hi
Nearly every religion posits some sort of hidden, immaterial realm which exists behind the visible, physical, and material realm in which we live. Often we are supposed to be partaking in this immaterial realm because who we "really" are is defined by an immaterial, immortal soul. This immaterial realm is also treated as being higher and more important than the material one because it's the realm in which gods live and which we are destined to inhabit after our physical bodies die.
However important these beliefs may be to religious theists, there isn't any solid, verifiable evidence that even suggests any of it is true. On the contrary, everything we do know and everything we continue learn points to the conclusion that all of those claims are completely false, and instead that the following are true: life is material and natural, we don't have anything like an immaterial or immoral soul, and an immaterial, disembodied "mind" like gods are supposed to have just isn't possible. zSB(3,3), that doesn't necessarily mean that it's false, but it is unreasonable to believe it.
Edit: original article here: http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/LifeMaterial.htm
Two qualities often attributed to God are perfection and being the ‘creator‘ of the universe (if not more). Are these qualities compatible or incompatible? There are two good arguments that they are incompatible; and to the degree that they are valid, the existence of such a god is improbable at the very least, if not impossible.
The first argument is based on the idea that a perfect being has no need to create anything at all:
Theists may reject premise #3 — the idea that perfection means not having any needs or wants. One argument is that God was so full of love that it wanted to share its love with other and thus created other beings — but this example of a want does not give a reason why the premise is wrong, it simply denies it.
Another argument against premise #3 is that perfection is compatible with having needs or wants. I just don’t see any merit to this, as it goes against the basic understanding of what “perfect” means: lacking nothing essential to the whole. If God needed something, then God lacked something essential.
Perhaps God lacked nothing essential if creation merely resulted from a want of something. This might be effective, but its logical conclusion is that, as far as God is concerned, this universe is rendered trivial and unessential — even irrelevant. A child’s ant farm would have more purpose and use.
Theists might also challenge premise #5 and argue that the creation of the universe was not deliberate but instead accidental. If an accidental creation is compatible with a perfect God, this argument would render the existence of the universe even more trivial than the previous argument. Because perfection is incompatible with error, any being that can do something accidentally is unlikely to be perfect.
None of the above critiques are very effective and I would reject any claims to perfection made by or on behalf of any god that needed something or wanted something. Both signify a lack of something — one objective, the other subjective — and neither fits with any idea of real perfection which I can come up with. Please tell me your views on this
Nearly every religion posits some sort of hidden, immaterial realm which exists behind the visible, physical, and material realm in which we live. Often we are supposed to be partaking in this immaterial realm because who we "really" are is defined by an immaterial, immortal soul. This immaterial realm is also treated as being higher and more important than the material one because it's the realm in which gods live and which we are destined to inhabit after our physical bodies die.
However important these beliefs may be to religious theists, there isn't any solid, verifiable evidence that even suggests any of it is true. On the contrary, everything we do know and everything we continue learn points to the conclusion that all of those claims are completely false, and instead that the following are true: life is material and natural, we don't have anything like an immaterial or immoral soul, and an immaterial, disembodied "mind" like gods are supposed to have just isn't possible. zSB(3,3), that doesn't necessarily mean that it's false, but it is unreasonable to believe it.
Edit: original article here: http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/LifeMaterial.htm
This is a breach of rule 4.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
Two qualities often attributed to God are perfection and being the ‘creator‘ of the universe (if not more). Are these qualities compatible or incompatible? There are two good arguments that they are incompatible; and to the degree that they are valid, the existence of such a god is improbable at the very least, if not impossible.
The first argument is based on the idea that a perfect being has no need to create anything at all:
- God is perfect. (premise)
- God deliberately created the universe. (premise)
- Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants. (premise)
- Being perfect, God does not now nor ever has nor ever will have any needs or wants. (from 1, 3)
- Deliberate creation entails an effort to satisfy some need or want. zSB(3,3)Being a creator, God at one time had some need or want. (from 2, 5)
- It is impossible to have some need or want and also to never have any need or want.
- Conclusion: God, if it exists, is either not perfect or has not created anything. (from 4, 6)
Theists may reject premise #3 — the idea that perfection means not having any needs or wants. One argument is that God was so full of love that it wanted to share its love with other and thus created other beings — but this example of a want does not give a reason why the premise is wrong, it simply denies it.
Another argument against premise #3 is that perfection is compatible with having needs or wants. I just don’t see any merit to this, as it goes against the basic understanding of what “perfect” means: lacking nothing essential to the whole. If God needed something, then God lacked something essential.
Perhaps God lacked nothing essential if creation merely resulted from a want of something. This might be effective, but its logical conclusion is that, as far as God is concerned, this universe is rendered trivial and unessential — even irrelevant. A child’s ant farm would have more purpose and use.
Theists might also challenge premise #5 and argue that the creation of the universe was not deliberate but instead accidental. If an accidental creation is compatible with a perfect God, this argument would render the existence of the universe even more trivial than the previous argument. Because perfection is incompatible with error, any being that can do something accidentally is unlikely to be perfect.
None of the above critiques are very effective and I would reject any claims to perfection made by or on behalf of any god that needed something or wanted something. Both signify a lack of something — one objective, the other subjective — and neither fits with any idea of real perfection which I can come up with. Please tell me your views on this
Last edited by a moderator:
good and evil are on our minds. From an universal point of view they dont exist.