How can God not exist

All thing's at one point have allway's not existed untill someone make's them exist, hence that would be the "so called undefined start"

The problem finding when that start was, or what person had started all the end's and other start's made from the first... it seem like even if it could be thought of... it could not be physicaly proven... only word's could..

I have a question are you mentally deficient ??? the guy above this post got my point

How can God not exist?

Why is time necessarily linear, other than the fact we have always experienced as so?

Why would the linear nature of time imply that it has a creator? Certainly the creation of time is not bound by the laws of time, no matter how it came about.

You have not made an argument to support your statement.

Simple;
Existence is Contextual/Definitional; dualistic.
By definition, 'god' is not 'Contextual' or 'defined' (non-dual, 'One').
Existence is the 'created', not the 'Creator'.
Therefore, 'god' cannot exist.

this only proves god is different than what he created unless your assuming god had to be created which isn't necessarily true

and for point 2 my argument deals with time not cycles of big bangs and crunches explained in a oscillatory system as far as time goes it is linear, it also it always making progress forward so either time always existed or was made ( go figure isn't it that way with everything) The very nature of time points to a creator without a start any point in time is the same as all the others that means time wouldn't be linear.... but it is

You are willfully ignorant of my argument as for time and it being it not being linear it has to be other wise it would be possible to travel back in time which is impossible proven by theory of relativity and your second point is why it had to be created LOL

How you can try to use relativity to support an opinion that seems to hold that time is both linear and absolute is perplexing.

I am done.

God exists in the minds on humans so I guess you could say he exists as a concept. Other than that there is absolutely no evidence for God. The universe evolves which is a property of living things. Living things cannot be created. Therefore, the universe is living and cannot have a creator.

In response to one: How did God start? Well in my opinion with a simple question. Existentially, something along the lines of- 'what should I do next?' But there is also the raw human will to own and control. Such as inventing an entity which puts the human race at the centre of the universe; remember being taught about the resistance that people showed when it was theorized that the earth moved around the sun, as opposed the Earth being at the centre of all local orbit? This kind of thinking is related to less inquisitive and lazy thinking. Something along the lines of 'What was that?' a lack of control of the environment is presented and you would react with an answer like... "O' that was Atlas flexing his shoulders, he gets tired holding up the sky." The rest of your response doesn't seem relevant to my point of God being in your own image as a defense against that which you can't control (predict, understand, fathom... whatever.)

In response to two: Please go on then. If time so blatantly indicates the existence of something to generate it-- [1] the existence of A = the existence of B-- then it follows that the existence of B = the existence of C and so on ad infinitum. And could not a cycle of big bangs (a cycle of the creations of time and space) indicate a cycle of the recreation of the start point of time? Also this is one example, please feel free to delve into the many models that exist to excuse infinite timelines... not that a finite time line indicates a God... refer to [1]

Also you did not attempt to address the idea that the creator concept (especially in a Christian context [which I assume this is]) can be disbanded by taking a look at the ridiculous explanation ratio. Let me elaborate for you though...

The existence of the Christian God explains a few things... How the earth was created, why we are here and how we should live our lives. But in the explaining of these three things it refuses to address the 1'000's maybe 10's of 1000's of assumptions made... a sacrifice of truth- ironic as that is a Christian value held close to heart. Things assumed are...
that angels exist, that Jesus was reborn from death, the existence of Mary, the existence of God himself, the possibility of such a being, that humans could know, that the Bible can be trusted... and so on. Where as Darwin's theory assumes one things, a common ancestor but, explains 10s of 1000s of questions.
So creation via God= 3/1000's (Q's answered/things assumed)-- compared to a real theory like Darwin's-- 1000's/1. That was more what I was poking at. If you can explain why we should listen to the reasoning you offer under such circumstances, then I'm sure I would be more willing to listen... and this is not a faith issue, this is a sense issue to be dealt with in apparent reality; and your answer (God) seems so arbitrary in this context that I find it hard to take you seriously.

Dan.

nothing has shown to evolve only change species adapt but never changes specie lines

Please don't focus on that, it was an example! Any good theory will hold true to a good explanation ration, Darwin's is just a particularly good one. Just concentrate on responding to the lines that have one of these---> ? at the end, if you are going to cherry pick.

You responded to Theatetus as well...

