Biblical Evidence God Doesn't Exist: using logic rather than belief.

[Heart2Soul]

Logic and illogic are still within the realm of philosophy. While one may view biology or physiology as logical in that they employ logic, they are not in and of themselves part of the field of philosophy, or theology for that matter.

It is to see the difference between words (logos) about God, the body, the senses, etc.

The senses do not employ logic to function. They are non-logical.

Logic absolutley requires what our senses can perceive. It's called Concrete Reasoning....nothing abstract about it.

 

[bbyrd009]

Just what do the biblical authors mean by "God" anyways? We all know that all gods are imaginary, right? So what makes the biblical god any different than, oh let's say the 330 million deities that populate the Hindu pantheon of gods?

Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all. You're just looking at the product of your own imagination. They even have a word for it. They call it idolatry.

An idol is any object that is viewed as a god itself. In other words, the biblical authors don't believe in objectifying "God" at all. They can imagine all sorts of gods just like the next guy, and they can admit that these gods are all imaginary. In fact, they would be the first to point out that they aren't gods at all. They're simply imaginary ideas. That's not what they mean by "God", and whatever meanings or definitions they do come up with aren't God either. They're just meanings and definitions for the word "God", which they will be the first to admit is simply a symbol for its meaning. Again, words and meanings are not gods; they're words with associated meanings.

Paul also points out that Christ isn't God when he refers to him as "the image of the invisible God"(Col.1:15). The word he uses for "image" is the Greek "eikon" which is where we get words like 'icon';"iconography"; "iconoclastic" etc. An icon should not be confused with an idol. As noted previously, an idol is worshipped as god, but an icon is a representation of God, and representations are not gods themselves.

Some would hasten to note that these two terms are synonymous, but this is only in relation to "things", and the biblical authors don't include God as any thing.

Given that the word "God" is essentially undefinable, unimaginable, and unknowable, thats what Jesus represents. He is an immanent representation of transcendence.

The biblical authors have a name for their "God" which they call "YHVH" which means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be", and what will be doesn't exist. Potentiality is not actuality.

They use words like "incomparable" or "there is none beside me". In other words, there is no referent for transcendence. There is no essential difference between the word "God" and nothing. There is no referent for God other than the word "God" itself.

The New Testament's gospel of John points out essentially the same thing. The introduction doesn't begin with "in the beginning was God". Why? Because God doesn't exist. He begins with "in the beginning was the word". That's all there is to begin with.

He then continues by pointing out that everything that exists is created(vs. 3), and at no time does he or anyone else ever suggest that God is created. Therefore, for those who are lacking even rudimentary reading comprehension skills, it logically follows that God doesn't exist. This is especially so given that the biblical authors view the objective world as the created world. So by definition, God can't objectively exist in the created world.

Paul reaffirms this in his letter to the Corinthians when he points out that God is the origin (not to be confused or conflated with "beginning") of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists (1 Corinthians 8:6).

For those who insist in asking the question, "Who created God?, Paul's argument refutes that by pointing out that the origin of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. So he has simultaneously admitted that God doesn't exist and denied the need for an infinte regression.

nice imo

 

[shnarkle]

As much of a point as what you are making....but to simplify it for you the physical cannot exist without the spiritual....as it says in the Bible that which is seen was created by that which is unseen. (Paraphrased).
Hebrews 11 KJV

Paraphrases are usually employed when the actual words of the author are insufficient to prove one's point.

When we look at something, we naturally presume its opposite which is nothing. Of course we have just created nothing as a counterweight, but the reality is that nothing, by definition, doesn't exist. See how that works? We can just as easily assume this with regards to your assumptions as well. To assume what doesn't exist as existing is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I am simply pointing out that Paul himself points out that the distinction between source or origin, and means points to the fallacy of an infinite regression as well as the logical conclusion that the origin of existence cannot exist without creating an infinite regression. In other words to assume it is to contradict oneself. It is to redefine the meaning of the word "origin/source".

 

[shnarkle]

Logic absolutley requires what our senses can perceive. It's called Concrete Reasoning....nothing abstract about it.

