[Guille]

I have created this thread for everyone to:
1) vote their position regarding God
2) if you want, to specify and give detail of your position
3) give your opinion about other positions regarding God
4) give your proves/disproves about God's existence
5) give proves/disproves about God's existence that philosophers have done
6) state what God is for you and define it
7) any other thing I haven't written that have to do with God.

I will progressively post, to let you have replies and enough time to read my posts. I hope this thread gets big and interesting. I created the poll with multiple choice(more than one answer per member) because maybe you are atheist agnostic, or theist agnostic, or agnostic other... etc. I also made votes private because I think maybe some would like to vote but not let people knowing it.

[Omni]

God isn't proven and isn't disproven thus I can't say if God exists or doesn't. I think you can never disprove God. I also think you can never prove God so in a way it's a non-discussion. Even if God came out and said here I am and this is how I did it you can't be sure. It's an infinite question as is all.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion God should be defined as the cause of everything we don't understand. Right now God is what created the big bang.

That is the exact thing that makes it impossible to me in believing in God. Just as a science learner, how can I work in my neutralization experiments, or in my resistive force experiments, or in the search for prokariotic cells experiments, when I have something in my mind that tells me that whatever I find out, it is there just because of a "supreme being" called God. God was invented for various reasons, and one was most probably created from lazy Spanish people, who when asked by their sons about the meaning or reason of something, just said it was because "God" created it like that.

[Guille]

This post I'm going to do about perfection.

God is perfect. If god is perfect, and god is unique, then god is the only perfect thing in the universe. So then everything but god, is imperfect. Perfect and imperfect are opposites. Let's consider a universe were there is no perfect thing: no god, would be obligatory. In this universe, everything is imperfect. There is no perfect thing. If everything is imperfect, and perfect is the opposite of imperfect, then because there is no perfect thing that makes everything imperfect, they stop being imperfect, and as all are the same, and they are not imperfect, and the opposite of imperfect is perfect, then everything is perfect. So everything is perfect because everything is imperfect. This fact is worthwhile if and only if there is no god. If we introduce god, or the perfect, in this universe, then everything isn't imperfect. As everything isn't imperfect, then everything isn't perfect. We have the both opposites. So now they are opposites. So now everythng is not equal so the universe would "explode" or wouldn't work, so there could be no universe.

[Guille]

In this post I'm going to demonstrate that denying god, is actually proving that god exists. Although theists shouldn't take this too seriously, because there are many wrong things in our languanges.

"God doesn't exist". I am denying god's existence. Now, a Spanish philosopher once said "Thinking is the only thing we can't deny, because denying is thinking" So if I am denying god, I am thinking in god. The famous philosopher Renè Descartes, stated after a demonstration, that "Cogito Ergo sum" translated from Latin to English, "I think, therefore I am." If we are thinking in god because we are denying god, then we exist because we think, and god exists because we are thinking in him because we are denying him. End of the demonstration.

[Guille]

In continuity to my "proofs": When I try to discuss about god (although they don't like to do it because they say that is: "TEMPTING GOD") with my most-commonly-theist friends, they just get too tired of having to "defend" my "accusations".

They always end up telling me that I will never be capable of "understanding" and "comprehending" god and the philosophy they are defending. This is, they say, because I'm way too logical-rational-smart to have this "capability". I don't know what to answer. Do the theists here think that's true?

I don't beleive in god because I don't "understand" why to believe in him? In actual fact, I think it is true. Because I don't understand it. I just can't live believing in something which I know will never be proven and has no logical-empirical background. They (my friends) tell me that I am looking for demonstrations and proofs that He exists, not necesarily empirical, but at least philosophical. Maybe it is true.

They tell me they can't give me proofs because that is exactly what makes them "believe" and have "hope" in god. The lack of proof is what makes them have faith, they say. I will never understand that way of looking at things, I think. Maybe I was just not born to believe in god. Also, some, when we get more personally speaking, they tell me that, for example, "well, in real depth, I don't believe, believe in "god"" which indicates their lack of position strength, which is needed in philosophy. Some, even worst, tell me that "Why not believing in god? what do you care? Just to be sure that you are going to go to heaven? that you will not have an eternal pain?" That quote is my major impulse in my "fight against religions and god". Because it is the exact ending of its creation: having people controlled, having people to be "good" with a fear.

An avarage person can't think or react when having fear, so just tries to get rid of the fear (psychologic neglection) and looking somewhere else. Not being able to fight back the "eternal pain fear". So, they also tell me that religion isn't so bad......"that morals and ethics have been created by religions"........"that laws are based on religions"..........This is part of my own arguments.

I am a disestablishmentarian: person who is a follower of the separation of church and state. This is one of the most important things to do still. Of course laws are morally/ethically/logically correct! So then, is religion correct?

No, because these laws aren't from religions, but religions were the mixture of this dogmatization of correct things added to the fear of the lord (god) to create a perfect world for the strong, the power, and the rich. For the "order".

So, if they tell me they can't give proofs of god because they don't need them, and that I am looking for them, I have the correct part! Because proofs are the importance in philosophy. And, they say, I DO NEED to give proofs that god does not exist, because I'm one of the logical-rational-smart people that has to give them, but they don't because they are some of the believing-hoping-faithful-avarage people. What I think of this last point, is that they are too lazy to fight back, and they know that I AM correct: this is meaning correct on-top of their points and arguments, not of god in general (relative).

