Does God exist? the definitive answer.

amigaboy

The following does not come from any book or any philosopher, save the one writing this post - me. If you are to use it please be sure to reference it back here to the author.

In order to answer the question some ground work must be made first.

Firstly to ask this question a definition of what is God must be given.

From what I have discerned God is, in the definition of most world religions, All-knowing; he knows all and sees all. To expand: he doesn't just know all this is know, but all that has ever been and all that will be. If he doesn't know all then he cannot be God, but just a powerful and very smart entity.

We also know, according once again to world religions, that God created the world; it's dark and light and all the things within.

We also know that God has interacted with the prophets, has, according to one prominent religion, given us a Son, that he has turned people to pillars of salt, spoken to Moses and so forth. In short God has interacted with his creation - the world/universe.

At this point I am going to bring in a definition of the universe. This definition is based on a mathematical and physics definition of the universe. It can of course be argued as to what the universe encompasses (i.e. multiple dimensions, nature of dark matter etc..) but regardless this definition can be held to be a universal truth, and can't really be debated on.

The universe is an all encompassing term for everything. All galaxies, stars, planets and other matter/energy that exist are part of the universe. If there are other dimensions that exist they must interact in some way with this plane in order to be part of this universe.

IF they do not interact then there is no way of proving/disproving their existence and they are for all purposes therefore non-existent/imaginary.

Whatever the true nature of the universe is we can be sure that it has a set of rules under which it operates. Some call these rules physics, others logic or reason.

Nothing complicated so far.

Now according to the world religions God is the creator. He created the Universe. According to the same religions God has intervened and interacted with this Universe. This would make him a part of the Universe and subject to its laws when interacting with it.

[Now here comes the crunch part]

However in this Universe it is impossible for something to be all knowing.
How can I say this? Simple, Ask the Question what does God think?

If he is all knowing he cannot have any thoughts. All thought is derived from a need to attain information. Be it that this thought is in learning something new or in processing existing information. To give a simple example, If I or anyone wants to buy a car I need to find out what cars are available, what the advantages of one model over another is and so forth. Once I have this information I will process it to come to a conclusion. If I was God I would not have to think about which model is the best I would just buy it because I would already know. In the same way the more I know and understand anything the less I have to think about it. If I understood everything (everything!) I would not have to think about anything. If someone prays to God he might hears their prayers, but He does not ponder or consider them,. This is because he already knew about the prayer, knew about the person, knew all their ancestors and their thoughts going back all the way.(and so on)..

This is a bit of a big one to grasp, but if you think it through carefully you will see that it is undeniable by reason alone. Feel free to post a critic of it (I'm certain someone will) I will respond with an explanation on any point or example raised to prove this.

So the only way God could exist as an all knowing being is outside the realms of our Universe - as a non-interactive component to our universe. IF He did interact he would He be part of it and subject to the laws of reason and logic that everything else is.

But if he does exist in this Universe then he may as well not exist as is essentially an imaginative/ non-existent idea.

He can be the creator of the Universe but not interact with it. And so to all intense purposes therefore does not exist.

IF He does interact then he does not think, and as it goes 'I think therefore I am'.


So to conclude, no God does not exist.




Just to finish, since coming to this conclusion many years back I have given this argument to many religious people and philosophers and physicists. none, even after years to do so have been able to come back with a real argument to disprove this 'theorem'.

Response and thoughts are most welcome.

Goodshape

amigaboy wrote:

The universe is an all encompassing term for everything. All galaxies, stars, planets and other matter/energy that exist are part of the universe.

Your definition of universe would be my definition of God.

As such, you can't really say that "God does not exist", as there is no clear and definitive consensus as to what 'God' is in the first place.

Also, I don't think it is the purpose of most 'world religions', as you illusively put it, to prove that God is a real entitiy. Moreso, God is something, real or otherwise, which is there to give people a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives. To these people it is the thought of God which is real, and that is enough.

Your god, that is the one you defined in your post, probably does not exist.

(there are quite a few threads on this topic already)

Rozie

That was pretty leaving cert level reasoning, dude. And you only debunked one ideal of God that you could have done so much more easily using basic logic.

ilovemybrick

anyone heard of either the ontological or cosmological arguments.
obviously not. google them and be enlightened.

Earthhorse

You seem to be saying that because God does not think he does not exist but there is nothing in your definition of the universe that says something must think in order to exist. My table does not think and yet it exists.

You may very well tag "I think therefore I am" onto the end of your argument but it is not a central part of it nor conclusive in any way.

