Believers claim that the non-existence of God, the gods, cannot be demonstrated. That’s what they want us to believe. But I am not a believer, I am a rationalist. There is, therefore, no reason for me not to question that peremptory statement. Not to be abused for a long time is the prerogative of the rationalist.
Even when I think that I have well reflected on an idea, I can go back to my hypotheses without any problem (obviously if I see the interest, going around in circles is not rational). It is also valid for this one, which I propose to you.
To begin with, the existence of a god is a fact or not, and if it is one it must be demonstrable or it is only a theory. In the case of invisible beings who manifest themselves in an equally invisible way, what is up with that? Either their action is tangible, it acts on the matter, or it does not. If it is not, then it is not an action. It’s nothing. A fact, the divine fact, if one existed, must, therefore, be demonstrable. It is not a conviction, and moreover, as many different convictions as there are believers. Scientists have the right to say loud and clear that there are no gods. (Why do not they?)
Words are used to label objects, living things, concepts, hypotheses, and so on. They serve to designate them so that we can talk about them between us. This is even more obvious for the word “god” which is a concept. This word is there to be shared, and even to impose its presence and sharing (I speak of the presence of the word). It’s not just for one person. It must be defined as precisely as possible so that we know what it is about, to be certain that we are talking about the same thing. Is that the case? Is this word well defined? What do believers say when you ask them for a precise definition that would allow you to decide? Do they all agree on the planet, among different religions, or among members of the same religious movement, or even among members of the same religion, or better still among members of the same family, in what is a god? I think there are as many definitions as there are believers, and even that every believer changes his definitions as he gets older.
The word “god” is the label of an invisible entity. And as for the god of monotheists, nobody knows his physiognomy, his morphology, his anatomy, his materiality (his immateriality?). Nobody knows where he lives, in what environment he lives, how he lives on a daily basis, his daily life, how he lives his eternity. Has he written an autobiography about his first half-eternity? Nobody knows his habits, except that he seems to have the purpose of watching us, watching his human maggots, made less than maggots compared to him, by his good care. One hundred billion humans to watch, present in the form of evanescent souls, in paradise, in hell, on Earth, and why not elsewhere, including nearly eight billion living in weak flesh and fragile bones today. Poor God! So where is his free will since we require him to monitor more than four additional brats per second or more than 140 million per year? The human vaginal submachine gun is well oiled. In the divine place, I would shake coconut on a tree elsewhere, but where?
Nobody has ever seen the slightest silhouette, or shadow of that god. He is shy, mysterious, hot-tempered, threatening, criminal, totally immoral. He thinks only of his interests. His behavior seems more like a devil than a god. Yet I did not ask him to exist as I am in this crazy world. Why is he threatening me with my imperfect behaviors, when it is he and no one else who has created me, procreated, manufactured, imperfect? (Same question to my parents and to the society, you bunch of dummies…)
But believers define him by his potentialities. The potentialities of this god are therefore his only definition. That suits me perfectly. It is, therefore, enough to establish clearly that these potentialities are far-fetched to demonstrate the impossibility of this god and, by the same, his non-existence. The impossibility, in this case, is equivalent to non-existence. It’s not a synonym, it’s an equivalence.
The first divine potentiality being its capacity to create, that is to say, that from nothing and in nothing, it does and puts something, the universe and us in this case. Extraordinary, is not it? To create is not to invent or to manufacture. It is a special word that is used. Creation is a divine potential and no one else has this potential. By definition what can we put in nothing? Well “nothing”, obviously. In nothing it cannot hold something otherwise it will be necessary to modify the definition of “nothing” (and it does not bother me, it would be enough to make of it, for example, a synonym for “something”, and that would be stupid).
Can we see, perceive, smell, feel, “nothing”? This “nothing” is not even punctual. It is total inexistence. Spatial inexistence, material inexistence, and inexistence of anything other than your unbridled imagination could invent.
For example, if the universe is finite, it means that around it there is nothing. Which means that the vast envelope of the universe does touch nothing, whereas this nothing is less than punctual. Interesting this connection between nothing and the largest thing, is not it?
Good for creation? Not yet. Have you ever seen an object be created? Me, never in the sense of divine creation. I have never seen a miracle occur, which would not be a creation since this kind of miracle of believers always happens where there is room. They are just unable to say why such an event happened, which demonstrates their incompetence to understand, but not that it is a miracle. I have already seen artistic creations, but they do not come out of anywhere to fill a nothing. There is always room to install works of art, and we know what materials they come from.