[Marketa]

I quite agree with Guille and add something more: there is NO GENERAL DEFINITION of God. Anyone could define God anyhow, so e.g. I and my friend claimed for a while: "I am God." Is it something bad? I don't think so. Many people agree that we are parts of God - and there is only small step from this to realize that we virtually have abilities of God. And as for the fear from a hell: I think that there is nothing after our deaths. Neither heaven nor hell: we will simply lose a great deal of what our consciousness consists of and as a consequence we will lose the consciousness itself. That's quite logical, isn't it?

[subversion]

Maybe your theist friends just believe in the hopelessness of science, that it can never explain everything, and so they ascribe to a god. Hence god is the comforting explaination for the unkown. You on the other hand, believe in the theory of everything, which is the hopefulness of science, that we will eventually understanding everything. If our hope in science is substantiated, science will result in the TOE which will elucidate god and bring about the mooring of science and religion! Then your theist friends will be surprised, and maybe a little sheepish. But I think there is a commonality between us and them, they place their hope in god, we place ours in TOE, which does seem to be more rational if you ask me.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Marketa I quite agree with Guille and add something more: there is NO GENERAL DEFINITION of God. Anyone could define God anyhow, so e.g. I and my friend claimed for a while: "I am God." Is it something bad? I don't think so. Many people agree that we are parts of God - and there is only small step from this to realize that we virtually have abilities of God. And as for the fear from a hell: I think that there is nothing after our deaths. Neither heaven nor hell: we will simply lose a great deal of what our consciousness consists of and as a consequence we will lose the consciousness itself. That's quite logical, isn't it?

It is logical indeed.

More comments to give:

Sometimes, just as jokes, when I say something which I know is wrong, and everybody knows is wrong, and they tell me to demonstrate it or whatever, I say "It is like that because I'm the universal power: creator, controller, and owner of the complete universe and further, omnipotent essence....". They say I will eat my words. I say "I'll be waiting with ketchup to add to them"

Maybe what most of the theist people think when thinking about god isn't that he "exists" as empirical, or physical existence (me, you, computers, apples...) but as like you said, exists in things, it is the "good" and "positive" things. It is in everything, but this "in" doesn't refer physical, but like the other, means spiritual. Now, this is another subset of god themes: there is nothing spiritual in spiritualism.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion maybe your theist friends just believe in the hopelessness of science, that it can never explain everything, and so they ascribe to a god. Hence god is the comforting explanation for the unkown. You on the other hand, believe in the theory of everything, which is the hopefullness of science, that we will eventually understanding everything. If our hope in science is substantiated, science will result in the TOE which will elucidate god and bring about the mooring of science and religion! Then your theist friends will be surprised, and maybe a little sheepish. But I think there is a commonality between us and them, they place their hope in god, we place ours in TOE, which does seem to be more rational if you ask me.

Yes, that is also a good point.

Most theist people always believe that because of the fact that we are atheists then, directly, we don't believe. Not only in god, but in nothing. But that is not true, although maybe in some cases, yes. Atheism is the deny of god and non-believing in god. Not non-believing. We do, for example us two, believe in the TOE. I believe that Barça will lose today against Valencia, and because Madrid won 5-0 (!!!!) yesterday, Barça players will start getting nervous, and we may win the league!!! I believe it. But I'm still an atheist. Because there is mathematics for the Madrid thing:
Barça has 3 more points than us. if they lose, this will stay the same. we have 3 more matches apart from this week, and in each match: win:3 points, equal: 1 point each, lose: 0 points. So Madrid can win the three maches, and if Barça only loses two more, or loses one and equals one, then we will win.

Can god exist with mathematics? I proved that I believe in Madrid winning the league because of mathematics, that's why I believe in it.

The fact is that god, now, has become something very different to what he was intended to be, to stand for, to cause, and to mean. God was created somewhere (not exacts dates have ben obtained) between 15000 bc to 75000 bc. He was created to be the fear of people, of the villagers, to afterlife. So that they were good. So that the people that were smarter could govern them. So that the people who were smarter could reduce them to nothing. Like soldiers, dressed in the same clothes, wearing the same boots, having the same guns, the same hair.......when soldiers become soldiers they are shaved and dressed equal in other things so that they have no personality, to reduce them to nothing. so that they get disciplined. Well, something similar happened between the given years in the land between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. The belief was created. To control people. If you can control your people, then you can be over them. Then, the first civilizations/empires began. With the belief, the fear to it, and the "order" that had been created, the civilizations could be well-based organized, have mercantilism, have contacts between lands, have what humans search by their nature.......::P-O-W-E-R::........

Now, god is simply there to explain what science or other things can't explain. Maybe also for the fear of afterlife. Well, god is a really lazy invention. (Thats why I think it could have been created here, in Spain). Just having something there to explain it, is like if I say that Mallorca F.C. will win the LEAGUE: this is mathematically impossible, because they are 3 last of the league. I promise that if this year the Mallorca F.C. wins the league, I will believe in miracles, in religion, and in god.

PS: Two days ago I sold my soul to one of my theist friends. He has a paper were we both signed explaining that I sold my soul to him for twenty cents. He still has the paper. I wonder what he think he has. I wonder if he has lower IQ than Forest Gump, or if it's just that he is too religiously blind.