Villain

I reckon he excists he's just an evil b*****d who causes hurt and pain.

Rozie

irish1 wrote:

I reckon he excists he's just an evil b*****d who causes hurt and pain.

Okay, that's just being silly, Louis Walsh is NOT God.

amigaboy

Earthhorse wrote:

You seem to be saying that because God does not think he does not exist but there is nothing in your definition of the universe that says something must think in order to exist. My table does not think and yet it exists.

You may very well tag "I think therefore I am" onto the end of your argument but it is not a central part of it nor conclusive in any way.

If you think you're table is God then I leave that to you to worship as you see fit.

The purpose of this argument was to debunk the propaganda of myth that is carried by every major religion in the world. The God that is sold by them is not something that could exist and that was my point.

I do in fact believe in a God of sorts myself, and much to a similar point made above I believe that all life and energy collective makes God, that we are all part of god.

While I am a deeply spiritual person I find more and more that religion is a deeply cynical tool which has been used to kill and toture and subect millions of thousands of years to spiritual and mental slavery. it is just one of the shackles of mankind that must be broken is we are to overcome our current war-mongering and hate loving way of existance as a race. to debunk the myth of THAT God is something I would like to help people realise.

I concede that peoples beliefs are very important to them, but an open mind and heart are more important if the suffering and hate in the world today must end.

amigaboy

Rozie wrote:

That was pretty leaving cert level reasoning, dude. And you only debunked one ideal of God that you could have done so much more easily using basic logic.

True, I made no attempt to pretty up the reasoning. But then this is a simple argument so it doesn't need any complicated pointing or references. the reality is that the truth is simple.

Earthhorse

amigaboy wrote:

The purpose of this argument was to debunk the propaganda of myth that is carried by every major religion in the world. The God that is sold by them is not something that could exist and that was my point.

But your argument is based on the idea that this God cannot exist because he does not think. There are two problems with this as I see it:

1) A thing does need to think in order to exist. Given that this God is all knowing he may have no requirement for thought but that does not mean he does not exist.

2) Knowledge does not prevent sentience. I know what I'm going to have for breakfast tomorrow but that does not mean I cannot think about it. Given a God defined as omniscient his thoughts may be redundant but that is not to say they do not occur.

Rozie

amigaboy wrote:

True, I made no attempt to pretty up the reasoning. But then this is a simple argument so it doesn't need any complicated pointing or references. the reality is that the truth is simple.

... your truth, not mine.

cjs19

amigaboy wrote:

From what I have discerned God is, in the definition of most world religions, All-knowing; he knows all and sees all. To expand: he doesn't just know all this is know, but all that has ever been and all that will be. If he doesn't know all then he cannot be God, but just a powerful and very smart entity.

Not quite, God may know almost everything, but ultimately he does not know who created him. He may have an idea, but how can he say definitively? Therefore God asks the same questions that we do. Who created me? In such the line between man and god becomes increasingly difficult to define.

CerebralCortex

amigaboy wrote:

True, I made no attempt to pretty up the reasoning. But then this is a simple argument so it doesn't need any complicated pointing or references. the reality is that the truth is simple.

How very arrogant of you my good man. By the way forget what you think you know you know cause just like me your probably wrong.

patzer117

amigaboy wrote:

Nothing complicated so far.

Now according to the world religions God is the creator. He created the Universe. According to the same religions God has intervened and interacted with this Universe. This would make him a part of the Universe and subject to its laws when interacting with it.

[Now here comes the crunch part]

Well i think you fell at the hurdle just above the crunch part. Just because God created the universe does not mean he is part of it and certainly does not mean he is subject to all its laws when interacting in it.
Even if he had or has interacted, well it can be much the same way we interact with the sea - we don't have to have gills in order to live stay under the sea, we are not subject to all its rules, and we certainly aren't like fish.

So in my opinion at least one of your basic assumptions is wrong, and as a result your whole theory does not stand.

bonkey

amigaboy wrote:

Now according to the world religions God is the creator. He created the Universe. According to the same religions God has intervened and interacted with this Universe. This would make him a part of the Universe and subject to its laws when interacting with it.

So you're saying God created God? Good trick.

jc

amigaboy

patzer117 wrote:

Well i think you fell at the hurdle just above the crunch part. Just because God created the universe does not mean he is part of it and certainly does not mean he is subject to all its laws when interacting in it.
Even if he had or has interacted, well it can be much the same way we interact with the sea - we don't have to have gills in order to live stay under the sea, we are not subject to all its rules, and we certainly aren't like fish.

