation theory.

This thread is simply meant to point out that:

(a) If the Universe was created by the 'truly just', they're not gods.
(b) If the Universe was created by a being or beings that was, and/or is not now 'truly just', then said being or beings do not qualify as gods.

Given that 'truly just' creators would be completely non-present in our lives, my or your belief in them is totally irrelevant anyway.

I know that it is hard to accept, but all-powerful beings who are not truly just are not gods. Unless you choose to worship gods like "Crom".
'Truly just' beings are not gods either, so there are no gods. Think what you wish, worship what you wish, but facts are facts.

Gods don't exist.

[Dontaskme]

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.

Yes Greta, of course it's got to look convincing else what the point, I agree...that's why the idea of a miracle worker has to exist also...if there's no miracle worker making what's not really here happen to look like it is...then we're up the creek without a paddle so to speak. There would be nothing to believe in , nothing to live for, no purpose rime or reason or incentive to evolve. It's only because of the realness of reality that it evolves the way it does, it is evolving exponentially and will continue to do so indefinitely ..as the possibilities are infinite...this reality we know at the moment is just one tiny drop in the infinite sea of possibility...that's why we should always look forward and never back..

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?

I agree with everything you've said here...as for the last question...reality is the image of the imageless. Only a miracle worker can make that possible. IMHO

[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.

Yes Greta, of course it's got to look convincing else what the point, I agree...that's why the idea of a miracle worker has to exist also...if there's no miracle worker making what's not really here happen to look like it is...then we're up the creek without a paddle so to speak. There would be nothing to believe in , nothing to live for, no purpose rime or reason or incentive to evolve.

Many think life is entirely worthwhile for its own sake. I'm certainly in no hurry to get off the ride. Life is ultimately worthwhile in and of itself or then, perhaps, we are up the creek. In other words, the ones who are in most bother are those to whom life has been especially unkind. For some, death and hope of a better next life or afterlife can be their main respite and consolation. For those of us who are lucky enough to enjoy life, there's plenty of inventive to grow but I do like to think we are all part of a long evolutionary chain perhaps towards something even more interesting and laudable than humanity.

However, if this instance of intelligence turns out to be a dead end, I am sure that somewhere, sometime, intelligent life will pass through "the great filter" and continue the evolutionary stories in ways that our relatively unevolved minds probably can barely imagine.

No need for miracle workers, just many iterations over long tracts of time. This does not detract from the miraculous nature of reality at every level. There's obviously still much we don't understand.