Logic does not require the senses. All logic is abstract. Reasoning is abstract. All concepts and ideas are abstract. It's called abstract thought. There's nothing that says we can't use the senses or rather what we've seen, touched, or heard, but logic does not employ the senses. Logic employs deductive and inductive reasoning. What you are claiming is would be equivalent to saying that sight requires what hearing can hear, or what our hands can touch. You're conflating one faculty with another. They can all be used in conjunction with each other, but they are not the other faculties, nor is one required for another one to work independently of the others.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Paraphrases are usually employed when the actual words of the author are insufficient to prove one's point.

When we look at something, we naturally presume its opposite which is nothing. Of course we have just created nothing as a counterweight, but the reality is that nothing, by definition, doesn't exist. See how that works? We can just as easily assume this with regards to your assumptions as well. To assume what doesn't exist as existing is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I am simply pointing out that Paul himself points out that the distinction between source or origin, and means points to the fallacy of an infinite regression as well as the logical conclusion that the origin of existence cannot exist without creating an infinite regression. In other words to assume it is to contradict oneself. It is to redefine the meaning of the word "origin/source".

I gave you the scripture...look it up and read it for yourself.
And in reference to all the other religions who worship a god...they ALL claim their
god is the creator.
But Paul was not disputing God's existence...he was saying we cannot explain His existence through our understanding.

 

[shnarkle]

Word?
got a ref for this? It's prolly not a good one fwiw

The Sages of Judaism. The word? See the introduction to John's gospel.


He doesn't say "in the beginning was God". He says, "in the beginning was the word".

 

[shnarkle]

I gave you the scripture...look it up and read it for yourself.
And in reference to all the other religions who worship a god...they ALL claim their
god is the creator.
But Paul was not disputing God's existence...he was saying we cannot explain His existence through our understanding.

You can only assume God's existence, but here again, our language gives it away. God's existence is not God. It's his existence, which John points out is "the word", and Paul points out is "Christ". Christ is eternal. All things that exist, exist because they were brought into existence, which is what John refers to as "the word", and Paul refers to as "by whom". The means of all that exists is Christ, and the origin of all that exists is "God".

The problem is in not noticing that the origin of existence, by definition cannot exist, except in,with, and through Christ, "the word", existence itself which both John and Paul distinguish.

The only way it can be explained is through one's understanding.

 

[bbyrd009]

The Sages of Judaism. The word? See the introduction to John's gospel.


He doesn't say "in the beginning was God". He says, "in the beginning was the word".

thus making "Word" a viable refent for God, yeh? Who btw was referred to as YHWH bc those are the Hebrew vowels, and they have just been transliterated rather than translated, AEOU or something would most likely be a better trans.

But to most Believers "hebrew has no vowels" i guess?

 

[Heart2Soul]

You can only assume God's existence, but here again, our language gives it away. God's existence is not God. It's his existence, which John points out is "the word", and Paul points out is "Christ". Christ is eternal. All things that exist, exist because they were brought into existence, which is what John refers to as "the word", and Paul refers to as "by whom". The means of all that exists is Christ, and the origin of all that exists is "God".

The problem is in not noticing that the origin of existence, by definition cannot exist, except in,with, and through Christ, "the word", existence itself which both John and Paul distinguish.

The only way it can be explained is through one's understanding.

Which is what Paul was saying.

 

[Windmillcharge]

This is nothing more than a tautology. You haven't given us anything other than to assume God as a Given. It's the fallacy of Begging the Question.



The problem is that you have yet to define what you mean by "God", and your definition will never suffice because you are must rely upon logic, imagination etc. which can never completely define anything. This is all the more impossible when it comes a word that has no referent. Ultimately, God is undefinable, ineffable, unimaginable, etc.



And neither can you, especially using baseless claims and assertions. Given that this is impossible, to then presume to explain or attempt to prove transcendence is even more pointless.

There is no effective difference between transcendence and non-existence. The bottom line is that nothing doesn't exist.

I start with an assumption that there is something and that that something has made himself know through the bible.

I haven't tried to define God.

Whether my reasoning is faulty or not one cannot just assume that there is logic. There has to be a reason for it. Either that reason is God or what ever you are proposing.