So that’s an interesting question, why did humans invent the term “creation”? We now know after Lavoisier that “nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed.”
But why should the universe be created? And we at the same time, since this god has existed in all times. Why not the universe? He must certainly live somewhere this God fellow.
I move to another divine potential, the one that interests us first, because we would all like to own it (almost all, because personally, I do not see what’s the point, except for certain not to be afraid of dying and see where the world is going). It is about “eternity”.
If he is eternal, then the divine guy did not create himself. He exists there, all alone, always, posed like a pot of yogurt with nothing around, and nobody to taste it. He is a pot of yogurt without knowing why he is a pot of yogurt or when he comes because he does not know his first second. There is no first second in eternity. Eternity does not begin. The existence of this pot of yogurt is perpetual. He cannot stop being a pot of yogurt because by ceasing he would lose his divinity, and that, he cannot, it is forbidden to him by his divine mechanisms. The ogre, him, can change into a mouse and be devoured by the cat, the pot of yogurt cannot, he is stuck in his potty, bad luck.
Eternity or non-eternity makes the existence of a god impossible since he would not have created himself, making him a being made either naturally or by another entity. Can an entity or Nature make a god, which would thus not be eternal, without being god itself? The fabrication requires a beginning, which cancels the eternity, therefore, the deity.
Another calamity of this pot of divine yogurt, it is ALL, absolutely ALL. Then he cannot move, only inside himself. Even when he creates us, say the believers, we are him, probably bacteria in the pot, it probably allows him to better digest. To digest what, since he has nothing to eat or to do, apart from taking care of his personal narcissism. God is undoubtedly the most narcissistic of the fellows who has never been able to see his own face in a mirror because he has no outside to himself to create a mirror and look at himself.
He is, it seems, also omnipotent, and omnipotent since always (mystery!). But we have just seen that he cannot cease to exist!!! He cannot be god without being eternally god and all the rest.
He is, it seems, also omniscient, and always omniscient (mystery!). To be omniscient and eternal seems to me, an insurmountable challenge, especially for him, because I do not see at all what it is used to know that the lid of the yogurt pot is well or badly placed. I’m talking about the pot of yogurt that we eat every night we humans, at least the “civilized” part of humanity, for others he will have to know what garbage bins they drew their daily pittance, when they find. But why did he make us with a stomach instead of solar panels?
Believers lend it the potential of infinity. But is this a potential or already the snippets of knowledge about his yogurt potty physique? This infinity makes his omniscience even more difficult to understand, and his capacity to add something, that is to say, the universe and us, apart from him who is ALL, impossible to understand. Infinite and absolute contradict each other, for the first is relative.
It’s a god who wants us to know that he exists, but does not want to show himself. It’s a god supposed to be fair, but everyone’s praying. If he is fair, why would it benefit one over the other? The offering, the sacrifice, the prayer make sense only if there are several gods... On this subject why is it written in the Bible “the other gods”?
So, I summarize. Believers are all individually infallible because they all know how the universe exists and that a god exists besides without knowing what are the one and the other. They all know that we have a soul without having ever seen the least feather of one. They all want to send us to hell if we do not say like them, whereas they, who are kind will go to heaven. (My mother in paradise will mourn her son in hell during her half-eternity unless she forgets me, and in this case, does she deserve paradise?) They are infallible because they do not want to change their minds, they are a hundred percent sure, all individually. All of this must be more than six billion people, plus the 90 billion that preceded them. In my opinion, they are stupid, probably autistic, psychopathic and normopathic at the same time, but do not repeat it. They might go nuts.
I “believe”, I wish, I hope that if you make the effort, you could understand that there is no god, that it is demonstrable and demonstrated, because the pot of yogurt has potentialities far too wacky.
Please circulate your other proofs. The best evidence will win a free ride for a month in paradise or hell to choose from. Write them, burn them in stone, put them together, so that they do not get lost.
It’s more convenient to kindly discuss between us not to add too much bullshit of this kind in the description of the world.
Last word because I am talkative in writing. The following sentence also demonstrates the impossibility of a good and fair god: “The creation of an existence only serves those that already exist, no one controls this creation nor the path that this existence will follow, and once you have created suffering how to undo it?”
(I’ll let you demonstrate again that reincarnation is another such nonsense).
End - E. Berlherm
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire