How can God not exist

Your right that the chicken wasn't a chicken but it is highly probably that it still laid eggs. That is unless proto-chickens spontaneously came into being. :deflated:

That is assuming that something needed to be programmed. :na:

[quote=OntheWindowStand]something to remember is that change only occurs to a species when it changes where it lives that is because the sub species that is the best suited thus survives and it appears as though something changed in reality when put back in the same environment the sub species that flourished before will continue its past prosperity and another "change will occur" this is just the survival of the fittest at work no specie changes occur though the basis of what makes it certain animal hasn't shown to ever change[/quote]

1: that post has no punctuation; it is hard to read. Can you sort it out?
2: I asked you specifically... 'Don't let this distract' and yet you did!
3: That has nothing to do with this post, which contains the rebuttals I wanted discussing.
4: You simply restated that species can change! I ask[ed] you... how many changes would it take to qualify for new species, addressing what I saw as a subjective nonsense that you put forward.

Is my communication really that bad, that it has been two days now and I can't get you to address some simple queries? Again I refer you to this post, re-read it and either respond constructively or not at all. If you don't understand it- apologies- let me know where my communication fails me and I'll try to reiterate. If not, and your just being a Christian, then please, just admit it and don't babble on in response to what was, an arbitrary example (Darwin's theory.) I explained that it was an example and that any good theory could replace it. These posts take time and I put a lot of effort into what I write to you. I try to respond accurately and in good form- so you can understand... futile is it? Or denial on your behalf?

Either way I don't care enough to continue if you can not engage me seriously. I forgot how idiotic it is to engage Christians in a philosophical discussion! If I don't get a sensible response to- again- this post, then I'll assume it is because you can't understand or don't want to deal with it. Like I said, I'm happy to reiterate and accept that your not interested or that my communication is bad... but I think this is not the case.

Dan.

Im not a big fan of the high i.q. societies, however, this may be of interest when considering the chicken or the egg, I found it at least entertaining: The Chicken or the Egg?

Cheers Zetetic,
That was an interesting read, I had never considered some of the evolutionary problems mentioned before. But a quick glance at some of the simple explanations given made for some fun speculation.

Dan.:a-ok:

Who created god? If god is eternal, his beginning cannot be defined and thus how can he exist?

I wasnt assuming:rolleyes:

Hydrogen dosnt tell it's self how to act, it just act's how it act's, so somthing had to tell the first hydrogen atom how to act, or it wouldnt act how it act's, or even function how it funtion's presently.

But, yea I see what you mean

Well the forces of nature tell the hydrogen how to act, giving it properties, etc.

how did the forces of nature start?

How did God start?

Come now, logic doesn't apply to discussions on religion...

God can't be defined so that question is meaningless but forces of nature can be so that why it is differnt

Our current understanding of the forces of nature are only a description of how nature works.

God can be both defined and described. Remember that "define" etymologically is synonymous with setting boundaries or parameters. If I ask you whether god is good or bad, you'll say good. If I ask you whether god is powerful or weak, you'll say powerful. If I ask whether he's eternal or finite, you'll say eternal. If I ask whether he's conscious or unconscious, you'll say conscious. If I ask whether he's moral or amoral, you'll say moral. Etc. And in-so-doing you've delimited God, and this can go on and on and on.

And since part of your definition of god is that he is eternal, then you are forced to explain how he can exist without ever having a beginning, because you levied that same argument about nature.

Furthermore, since "forces of nature" are rooted in the presumed generalizability of human observations, their definition is only as good as our ability to observe and interpret.

You are cheating.

Not only is this a red herring that doesn't prove the existence of God if it were true, but there are other things:

1) You are defining God as undefinable.

2) The justification you use is built into the definition you give to God.

3) Simply because we have defined some of the forces of nature, you cannot assume that we have or will be able to define all of them. It is quite possible that there are portions of nature that are unfathomable as well.

Here is a question I have for you, Onthewindowstand:

You assume that nature must start, why? Do not include modern physics in your answer because modern physics, if you are truely on the up and up at all, does not posit any such assertion and indeed conjectures the infinitude of scope of physical reality both in size and time length. Also, know that if you base your argument on any analogy, it shall either be false or a human limit imposed on god. For instance, your painter analogy. You posit that a painter cannot paint a line that is infinite in both directions and that this implys that god cannot, yet you assert that god is omnipotent and not within bounds of physical reality but beyond its bounds.

I think that if you disregard my two stipulations you shall inevitably draw a limit to god, however, if you follow them; you will find it quite impossible to answer the question. Prove me wrong.

I didn't limit god with my analogy but I did limit natures ability to be forever and to create it self

:a-thought:
...:detective:Well, there is also the question of "why did god"

But it seem's like if you figure out all reason's why there would not be a god, all that would be left is all the reason why there would be a god.

This same thing can be applied to the question "how did god"
Hence if you figure out all way's how a god could not start, all that would be left is all the way's how a god could start.

It's a dualism of oppisite's, to find what somthing is not, is allso to find what it is.

There are only a finite or infinit amount of reason's why or why not, or way's how or how not.

So it seem's like man has the power to create the answer to how, and why, by first understanding how not and why not, before man can understand how and why.

A 'definition/context' is both 'positive' attributes AND 'negative' attributes; 'positive' meaning 'is this', 'is that' inherent with 'is not this', 'is not that' (negatory). The simple 'is not' is not a definition in itself.
You are engaging in intellectual sophistic dishonesty.

Then you limit god, for by limiting the possibilities in his creation you limit his ability to create. It is implicitly so. i suggest you take after protoman as I have seen you commenting on his very similar thread, and realize how nonsensical it is to try to prove and define god by using somthing(logic in this case) which by definition is god's creation and since god is omnipotent he is not bound by it lest he be bound at all and thus limited.

It seems to me absurd and bizzarely arrogant to define somthing as beyond you and then conjecture upon its nature as though it were not. But I suppose that is just me, as you have so clearly pointed out by example that you are immune such contradictions.

I might further point out that it is the case that there is no truth value assignable to a non-descript object; for if the object is not definable its truth value cannot be determined by default. i.e. To determine whether or not it is the case that what is unkown is true or not is by default nonsense. e.g. A=object in the known universe B=it is the creator f()= has the property f
there is an f(A)<--->B where A is not existent by default lest god created himself with existence, is a logical contradiction by definition for A must have the same truth value of B. You cannot create a one to one mapping of any set of objects onto god because god, by definition is not contained within the chosen set and contains the chosen set. To be a bit less technical and esoteric: Just like a cup can't be defined by a handle, if all that can be considered is the handle, you cannot arrive to a description of the cup.