So in my opinion at least one of your basic assumptions is wrong, and as a result your whole theory does not stand.

We are very much subject to the rules of the sea when interacting with it;
if you don't believe me try and take a walk on the seabed, your body may wash up a few days later.
If we are to interact or explore the sea we must do this under its rules. we need to use submarines or breathing aparatus in order to not drown. this is following it's rules, just in a different way to the fish.

amigaboy

bonkey wrote:

So you're saying God created God? Good trick.

jc

I never said God created God. I'm saying God does exist to start with.

amigaboy

cjs19 wrote:

Not quite, God may know almost everything, but ultimately he does not know who created him. He may have an idea, but how can he say definitively? Therefore God asks the same questions that we do. Who created me? In such the line between man and god becomes increasingly difficult to define.

Another part of the standard churches definition of 'God' is that he has alway existed, and that everything else that has ever been created came into being when he made it.
So a line of thought of 'who created me' would not be on the cards for this fella.
again though, I am saying he doesn't exist, so any imaginary God you conceive can think whatever he wishes.

amigaboy

Earthhorse wrote:

But your argument is based on the idea that this God cannot exist because he does not think. There are two problems with this as I see it:

1) A thing does need to think in order to exist. Given that this God is all knowing he may have no requirement for thought but that does not mean he does not exist.

2) Knowledge does not prevent sentience. I know what I'm going to have for breakfast tomorrow but that does not mean I cannot think about it. Given a God defined as omniscient his thoughts may be redundant but that is not to say they do not occur.

1. True, if he does not think this does not automatically mean he does not exist, just like your table. But his impact on the Universe will be even less than the impact of your table because he does not even have its mass (non-corporeal)

2. Though Complete Knowledge does prevent sentience. IF you had complete knowledge of the whole of existance your breakfast and everything else you would not think about it or anything else. His thoughts would not be redundant; they would be non-existant.

SparkyLarks

While you may have proved that No Being can know everything.

you have not proved that God knows everything.

therefore to the conclusion that god doesn't Exist.

To take the argument that a/many churches have said that god is unknowing is also flawed. That ssusmes that the churches are correct, and if the churches are correct then they must be correct in the fact that ther is a god.

If there is no God, how can you prove that from a starting point that god exists.

amigaboy

SparkyLarks wrote:

While you may have proved that No Being can know everything.

you have not proved that God knows everything.

therefore to the conclusion that god doesn't Exist.

To take the argument that a/many churches have said that god is unknowing is also flawed. That ssusmes that the churches are correct, and if the churches are correct then they must be correct in the fact that ther is a god.

If there is no God, how can you prove that from a starting point that god exists.

This Argument is of whether God, as dictated by the major churches, does exist.
There may well be a God that exists that is very different to the one defined by the churches, and I for one believe there is.
I am not assuming that God exists; I am taking the presented definition by the major churches and analysing it - nothing more.
Whether this is or is not a God is not relevant, what is relevant is whether the God that is defined by the major churches exists or not. I say he doesn't on the basis of what I've said above.

SparkyLarks

That may have been your intent but nowher did you say tat,
you even concluded that "God does not exist".

So is all your saying that tha churches are wrong??

maybe God when talking with the early prophest used a bit of salesmanship.
Saying I AM THAT AL KNOWING ALL POWERFUL CREATOR, sounds better than

I am a very smart really really powerful being.


However is it not possible that god knows everything in our univers, even though he himself is part of another universe, i.e a subset of God's greater universe, where there are loads of god's with their own universes.

As such to us god knows everything i.e. everything ther is ever was and ever can be in our universe, but in his own he doesn;t know everything and so is wondering which Godly car to driver, the angilic M3 or the heavenly chariot.

He may even be wondering what to have for breakfast tomorrow after he buy's his new car

Earthhorse

amigaboy wrote:

1. True, if he does not think this does not automatically mean he does not exist, just like your table. But his impact on the Universe will be even less than the impact of your table because he does not even have its mass (non-corporeal)

Why must he assume corporeal form to have influence on the universe? Being omnipotent he can simply "make things happen", and one does not need to think in order to act.

amigaboy wrote:

2. Though Complete Knowledge does prevent sentience. IF you had complete knowledge of the whole of existance your breakfast and everything else you would not think about it or anything else. His thoughts would not be redundant; they would be non-existant.

I fail to see how complete knowledge prevents sentience. It may be impossible for him to have an original thought but that is not to say he is without thought at all. I don't think we're going to agree on this one though.

amigaboy

SparkyLarks wrote:

That may have been your intent but nowher did you say tat,
you even concluded that "God does not exist".

