The absolute absurdity of God

[Neo-Scholastic]

I've seen little evidence that belief in God is much of a barrier to sinning.

Here are some significant counterpoints to the claims that theism serves as comfort against grief, relief from ennui, hope for mercy, and longing for eternal justice.

• Relief from the specter or divine judgement.
  
• Freedom from externally imposed significance on one's life.
  
• Liberation from the fear of death.
  
• Unconstrained ability to define one's own ethical norms.
  

These are some very real emotional reasons for wanting atheism to be true. It is difficult, for me at least, to not see that adopting these atheistic attitudes gives one license to rationalize some fairly questionable behaviors.

… I’m asking you to think outside the box of your religion, and consider this scenario objectively for one second. Is it sincerely your position that the most probable reason someone like me is an atheist, is because I have rejected some profound revelation of truth that was waved under my nose? That that explaination is more likely than the notion that I simply don’t find the evidence compelling?

LadyC, I know you directed this reply to SteveII so I hope you don’t mind my addressing this point.

SteveII is very good at presenting a wide swath of observations that Christians believe support their faith and serve as evidence for it, such as historicity of the New Testament, changed lives, and cosmological arguments. These are all fine and good, though I suspect that few unbelievers find apologetics sufficient to positively convince him or her that the claims of the Christianity are true.

The value of the believers’ list of evidences, IMHO, is revealed in the very word apologetics - from the original Greek meaning “speaking in defense”. The arguments serve, in part, as defense against objections to the sacred doctrines of special revelation held by faith. More than anything they remove barriers to belief. The question for believers is not whether there is empirical evidence or compelling logical proof that Christianity is true; but rather, if it is rational to believe that the articles of faith accurately reflect the highly individual and personal sense that there is something Divine calling out to your innermost being.

I submit to you that at least some people, perhaps not all, feel a profound sensus divinitatis (No, not divine ta-tas, that’s another discussion) that requires religious explanation and which in the absence of defeaters is rational to accept as indicative of important truths about reality.

[RoadRunner79]

Exists - haveing objective reality or being.

This is one definition, but those that I looked at, do not support your statement. Webster’s even mentions spiritual or physical being.

---

How can something have being, without time to 'be' in? If there is no time, then something cannot 'be'.

How can something exist, if there is no space to do it in?

Do time and space exist? Do they have to exist within another time and space. So on, and so on ad infintum?

[The Grand Nudger]

Here are some significant counterpoints to the claims that theism serves as comfort against grief, relief from ennui, hope for mercy, and longing for eternal justice.

• Relief from the specter or divine judgement.
  
• Freedom from externally imposed significance on one's life.
  
• Liberation from the fear of death.
  
• Unconstrained ability to define one's own ethical norms.
  

These are some very real emotional reasons for wanting atheism to be true. It is difficult, for me at least, to not see that adopting these atheistic attitudes gives one license to rationalize some fairly questionable behaviors.

I've never worried about divine judgement.  I wouldn't worry about it even if it were real.  I don't worry about things I can't do anything about.

I'm certainly not free from externally imposed significance on my life..that's not something atheism can do.

See item 1.  

Like number two..I don't have some sort of unconstrained ability to define my own ethical norms.  

If a person wanted atheism to be true for any of those reasons.....they'd be engaging in the same wishthinking that a theist was, imo.  Atheism isn't going to make a fearful person less fearful.   Atheism doesn't free us from the specifics of our lives, societal structures, or facts.

[SteveII]

Exists - haveing objective reality or being.

This is one definition, but those that I looked at, do not support your statement. Webster’s even mentions spiritual or physical being.

---

How can something have being, without time to 'be' in? If there is no time, then something cannot 'be'.

How can something exist, if there is no space to do it in?

If by 'something' you mean something material, then yes, your point is correct.

God (and a first cause) is not material. Therefore does not have to have 'space' to contain him. Nor does he need 'time' that is a necessary dimension of a series of causes/effects because why would an omniscient God be in some sort of continuous state of changing to mark the passage of time? He would just exist timelessly between any decision to act.

[Neo-Scholastic]

How can something exist, if there is no space to do it in?

The number 7 doesn't seem too take up too much room.

[Simon Moon]

How can something have being, without time to 'be' in? If there is no time, then something cannot 'be'.

How can something exist, if there is no space to do it in?

