Religion Has Maciamo proved that God doesn't exist?

Tsuyoiko

DON'T PANIC!
Messages
970
Reaction score
85
Points
0
Maciamo claims to prove that a personal god cannot exist:
Maciamo said:
I reject the very concept of god for several reasons, explained in various threads in this subforum. In short, a personal god (i.e. with human emotions, a gender, feelings such as love, anger, compassion...) cannot exist because:
1) emotions and feelings require a material brain to exist.
2) An immaterial god could not have created the "existence" without creating itself, which is impossible, out of nothing.
3) With an eternal Universe (i.e. that has always existed), God could only exist as being all the Universe of part of it. Part of it doesn't make much sense, and all of it equals calling it the Universe itself.
1) As I see it, the first part of this proof rests on two things:
a) a personal god is claimed to have emotions
b) emotions and feelings require a material brain to exist

a) The Christian god clearly has emotions, for example:
1 Corinthians 13:4-8; I John 4:7-21; Psalm 106:1; Hebrews 12: 5-13 said:
God Is Love

But are there any personal gods that aren't claimed to have emotions?

b) Is Maciamo right that a material brain is required? i.e. Can information be stored in a non-physical way?

2) Can something be created out of nothing? According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, no, but that only applies to closed systems. Is it clear that the universe is, and always has been, a closed system?

3) I suppose this depends on what you mean by 'universe'. To me, the universe is everything that exists or has existed, so god would have to be inside the universe. Is it meaningful to talk of something that exists outside the universe?
 
Why don't you Brits use the proper word 'proven'? :p

Anyhow, I would much rather see Maciamo, Strongvoicesforward, and perhaps even kumo, all atheists who seem quite convinced of their correctness vs Philosophy and Mariner of the Philosophy Forum. These two are among the best Christian debators that I have come across, and they seem very well versed in many areas, most probably including the neurosciences.
 
Tsuyoiko said:
To me, the universe is everything that exists or has existed, so god would have to be inside the universe.

Then, would you accept God has limits?

Can God be limited?

If the Universe is expanding, then that would mean God does not exist on the other side of the expansion -- according to your statement.

If God does not exist on the other side, then He couldn`t be omnipotent for then He would have a realm of some place that He has no knowledge of.

So, then what would be your definition of a God? Just some being more knowledgeable than us?

But, if God exists in the Universe and we do to, then it would theoretically be possible to know everything about God because His totality is somewhere that is accessable.

I sure don`t know the answers. But your statement I am willing to bet could never be accepted by anyone in the Xtian faith because the implications are too obvious.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
If the Universe is expanding, then that would mean God does not exist on the other side of the expansion -- according to your statement.
That's using a common use of the word universe, but might not be what I mean by universe. Perhaps I should say 'multiverse'.
strongvoicesforward said:
So, then what would be your definition of a God?
Well I'm not sure. Part of the idea of this thread is to collect some definitions which we can then test.
 
Human emotions are all caused by chemical reactions on the brain, they can be easily manipulated using drugs and/or changing the brain physically (like a surgery). So, we can say for sure our emotions depends only on natural causes, and it is impossible to have them without the necessary chemical reactions.
For a god to have emotions he would need the same chemicals we humans do, which in turn are made of matter and can be proved to exist or not. To say god can have emotions without it would be like saying something can burn without any matter; it's self-contradictory, just like god. And if god is a physical being (as he would need to be to have emotions), we could easily change his feelings with drugs and even kill him, which obviously go against the idea of omnipotence!
That's why I think any god with emotions (personal god) is absurd. Of course, this argument is not valid for any other kind of god (like the deist one), but that is for another thread.
 
kumo said:
Human emotions are all caused by chemical reactions on the brain, they can be easily manipulated using drugs and/or changing the brain physically (like a surgery). So, we can say for sure our emotions depends only on natural causes, and it is impossible to have them without the necessary chemical reactions.
For a god to have emotions he would need the same chemicals we humans do, which in turn are made of matter and can be proved to exist or not.
This is the point I find difficult. Granted, our emotions exist entirely in the brain - that's proven by neuroscience. Does it follow that that is the only way emotions can be caused? If my cough is caused by smoking, is smoking the only way to get a cough?
 
It's hard to prove the "existence" of an immaterial being or concept. Taking the example of "God is love," it's hard to prove the "existence" of love, let alone God. I think this difficulty is compounded by the fact that in the true sense of the word, God defies definition. To define what God is, is to lose sight of the true meaning of the idea.

I think that some theists get too wrapped up in the doctrine of their choosing when trying to prove the existence of their god(s), and some atheists get too wrapped up in trying to disprove them through contradictions in aforementioned documents, or comparing scientific theories to attempts at defining the almighty/universal truth.