So is all your saying that tha churches are wrong??

maybe God when talking with the early prophest used a bit of salesmanship.
Saying I AM THAT AL KNOWING ALL POWERFUL CREATOR, sounds better than

I am a very smart really really powerful being.


However is it not possible that god knows everything in our univers, even though he himself is part of another universe, i.e a subset of God's greater universe, where there are loads of god's with their own universes.

As such to us god knows everything i.e. everything ther is ever was and ever can be in our universe, but in his own he doesn;t know everything and so is wondering which Godly car to driver, the angilic M3 or the heavenly chariot.

He may even be wondering what to have for breakfast tomorrow after he buy's his new car

That's True all right. could well be the case,

but without the saleperson interaction.

RealCar

Dear AmigaBoy

There are a couple of fundamental flaws with your though process which really do make your basic argument flawed

Dont get me wrong, Im not religious but just working through logically your argument doesnt really hold

1. Basic definition of God: you argument is not about whether god exists but whether there is a creator ie you are arguing against creationist theory which states a that there is a "creator" that created us. The notion of "god" is different and as many people pointed out fundamental ideas of what god is are different with different religions and even what an atheist might define as "god" is different. I know you state your definitons of God as you see them but if we are really to be objective, god is something we cannot define and I am afraid that undermines your argument. Years ago man thought that the Sun was god, thus taking us maybe 1 million years into the future, our notion of the universe might be so outrageously different to how we see it now that our ideas about god might be completely different.

2. If god is not part of this universe then he doesnt exist for all intents and purposes: to take an analogy,for a fish in a bowl, the universe for the fish is the bowl and anything outside it cant interact with it and therefore doesnt exist: this analogy is obviously absurd because we exist outside the bowl and the idea that we dont exist because thefish cant interact with us is obviously not true because we are here. You may not like the idea AmigaBoy but we might be fish in a big bowl so just because we cannot interact with anything outside our universe as we know it, this doesnt mean it doest exist, and saying that if god is outside our universe and cant interact with us, that it means the notion of whether he exists or not is irrelevant then this is just as absurd as taking the fish point of view that anything outside its bowl is irrelevant:it may be irrelevant to us but doesnt mean that god doesnt exist.

3. If god knows all then he doesnt think: this makes a huge assumption ie that thinking only occurs to acuire knowledge. There is fundamental difference between having information and understanding. I can know something but not understand it. Clearly understanding can occur after acquiring knowledge and involves "thinking" so taking from this we can infer that being all knowing does not mean one cannot think so your argument that a god that is all knowing, must be non thinking and therefore if Descartes was right, does not exist.

4. "I think therefore I am": using this line as a basis for your theory is flawed: for a start you are basing your argument on the views of one philosphical school of thought. But more importantly, that thinking does not necessarily mean you exist. Thought itself may be an illusion. To take genetics to an extreme, humans may just be a bag of water with the most complicated recipe in history ie DNA which programs us to behave the way we do. The fact that we can interact with our environment and have abstract musings such as this thread I am afraid does not necessarily mean we are truly thinking, but we may just be like very complex computer algorithms follwing rules that have helped us evolve and "survive" evolution so far.

I am sorry AmigaBoy but the above flaws are too problematic in your argument. I am not saying God exists or not, Maybe I am God and thought I would communicate with my flock through this post! Absurd though it sounds, who is to say i am not, for we do not personally know god or even know what god is supposed to be.

positron

Sorry for barging in at a late state, but...

Certain religions in the east define god as the universe - that school of thought, which makes sense to me personally, than the western, mainstream belief of 'God'.

My understanding is a bit like this: God is everything and everything is god. Nothing exists witout something else. That 'something else' is the subject's god. Sea is god to fishing folks and soil and sun is to those who farm for a living. Since God is everything, everything (and everyone) is in themself a tiny bit of god. Then there's good and bad everywhere, in everything, all the time - that collective goodness is the god that everyone looks upto when they are in trouble and the collective bad in everything is. ... evil or devil etc.. 'God' or 'Devil' are concepts adopted to suit our limited imagination, and makes it simpler to believe and to preach. Both are infitely powerful as 'the universe' is the absolute everything.

sorry if its not well structured or makes awful-reading - but its pretty close to how my reasoning works tbh!

tj-music.com

amigaboy wrote:

If he is all knowing he cannot have any thoughts. All thought is derived from a need to attain information. QUOTE]

Says who? God?

