loading...
× All users can create publications on this site! Please register and create your first publication.
To top
Blog "Новичков Максим на QWERTY.blog"

This is an automatic translation.
Click here to read the publication in the original language.

I want to say right away that I do not want to insult anyone’s feelings with this. My goal is to make me think again. A discussion based on logic, mutual respect, is welcome.

Well, believers and clergy often cite as an argument the fact that it is impossible to prove the absence of God, as well as to prove its existence - you just need to believe. In fact, this is a huge mistake (and, in my opinion, it’s simply a denial of the obvious, or even a lie). There is a lot of evidence of the absence of God (in the usual sense)! They can even be divided into several categories - deductive, empirical, inductive, subjective and others.

To begin with, let's agree on the terminology - and what is God in the "usual sense." Of course, we will talk about the dominant religions - Christianity (including Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism), Islam - God in the usual religions is presented as something omnipotent and omniscient, as the root cause of being.

So, consider the currently known evidence that there is no God :

Deductive:

  • The omnipotence paradox expresses the view that the concept of an omnipotent being is logically inconsistent, based on questions such as “Can God create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?”
  • Another argument suggests a contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence, asking the question "can God change his mind?"
  • The argument from free will disputes the existence of the all-knowing god, who has free will, or endowed his creations with it, declaring the mutually exclusive nature of these two properties. According to this argument, if God knows the future, then all human actions are doomed to correspond to this future, and thus he does not have free will. Another argument adds that God's will in this case is also limited by his knowledge of everything that he will do in eternity.
  • The objection to the Cosmological argument extends the assumption that the creator must exist in everything to God himself ( “Who created God?” ). This disputes the statement that the root cause of everything is God, and not the Universe, "The Chicken and Egg Problem."

Empirical:

  • The argument of contradictory revelations disputes the existence of God described in the scriptures, finding visible contradictions between different scriptures, within one scripture or between scripture and known facts. This argument is only effective against opponents who consider their sacred texts infallible.
  • The problem of the existence of evil: "The omniscient, omnipotent and omnipotent God is not compatible with the world in which there is evil." Theistic answers to this problem are called theodicy.
  • An argument from unbelief disputes the existence of an omnipotent God who wants to be believed in, so that such a god could find a better way to attract believers among his own creations.
  • A conservative argument argues that, since natural theories adequately explain the development of religion and faith, the actual existence of such supernatural beings is unnecessary until it is clearly needed to explain these phenomena (see Occam's Razor).
  • Cosmological. Why, in his opinion, the Universe could not have a creator explains in the 2011 documentary Curiosity. Did God create the universe? ”(“ Curiosity. Did God Create the Universe? ”😉 physicist Stephen Hawking.

You cannot set off before the Big Bang, because before it there was no time. We finally discovered something that had no reason, because before there was no time within which it could exist. For me, this means the creator cannot exist, because there was no time for this. Since time appeared only at the time of the Big Bang, this event could not be created by anyone or anything. Thus, science gave us an answer, the search of which took more than three thousand years of tremendous human effort.

Inductive:

  • The argument from meaninglessness claims that it does not make sense for an omnipotent and omniscient creature to do anything (in particular, to create the universe), because such a creature has no needs, needs or desires - all these concepts are subjectively inherent in man . Thus, the very existence of the universe contradicts the existence of the almighty God.
  • “Historical induction” concludes that since most theistic religions in history (for example, ancient Egyptian or ancient Greek) finally began to consider them false or erroneous, then, by induction, all theistic religions, including modern religions, are false or erroneous .

Subjective:

  • The argument from eyewitness accounts relies on the opinions of modern or historical figures who did not believe or expressed strong doubt about the existence of God.
  • The argument from conflicting religions - different religions describe God and his precepts differently. All conflicting data cannot be true at the same time, therefore, if not all, then many gods do not exist.

Other evidence:

  • Australian philosopher Douglas Goskin jokingly developed a "proof" that there is no God. It is similar in construction to the "refutation" of Gaunilion.

    1. Creation is the most remarkable achievement imaginable.
    2. The degree of greatness of achievement depends on (a) the quality of the achievement itself and (b) the capabilities of the creator.
    3. The greater the limited (and less possible) creator, the more wonderful the outstanding result looks.
    4. The Creator has the least ability if he does not exist.
    5. Therefore, if we assume that the Universe is a creation of an existing creator, we can imagine in our minds an even more perfect creation - namely, who created an all-non-existent creator.
    6. Thus, the existing God will not be a creature more perfect than which it is impossible to imagine, because a nonexistent God will be even more perfect and powerful.
    7. Therefore, there is no God.

  • Boeing 747 ready for flight
  • The Paradox of Omnipotence
  • Theological anti-cognitiveness
  • Euhemerism
  • Refutation Using Mathematical Logic: Kurt Gödel mathematically "proved" the existence of God within the framework of modal logic. His argument is essentially identical to the ontological!

This is only known. But I would add here the “psychological” proof - from the need to recognize the existence of God and the impossibility of adopting the reverse logic, because, judging by the finds of antiquity and considering the development of religions, the primary sources of the emergence of faith are the most common human fears and desires - 1) fear of death 2 ) the pain of loss 3) craving for knowledge (oddly enough, because the lack of explanations of some natural phenomena, it is necessary to “close” something - for example, something supernatural). It turns out that "God is because he is needed" - this is the structure of the human brain.

What do you think?

This is an automatic translation.
Click here to read the publication in the original language.

This post is available in the following languages:
Deutsch   English   Español   Français   Italiano   Русский  

Report abuse

Please note

We sent you a link to verify your email address. Do not forget to check the Spam folder. If suddenly the message got into this folder, click "Do not Spam!".

If you do not receive an email with a link to activation within the next minute, click here:

Please, wait sec.

If this attempt also fails, we recommend using a different email address for registration.