Why I can’t believe in God

At first, I did. Going to a Roman Catholic school from the age of 5 to 12, God ruled much of my life, and I was very frightened of him. He was all-seeing, all-knowing and able to STRIKE YOU DOWN, and condemn small girls to Hell or worse if they were wicked – talked in assembly, ran in corridors, or didn’t pay attention. Yes, God scared the shit out of the small me.

It worried me greatly how easy it was to fall foul of God. Even newborn babies were not safe from his wrath: if they died, through no fault of their own, with the original sin on their souls (if he was all-powerful and could do anything, why couldn’t he have arranged for souls to be clean when they were first issued?) then they were automatically doomed to stay in Limbo.

If God who, it was drilled into us eight times a day at least, was loving, kind and merciful, I wondered why he wanted us to get out of bed of bitter mornings and kneel in an icy chapel with blue fingers, saying the same thing day after day after day. Why did he give me hay-fever every year? Why did he let let my parents divorce? Why did he let my friend’s father be killed in a car crash? Why did he allow these things to happen? Did he like making people miserable? What happened to the loving kind part? Or maybe it was personal – perhaps he just hated me? My fear of him developed into mistrust and dislike.

My God was a fearsome bearded figure who had me in his all-seeing, accusing eye and followed me with a perpetually pointing finger. As I grew up he faded into a vague being, towards whom I felt occasional resentment, and to whom in very rare moments in extremis I screamed for help. When life went smoothly, I didn’t think of him at all.

But recently I’ve thought about the concept of God a great deal. And that’s because the news is full, every day, of terrible things. Small girls kidnapped and never found. Old people abused and starved in nursing homes. Avalanches, earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases, famines, forest fires, wars, all bringing immeasurable suffering to people who have done nothing to deserve such misery and must also scream for help that doesn’t come. Mindless hooligans kick and batter harmless people to death for fun. Helpless animals are tortured for entertainment. Popes, cardinals, bishops live in palaces, while people sleep under sheets of plastic or in doorways. I could rant on endlessly.

I can’t believe in an “omnipotent” god who can stand by and allow natural disasters or human cruelty and hatefulness full rein.


43 thoughts on “Why I can’t believe in God

  1. I also struggle with this question, especially after becoming involved with Galgo rescue and seeing man’s hideous inhumanity to these dogs.

    The touble is, man also has a deep need to believe in something. I want to…damn it! equally, though, if heaven doesnt have animals, it would be hell.

    anyone versed in theology who can help??? bring us back to the fold…and give us back some faith in the basic goodness of this world…if possible.

    • Trust and call upon the Lord Jesus Christ he loves you. He wants you to know that seek him frist.
      .by Brian Lewandowski on Thursday, at 7:18pm.
      Do you know Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as Savior and Lord? For without him, all other blessings – health, wealth, life itself – are brief, temporary, of no lasting value. He is the only way to true blessings. If we reject Him our life is doomed and to hell we will go. So recognize Him! Savor His goodness and beauty! Ask God to break through your thick head and tough skin!of yours. Ask Him to remove your heart of stone and ask for forgiveness .HE is faithful and just and will forgive your sins.

  2. Agree totally, Suse. There is no God. The very idea is ludicrous. Like you, I was brought up a raging Catholic (and Pentecostal, Church of England, Spiritualist and whatever denomination my mum fancied at the time). Somehow with me it never ‘took’, but studying Classics at college hammered the final nail into the coffin of my faith. Once I studied the New Testament in Greek, I realised the document was so faulty, so lacking in provenance, that there was never a reason to have believed any of it anyway. These days, I follow the philosophy of Wabi-sabi, and that’s a big comfort to me – no God, no afterlife, no liturgy. Just the understanding that we all come from nothing and are in a process of going back to nothing, but that the cycle itself is never-ending. xx Trish

    • The primary way God commands us is through His Word. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). If Scripture commands something of us, there’s no need to hesitate & wonder if it’s really God’s will for us. He cares so much about us that He already gave a plain and clear guidebook to life – the Bible. “Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Psalm 119:105).