Offalycool

I don’t think humans have the capacity to decipher the existence of god, through their sense experiences. I have no reasonable argument to refute your conclusions, but I believe in the existence of God. I have my reasons for believing this, and I don’t think anything I can say to you will convince you otherwise, but maybe actions are better than words. I have explored many puzzling ideas about my existence, our collective existence and the freedom, if any of our lives. At different times in my life these ideas have seemed more convincing than other times, but one strong trend has remained in my mind, my nature is only visible to me through interpreting the world I live in. Man and nature are the same; we must stop being passive observers of the world but acknowledge ourselves as part of it. I believe everything that exists is God. It is a whole. It is why and how. Everything exists because nothing is nothing and therefore of no concern to everything. Everything exists in order that everything can exist, everything is interdependent. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but its quite simple really. Take the sea for instance; it coexists with land, which in turn, coexists with space. Man has a tendency to separate these elements when making observations, but existence as a whole is irrefutability coexistence of everything we tend to carve up and isolate when we are interpreting our world. God is existence as one, a whole. It’s simple and complex, vast and yet delicately balanced. We do not, and probably cannot understand how everything we see supports and is supported by everything else at once, but I believe this is the limit to my reason, in so far as it is capable of conceptualising god in relation to my existence. My hart, with and through others, shows me so much more, but only when I open it. I cannot explain this.:)

feannor

Amigaboy,

Your argument seems to be simply to attempt to disprove the dogmas proported by; as you call them the "main religions".

Is this nessesary??, by their own definition these religions require blind faith to fill the vacuum of proof, neither physical or philosophical. It is beyond logic and reason to prove the existance of any of the individual inventions and personifications of "god" by these mainstream religions. Surely your effort is wasted in attempting to disprove these artifical creations.

However I think you are missing the point, have you considered the real reason for the existance of these "religions" ??? Having considered this question myself, i come to the conclusion they are simply a mechanism to place the moral authority outside of mans power. Without this conceptual removal, man would consider himself the ultimate moral authority over his own actions. Therefore each man would be his own god, answerable to no-one, and no civilisation would be possible, to simplify....might would be right.

Your logic is too dependant on unsupported assumptions, and contradictions, are you assuming the myths of world religions are true? And if so, how are you combining them all together?

A more interesting point i would have liked to have seen you say is :

If a God is all knowing and perfect, and created the universe, of which we are part. Therefore this creation is perfect, and as such all events within the universe are pre-destined. Any interection of "God" in this creation would be to correct an "error", and therefore it would not be perfect. This alone disproves any religion claiming "a son", "pillars of salt"...etc.....

Dades

feannor wrote:

Your argument seems to be simply to attempt to disprove the dogmas proported by; as you call them the "main religions".

Is this nessesary??, by their own definition these religions require blind faith to fill the vacuum of proof, neither physical or philosophical. It is beyond logic and reason to prove the existance of any of the individual inventions and personifications of "god" by these mainstream religions. Surely your effort is wasted in attempting to disprove these artifical creations.

While I very much echo the other thoughts of your post, I suggest the "necessity" to argue Amigaboys points is moot (it is a philosophy forum, right? ) . I suspect Amigaboy simply seeks affirmation of which he believes to be true - which then morphs with a general sense of incredulousness as to why everyone does not agree.

Mind you, his restrictive definition of "god" is not far off my own. Defining the cosmos, or gravity, or 'matter' as god simply muddies the water in my experience. We have a word for those - why apply another badge?

feannor

I agree completely The Atheist,

Being necessary may well be moot, the exercise in itself is interesting and of course worthwhile. And i certainly agree with Amigaboy, the religions are rubbish (except as a moral compass, that have the power of a god to threaten ppl with punishment if they are immoral, and consider themselves their own moral authority)

What i meant to highlight was the contradiction between the "requirement" of any artifical created religion to have an "interventionist" God, otherwise the religions themselves would be pointless. This contradiction alone is enough to require a blind faith.

I too have my own definitions of God, simularly they are not vague concepts of simple physical facts.

I think of it as more a source of everything, energy, matter, and the laws governing the universe. Also more importantly, conciousness, and all the forces only decernable by conciousness itself. I mean good, evil. From what i
can tell, all of these are infinite in quantity, so the source must be infinite. An infinite source of energy, an infinite source of "good", and an infinite source of "evil", and an infinite source of conciousness.

Assuming good and evil exist as a force decernable by conciousness alone, and also assuming that our own understanding of all these "concepts" is limited, there must be a greater understanding that exists (as they are forces only decernable by conciousness). An infinite understanding from which all these concepts are sourced.

Just a thought