Don't let this distract from the real issue but... 'specie line' is a subjective label: A mouse is a mouse until it changes so much that we choose to relabel it. If you agree mice can grow (change) then you agree that mice can loose their tails (change), you also agree that it's nose can turn green... perhaps to adapt; how many changes would you insist on before we relabel it a new species. Or am I wrong? Is there is an objective definition for what 'change[s]' are required to qualify for new-species creation.

Dan.

I'm glad you see my logic some mysteries will always exist I suppose. You agree something had to start it?

Physical characteristics are not the only thing that evolves. Look at the universe as an example. Chemical reactions happen all the time. Simple atoms such as hydrogen and helium evolve into more complex atoms until you end up with uranium. One minute stars exist and then disappear taking out hole regions of galaxies, which is the mechanism that creates enough energy to act as a catalyst for more complex atoms. To think that God is responsible for these evolution is to think that God pops stars like balloons. That is pure ridiculous.

Honestly I cannot prove that God does not exist, but that is not my job. The person that claims God exists must prove that fact. I only provide evidence that proves that if there is a God he/she is not a creator. Anything that evolves cannot have a creator because things that are created cannot evolve. I can create a song, but it is incapable of altering without me evolving as a guitar player. I could paint a picture but it will not spontaneously change as its environmental pressures put strain upon it. Much in the same way, people created the idea of God, but for God to evolve it takes new thinking of humans to change the concept.

The question then is what good is a God that has no effect upon any living system?

It is interesting how one can cite the theory of relativity to prove their point and then attack someone for using another theory, of evolution, and do so using outmoded Darwinian evolution. Go read John Archibald Wheeler's writings on the idea of reversible and non reversible processes, and don't cite the theory of relativity unless you can understand an accept the physics behind it as likely rather than absolute. There are no laws of science, only likelihoods. A law would imply that induction is absolute truth, this is false for we do not know of all possible events, we only draw up a theory by what we see.

Assume god created everything. God is then not a thing unless god created himself. God created existence, thus god does not exist unless he created himself. Our minds are a product of god thus any conception of god which we have was created by god. Our universe is not self causual thus not of the same nature as god. Take that as you will.

Assume that god created our physical universe. You argue that our physical universe (perhapse the multiverse conjectured by Mikio Kaku) is not infinite for time is not infinite as defined as the distance between two physical events. However, you assume that time is not infinte by stating that you cannot concieve of it and a man cannot do it, thus god cannot do it, assuming god has the limitations of man while claiming that he has no limitations, a contradiction.

Further, assuming god caused himself is not in contradiciton to any assumptions made in this thread. God created the physical universe and all that exists, god is caused by god, thus existence is caused by that which is caused by itself which it god. Since god is eternal and self causing, surely then so can be the universe?

Pick that apart, I'm not entirely sincere in the argument but I would like to see it refuted.

Edit:A good objective measure of species is interbreeding, it has been suggested that classification be genetic based upon whether an animal can interbreed with another. There is still the problem of classifictation by physical appearance. A dual classification might not be a bad idea.

It is interesting how one can cite the theory of relativity to prove their point and then attack someone for using another theory, of evolution, and do so using outmoded Darwinian evolution. Go read John Archibald Wheeler's writings on the idea of reversible and non reversible processes, and don't cite the theory of relativity unless you can understand an accept the physics behind it as likely rather than absolute. There are no laws of science, only likelihoods. A law would imply that induction is absolute truth, this is false for we do not know of all possible events, we only draw up a theory by what we see.

Assume god created everything. God is then not a thing unless god created himself. God created existence, thus god does not exist unless he created himself. Our minds are a product of god thus any conception of god which we have was created by god. Our universe is not self causual thus not of the same nature as god. Take that as you will.

Assume that god created our physical universe. You argue that our physical universe (perhapse the multiverse conjectured by Mikio Kaku) is not infinite for time is not infinite as defined as the distance between two physical events. However, you assume that time is not infinte by stating that you cannot concieve of it and a man cannot do it, thus god cannot do it, assuming god has the limitations of man while claiming that he has no limitations, a contradiction.

Further, assuming god caused himself is not in contradiciton to any assumptions made in this thread. God created the physical universe and all that exists, god is caused by god, thus existence is caused by that which is caused by itself which it god. Since god is eternal and self causing, surely then so can be the universe?

Pick that apart, I'm not entirely sincere in the argument but I would like to see it refuted.

Edit:A good objective measure of species is interbreeding, it has been suggested that classification be genetic based upon whether an animal can interbreed with another. There is still the problem of classifictation by physical appearance. A dual classification might not be a bad idea.