The reality of God is not baseless, we/I may not be able to define or explain God to your staisfaction.
But anyone who challenges whether there is or is not a God still has to provide an explanatiuon both for creation and for Christianity.

 

[shnarkle]

thus making "Word" a viable refent for God, yeh?

Exactly! The word is the only referent for "God".

Who btw was referred to as YHWH bc those are the Hebrew vowels, and they have just been transliterated rather than translated, AEOU or something would most likely be a better trans.

But to most Believers "hebrew has no vowels" i guess?

I'm just using the conventional reference. The point is that what the Old Testament conceals or potentially contains, the New reveals or manifestly frees. What "will be" in the old testament is manifested as "I AM" in the new, and just as important to note is that potentiality cannot be, or even be referred to without manifesting. In other words, what is manifest is the only way to see what was once potential. It is only in, with, and through this medium that one can approach transcendence, or what the biblical authors refer to as "God".

 

[shnarkle]

I start with an assumption that there is something and that that something has made himself know through the bible.

And what is "that something"?

I haven't tried to define God.

Then this term "God" has no meaning or definition.

Whether my reasoning is faulty or not one cannot just assume that there is logic.

I am not assuming there is logic. Logic has been demonstrated to exist. We are able to make truth claims. We can use logic to do this. One doesn't need to prove the existence of a hammer while they're building a house.

There has to be a reason for it.

There has to be a reason for what? God? There has to be a reason for a term that has no meaning? Why? How?

Either that reason is God or what ever you are proposing.

The reality of God is not baseless, we/I may not be able to define or explain God to your staisfaction.

You have already informed us that there is no definition for this term. It has nothing to do with your ability to begin with as you aren't making any attempt to define God in the first place. In other words, this is beside the point.

But anyone who challenges whether there is or is not a God still has to provide an explanatiuon

Yep, and I've done just that.

both for creation and for Christianity.

I've provided an explanation using the source material for Christianity, i.e. the bible.

As far as creation goes, I can provide an explanation for that as well, but that isn't the point of this thread.

 

[bbyrd009]

Exactly! The word is the only referent for "God".



I'm just using the conventional reference. The point is that what the Old Testament conceals or potentially contains, the New reveals or manifestly frees. What "will be" in the old testament is manifested as "I AM" in the new, and just as important to note is that potentiality cannot be, or even be referred to without manifesting. In other words, what is manifest is the only way to see what was once potential. It is only in, with, and through this medium that one can approach transcendence, or what the biblical authors refer to as "God".

ok. You sound awful sure to me here, but i agree that God obviously does not exist, and is not trying to, yeh. Does not need to, still very real imo, etc

 

[shnarkle]

ok. You sound awful sure to me here, but i agree that God obviously does not exist, and is not trying to, yeh. Does not need to, still very real imo, etc

Yes! People tend to conflate reality with existence. Reality is much more comprehensive that existence. There is the reality of existence as well as the reality of the source of existence which logically can't exist without 'creating' an infinite regression. We talk about nothing as if it exists, but it doesn't. This doesn't negate the reality of nothing.

The reality of the apophatic is what the biblical authors are talking about when they point out that "God" can't be imagined without becoming an idolater. We can imagine all sorts of things that never existed and never will exist. The Yahwist must admit that whoever Yahweh is, he is who he is, and must be accepted regardless of any ideas that might pop into his head.

Abraham is a prime example of one who gathers his household and sets off for parts unknown. There is no destination or goal that can be in the mind of the follower of a transcendent God because transcendence will never lead anyone to an objective location; at least not as THE goal. What we discover in the New Testament is that "the way" is the goal. The irony is in noting that once we're in the way, we see that transcendence has no limits. There can be no objective goal to attain. We rest in eternal transcendence.

People will come up with all sorts of reasons why Abraham agreed to take Isaac up to be sacrificed, but the simple reason is because God told him to. Abraham has no clue why God is asking him to do this, but Abraham knows that you don't balk at any requests from the Creator of the universe.

The dice of God are always loaded.

 

[bbyrd009]

Ha!

 

[farouk]

Which is what Paul was saying.

Always good indeed to go back to the source and see what the various Biblical writers are saying.