God simply doesn't (can't) exist, so why not say so?

A lot of atheists claim to have no position on the existence of God and I see in this position a healthy portion of intellectual poverty if not outright dishonesty.

And yet clearly there not just isn't a God, there CAN'T be a God!

How can I make such a bold claim? 

First, because the concept of God is at heart a logical impossibility. A God who is omniscient can't also be omnipotent, for example, because as an omniscient being he knows the future, but if he already knows what will happen, then he can't change it, so he can't be omnipotent.

This alone should give atheists the ability to say "I believe there is no God. Not only that, there CAN'T be a God, at least as commonly conceived."

Beyond that, there is the complete and utter ridiculousness of the notions upon which the concept of God is built. Christian theists ask us to believe that the entire universe with created by a ghost/spirit with a human personality encompassing childish properties like jealousy, poor anger management, and a very mean streak. 

So, what is holding you back, guys? If all of the above isn't holding you back, what more would it take to agree to the obvious?

Views: 546

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I do believe that all gods as defined do not exist because of the complete lack of evidence, the sheer number of them, and their downright provincial and ridiculous nature and because humans must explain everything and alleviate our fear of death. Nevertheless, I also believe that a god or gods may exist.

So you believe that magical beings able to contravene the laws of the universe may factually exist?

 Can an as yet undefined "something" be responsible for our universe or some subset of it, yes, of course. I do not see how anyone can rule that out. Are you saying that if science proves the existence of a god, you would still not believe?

Lets face it, we do not even know how much there is to know, so to make all out assumptions from our present vantage point seems dim-witted to me.

That is simply the god of the gaps argument though.

Essentially, if you don't understand something, god did it.

So, yes, absolutely, if science had not ruled out the existence of the supernatural, and, instead, had proven it, sure....then there WOULD BE EVIDENCE.

That is not the case though.

If the "something" is a physical/physics issue, and not a supernatural one...perhaps some combination of the fact that photons, electrons and positrons are generated by spacetime, as a property of spacetime...etc, that's not supernatural, or a being, and, therefore, could satisfy the criteria.

I would not ask a cloud or a body of water or spacetime to grant my prayers though, or expect any of them to reward or punish me for believing in them, etc.


Wrong. Everything we think we know about the universe can change, just like our pre-relativistic understanding of physics changed in a heartbeat. You speak of gaps, yet you dont even know if the stuff between the gaps is correct. Is our understanding of the universe at 1%, 0.1%,.000000000000000001%? You have no idea. I live my life as an atheist, but I will not be as arrogant as the religious and claim that I know what I do not. By making a claim there can not be a god you have more in common with a fundamentalist theist than a scientist.

Wrong, everything we know about the universe CAN'T change.

IE: 2+2 will still equal 4

The earth still goes around the sun.

We may find more details about how things work, but, what we KNOW will still be what we know.

And, I do NOT say I can prove a negative, I say I don't believe that there's a god, as there's no evidence.

My opinion, based upon the evidence, is that there is no god.  That is not a proof, it is a conclusion.


The difference between a fundamentalist who makes a claim with zero evidence for it, and myself, who makes a claim with ONLY evidence for it and none against it, is NOT the same.

That's a false equivalency.

Just because two people have reached a conclusion, doesn't mean that their conclusions are equally valid.

Do not play the arrogant card btw - It is not arrogant to state a belief based upon the evidence you have.

To imply its arrogant to say that because we DON'T KNOW what's out past our known universe, that we DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ELSE, is in of itself logically ridiculous.

That's essentially Ken Hamm's argument, and, you are using it.


So, no, nothing at all in common with a fundamentalist, as their claim is not valid...due to it not being based upon evidence.

Otherwise, we have a court case where the defendant says "I didn't do it, and I'm 100% sure of that, so find me innocent!"

Vs the prosecutor who has a row of witnesses who the defendant is accused of shooting, with cell phone video of him shooting them, security footage of it, and he was apprehended at the scene, also shown in the footage.

The jury says, we just don't know, one says hes innocent, one says he's guilty,, its 50/50


" Everything we know about the universe CAN'T change.

IE: 2+2 will still equal 4 The earth still goes around the sun"

Let us say we die out, go extinct. Guess what we know about the universe, nothing.

2 + 2 tells us nothing about the universe, math is a thought process.

And well  who's gonna say the earth goes around the sun in 7B years.

I, like any good scientist will allow that I may be wrong about my present conclusion of atheism and that the evidence for a god may yet to be discovered. You on the other hand are not open to being wrong, is that correct?

You are confusing something being known, with being true, with someone knowing it exists.

2+2=4...and did when the smartest thing on earth was a jelly fish.

After the sun goes supernova, etc, its still true...even if we are not here to "know it".

If you want to play at the word "know" so what you are instead saying is that if we are not here to know something, its not what we know anymore....fine, but that's a bit silly.

What's known is what we know, now.  Whatever that is will still be the case, even if we never knew it...or even if we know, and then have our brains destroyed,

IE: 2+2=4, period.


If you want to play at the word "know" so what you are instead saying is that if we are not here to know something, its not what we know anymore....fine, but that's a bit silly.

It's not silly at all. In facts physicists ponder about the nature of information all the time...Does it even exist without a host, etc. For all we know great future discoveries could up-end most everything we think we know to be true. I contend that we don't know jack shit yet and may never come close, so to go around making bold claims, now that is silly.

We do not even know what "life" is  or how it began. And quantum mechanics is an enigma wrapped in a riddle.

Again, I am willing to admit I may be wrong about my disbelief in gods and all that spiritual BS. I don't have evidence of aliens but do I claim I know they do not exist? Do you?

Gods are someones not somethings.

Are you sure you know the difference?

Even animalistic deities like Govinda or Hanuman are basically persons. 

On the other hand, it is pushing the concept beyond its limits to talk of Brahman as though it is a god. It is really more of a concept.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service