Do time and space exist?  Do they have to exist within another time and space. So on, and so on ad infintum?

Time and space do not exist. They are attributes of the universe, which does exist.

If you measure an object and find that it is 2 meters long, does that mean 2 meters exists? No, it is an attribute of the object being measured.

---

How can something exist, if there is no space to do it in?

The number 7 doesn't seem too take up too much room.

And the number 7 does not exist, except as a concept in our minds.

Are you saying that your god is a concept in our minds, like the number 7?

Wow! We agree on something!

---

If by 'something' you mean something material, then yes, your point is correct.

God (and a first cause) is not material. Therefore does not have to have 'space' to contain him. Nor does he need 'time' that is a necessary dimension of a series of causes/effects because why would an omniscient God be in some sort of continuous state of changing to mark the passage of time? He would just exist timelessly between any decision to act.

Yes, I know that is what you believe.

As I said earlier, you are then defining the word "exist" in some very incoherent way that you need to clarify. Just repeating that your god 'exists' in some special way that doesn't require space and time, tells me nothing, and begs so many questions, I don't know where to start.

[RoadRunner79]

Do time and space exist?  Do they have to exist within another time and space. So on, and so on ad infintum?

Time and space do not exist. They are attributes of the universe, which does exist.

If you measure an object and find that it is 2 meters long, does that mean 2 meters exists? No, it is an attribute of the object being measured.

Ok... I would disagree, that time and space do not exist. But this view seems to answer / refute your previous question

How can something have being, without time to 'be' in? If there is no time, then something cannot 'be'.

How can something exist, if there is no space to do it in?

It doesn't make sense to me, to say on one hand, that for something to exist, it has to "be in" time or space, and then to claim that these things do not exist.

[SteveII]

---

If by 'something' you mean something material, then yes, your point is correct.

God (and a first cause) is not material. Therefore does not have to have 'space' to contain him. Nor does he need 'time' that is a necessary dimension of a series of causes/effects because why would an omniscient God be in some sort of continuous state of changing to mark the passage of time? He would just exist timelessly between any decision to act.

Yes, I know that is what you believe.

As I said earlier, you are then defining the word "exist" in some very incoherent way that you need to clarify. Just repeating that your god 'exists' in some special way that doesn't require space and time, tells me nothing, and begs so many questions, I don't know where to start.

I'm not defining anything. It is what the argument produces: a first cause must exist beginningless, timeless, immaterial...among other things.

[Mister Agenda]

The impossibility of a past infinity has never been proven. It is counter-intuitive but can't be logically deduced without assuming the conclusion. I'm agnostic about whether it's possible. From my point of view, theologians tie themselves in knots over this seeming paradox unnecessarily. Zeno presented us with paradoxes, but the paradox doesn't actually keep us from overtaking and passing the slower runner or keep the arrow from reaching its target. The paradox of an infinite past never catching up to the present may be similar in nature. Even if time is past infinite, there has to be a present time somewhen, right?

Yes, it is proven to be impossible. By logic. If there are infinite series of events in the past, we could never have gone through them one after another to get to the current event. At any step in the series, there would always be an infinite more events that needed to be traversed. 

Zeno proved nothing. His examples were dividing. We are talking about addition: one event added at a time in a series. 

Saying a past infinite may still be possible is a high intellectual price to pay in an argument. That's why most back away and claim the universe is a brute fact. Not that we don't know the explanation, but there is no explanation.

Then present the proof, in formal logic. I am prepared to be amazed and for you to make history. As I predicted, so far you've only assumed your conclusion, essentially 'a past infinite is impossible, therefore a past infinite is impossible'. That's what accepting it as a brute fact means. You've started and stopped at your premise and proven nothing.

---

How can something exist, if there is no space to do it in?

The number 7 doesn't seem too take up too much room.

It takes up a little bit, though.

[Abaddon_ire]

---

Yes, I know that is what you believe.

As I said earlier, you are then defining the word "exist" in some very incoherent way that you need to clarify. Just repeating that your god 'exists' in some special way that doesn't require space and time, tells me nothing, and begs so many questions, I don't know where to start.

I'm not defining anything. It is what the argument produces: a first cause must exist beginningless, timeless, immaterial...among other things.

How do you know that such a first cause MUST exist? You don't is the correct answer, it is just another unevidenced claim that you made up out of whole cloth.