I don't really like the word "God," mostly because everyone seems to attach this idea of an actual sentient being to the term. While I'm not a member of any particular religion, what all religions try to do (particularly the meditative ones, which even christianity was at first) is try to strip away the superficial levels of existence (body, mind) in order to get in touch with the Universal Truth, by whatever name you call it. This truth is not some external force or being, but closer to our true, unconditioned identity. What all mystics claim about this understanding is that as they approach it, their ability to comprehend the universe increases, but it becomes harder to define. Essentially, the totality of "God" is within our grasp, but it's through experience and searching within ourselves that we can understand the Ultimate Reality. It's not something that can be "taught," but the approach to understanding is what differs between the various religious sects.
 
Tsuyoiko said:
This is the point I find difficult. Granted, our emotions exist entirely in the brain - that's proven by neuroscience. Does it follow that that is the only way emotions can be caused? If my cough is caused by smoking, is smoking the only way to get a cough?
The smoking analogy is not a good one, because whatever explanation is used, it will always rely on matter and natural causes. Now for the fire analogy, can we say without any doubt matter is required for something to burn? According to everything we know about fire, yes, we can. If someone were to claim differently, the burden of proof would be with him. The same goes to emotions, if someone claim it's possible to have them without matter, he needs to prove it. Until then it's just a meaningless idea.
 
@Universe

Let us not get into a pointless discussion about the universe vs multiverse, or different dimensions. My definition of "Universe" is not the one some scientist or astronomist use, meaning "cosmos" or "set of galaxies". I use the philosophical meaning, i.e. "everything that exist", even if that "everything" includes an infinity of multiverses, cosmoses, galaxies and dimensions. What astronomists or physicists see is just our "part" of the universe. But the whole universe cannot be in expansion if it is infinite. Expansion requires some "emptiness" toward which it expands. So the Universe (with a capital letter) includes that emptiness, which is part of the whole. All infinite emptiness there may be beyond is part of the Universe, and that is why it can only be infinite.

Tsuyoiko said:
This is the point I find difficult. Granted, our emotions exist entirely in the brain - that's proven by neuroscience. Does it follow that that is the only way emotions can be caused? If my cough is caused by smoking, is smoking the only way to get a cough?

But emotions are not "caused" by the brain, they take place in the brain. They are not caused by chemical reactions, they are chemical reactions.
 
Given the materialistic parameters set by Maciamo, I believe that he is successful. If the numbered premises of his proof are true, his conclusion is solid.
 
In meterial ways he might be accurate

But when one Imgines Something,It exists or existed for a second even,Inside the mind,It doesn't need ot be what people think of it,but the concept Is there and thus it exists

Its like a story ,the story never happened,but the story itself does Exist

"and no I don't belive in god,but by thinking of him and talking about him,we keep the concept of god alive thus even if he never existed,we created him"
 
]-wandering-raven-[ said:
Its like a story ,the story never happened,but the story itself does Exis
Seeing it this way, I must admit that god, and any gods ever imagined by humans, all exist, as ideas in our minds... But so do dragons, elves, all kinds of aliens and anyone's wildest fantasies. In fact, I do believe that dragons or other fantastic creatures might exist somewhere in the Universe, under different living conditions than on Earth now. It might even be possible to genetically engineer one of those creatures in the future. After all, dinosaurs did exist, and are not so different from the dragons of fantastic movies (well, I admit that our genetically engineered dragon may not throw fire :eek:kashii: ). I am very open minded about the possibilities of the universe. I do believe that an infinity of life beings exist on an infinity of planets somewhere in the infinity of the Universe. But we humans may never reach another of these planets, or if we do, not many of them, given our short life-span and the long distances, because I am more skeptical about light-speed travel...
 
"then open your mind and dream maciamo,It'll exist inside you,If you want it to"
"modern day life is near to impossible with too much thoughts,if you question too much,you'll see more problems,but a thought of other things can be relaxing,as a book or tv show..If you want it to ,all can exist,and may be hope we'll never reach the realm that our subconscience creates, It may hold roses and sakura petals,It also holds our greatest fears and nightmares"
 
]-wandering-raven-[ said:
"then open your mind and dream maciamo,It'll exist inside you,If you want it to"
"modern day life is near to impossible with too much thoughts,if you question too much,you'll see more problems,but a thought of other things can be relaxing,as a book or tv show..If you want it to ,all can exist,and may be hope we'll never reach the realm that our subconscience creates, It may hold roses and sakura petals,It also holds our greatest fears and nightmares"

Yes, I like that kind of vision of the world too. :)
 
The term god won't be erased too soon,but as many things, God is used ,and abused

"like the best play i've seen on religion and politics so far Hitler in it said "

"A good Ruler uses his peoples beliefs to his advantage"

"truly..i found those wordzs rather true"

"Gods are created for justifying many cuases,and also Death in name of a god that dislikes death"
 
kumo said:
The smoking analogy is not a good one, because whatever explanation is used, it will always rely on matter and natural causes.
Maciamo said:
But emotions are not "caused" by the brain, they take place in the brain. They are not caused by chemical reactions, they are chemical reactions.
I agree, it was a poor analogy. But I still need help. Although all emotions we know of are brain states, does it follow that that's the only way emotions can exist? Or to simplify the question, is there an immaterial way to store information?
 
nice gaijin said:
It's hard to prove the "existence" of an immaterial being or concept. Taking the example of "God is love," it's hard to prove the "existence" of love, let alone God. I think this difficulty is compounded by the fact that in the true sense of the word, God defies definition. To define what God is, is to lose sight of the true meaning of the idea.
I don't think anything defies definition. We might not have the language or knowledge to define something, but that doesn't mean it can't be defined.
nice gaijin said:
I don't really like the word "God," mostly because everyone seems to attach this idea of an actual sentient being to the term.
That's exectly what Maciamo has claimed to prove - that a sentient god can't exist. Any other kind of gods get let of the hook for now!
nice gaijin said:
While I'm not a member of any particular religion, what all religions try to do (particularly the meditative ones, which even christianity was at first) is try to strip away the superficial levels of existence (body, mind) in order to get in touch with the Universal Truth, by whatever name you call it. This truth is not some external force or being, but closer to our true, unconditioned identity. What all mystics claim about this understanding is that as they approach it, their ability to comprehend the universe increases, but it becomes harder to define. Essentially, the totality of "God" is within our grasp, but it's through experience and searching within ourselves that we can understand the Ultimate Reality. It's not something that can be "taught," but the approach to understanding is what differs between the various religious sects.
What you describe here is pretty much the difficulty I had in deciding if I believed in god. I believe in mystical experiences, and I confused that with god. I now think that a mystical experience is one in which you feel yourself to be part of something impressive that could exist without you. And that doesn't require a separate consciousness, IMO - so I'm an atheist.
 
Maciamo said:
I use the philosophical meaning, i.e. "everything that exist", even if that "everything" includes an infinity of multiverses, cosmoses, galaxies and dimensions. What astronomists or physicists see is just our "part" of the universe. But the whole universe cannot be in expansion if it is infinite. Expansion requires some "emptiness" toward which it expands. So the Universe (with a capital letter) includes that emptiness, which is part of the whole. All infinite emptiness there may be beyond is part of the Universe, and that is why it can only be infinite.
That is exactly what I mean by Universe. Thanks Maciamo :)
 
sabro said:
Given the materialistic parameters set by Maciamo, I believe that he is successful. If the numbered premises of his proof are true, his conclusion is solid.
I agree - the conclusion follows from the premises. But the hard work is in deciding if the premises are in fact true! :relief:
 
Tsuyoiko said:
I agree, it was a poor analogy. But I still need help. Although all emotions we know of are brain states, does it follow that that's the only way emotions can exist? Or to simplify the question, is there an immaterial way to store information?

The word "emotions" refers to emotions human beings know about, simply because we are humans using a human-made language. We also happen to be the most intellectually developed species on the planet, which does not give us the chance to observe other "superior" emotions. However, I am pretty sure that an animal species with a more complex brain and higher intelligence could experience more complex emotions than us. In fact, humans already have thousands of distinct emotions which are refered under a general term (e.g. there are many kinds of "anger", and indeed many words for it in English, but surely not enough to describe all nuances of possible angers).

However, it doesn't matter "how many" emotions there can exist, or how many we don't know about, there are no more proofs that emotions can exist outside a physical mind than proofs than "immateriality" exist.

I think that many people are confused about the meaning of "material vs spiritual". Originally, the word "spiritual" refered to things that we could see, happening in our minds (thoughts, emotions, feelings...). But in philosophy, the word "material" also includes invisible energy, including what is going on in our brain. So far there is no proof that anything "immaterial" exist anywhere in the Universe.

Too many people already cannot distinguish between feelings and emotions, and indeed I don't know any language that has clear-cut words separating sensual feelings (warth, cold, pain, physical unease, sweat...), complex emotional feelings (real love, friendship, humanity, rivalry...), raw emotions (fear, anger, excitement, joy, sadness...), complex emotions (such as coneyed by music, a painting, etc.), intuitive feelings (premonition, body language...), socio-spititual feelings (sense of harmony, belonging or security; meditation, consciousness...), etc.

What I want to say is that, never mind how we humans categorise and define emotions and feelings, they are all merely chemical reactions between the neurons in our brain. This has been proven, because we can see a neural activity by magnetic resonance, scanner, or other brain imaging tools, for any emotion or feeling. This somehow proves that "emotions" (as understood by humans and defined by the human word), only exist in the material form (e.g. energy, chemcial reactions...). Removing, altering or inhibiting (with chemicals, electric impulses...) a part of the brain, prevents emotions from happening or existing. This shows that there is nothing "immaterial" in their properties, otherwise a "material" (i.e physical or chemical) change would not have any effect on them.

We can of course speculate that something similar to human emotions could exist in an "immaterial form", for which we have not the slighest proof or even sign of existence. This is really far-fetched, and personally I think that aliens or fantastic creatures in all their forms are extremely more likely to exist than "immateriality". Even if "immateriality" exist, it wouldn't increase the likelihood of an omnipotent/creator god.
 

This thread has been viewed 47471 times.

Back
Top