  3. Longnosedgreyhound, I do believe in something – two somethings, actually. 🙂

    Firstly, I believe in “DESTINY” – which is an integral part of us from birth, and which will decide every moment of our lives for us and against which we are powerless. People talk about free will and the ability to choose the path they take: I believe that it is pre-ordained by destiny which path they will choose. Destiny rules, OK? 🙂

    I also believe that when the body dies, the spirit is released and lives on.

    Trish, my parents were both areligious, as far as I know, but bless them they did believe that a convent education was the best they could give their daughter. It certainly taught me as much as I ever want to know about nuns and cruelty. 😉

  4. I totally agree, I cant believe in someone who lets things like that happen. Where was god when 9/11 happened? Whats he doing about poor tortured people/animals?
    Where is he and whats he up too? He sure isnt watching over us…..

  5. I’m a believer and have often struggled through the kind of questions you guys are going through. I understand you all completely. However, in my life, I’ve seen too many God-ordained things and miracles and lives changed to be able to not believe in God. I don’t believe that any argument that Christians will give will be able to change your hearts, it’s all in God’s hands. I’ll be praying for you guys, that He would work in your hearts, because I believe that’s the only way anything will happen. I’m praying for you, love you, and know that God does too!

  6. Thanks, Chris, for visiting and leaving your comment, and for your prayers. Who knows, one day maybe some of us non-believers will be converted. I’m open to miracles. 🙂

  7. I want so much to believe what many others do. Many of these people are highly intelligent. But I know how frightening it can be when you don’t believe and feel that they would rather ignore reality and believe in religion without question. I don’t fault them. I still hope that someone will say something to me that will pull me back but sadly, I feel less and less that it will happen. If you are in the box, I suggest you stay there and don’t question it. It is powerful if you can swallow it.

    • Hey FL420,
      “I want so much to believe what many others do”
      No, that would be bad! Many go through the wide gate.
      Tell me what 1 john 5:6 (Not water only, but by water and blood) is saying and you will have your gospel you want.
      Many people in the early church only believed in the water, which was incomplete of course needing to include the other half of the gospel, blood, to inherit salvation by ‘believing’. Galatians 3:6-9, Acts 10:43-47
      Acts 19:1-5 (shows an example of believing in the water only)

      John 3:5; consider what these might mean
      Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5

    • i feel the EXACT same way. oh my goodness, I just really can’t believe the feeling i have right now… it’s as if you took the words right out of my mouth. have you found that “inspiration” yet? i see it’s been over two years since you posted this.

      i hope you are well and enjoying the passage of time.

      • Thank you for your comment, Mary. No, I have not found the inspiration – in fact it has moved even further out of reach.

        Happy New Year to you. 🙂

  8. Yes, I have difficulty believing in God. There’s too much that leads one to not believe, yet I hope that God is there, that God knows, yet . . . . nothing.

    I need forgiveness to ease my guilt, I need forgiveness to help me with all the wrongs I’ve done, for the mean, senseless things I’ve done that haunt me.

    Please god be there, please God forgive me and ease my burdens.

  9. For me its, everyone sems to beleiv and see the good in god so why can’t I. Now, I’m not gunna just jump into such a faulty commitment. I have been searching for god since I was 7 and have not found him but at this point I’m truly looking. Now, my freind once asked me this very wise question one day. ‘ once a person hears of god, isn’t there for a small while righ there where you can’t picture a planet without god?’ now honestly I couldn’t at that moment. I guess if u try to hard, sometimes youget no where… My opinion in tragic deaths. Is we are killing ourselves people die. But secretly we all know we need to lessen the worlds population but we don want it to happen

  10. I also can’t believe in God/s.

    I am agnostic to a point, but I don’t believe there is an intelligent designer that has the same human characteristics/emotions we do. I lost my faith after realizing the faults in the Bible, if that book is the word of God I would rather go to hell than believe in it. People wrote it themselves, so called “chosen” people who got to hear God’s voice while we are supposed to just believe in Him by faith. Why were they chosen? Why can’t God let everyone KNOW he is there?

    It is completely unfair if that’s the truth. And God wouldn’t worry Himself with things like Homosexuality, or gender roles. He created us all equal? Humans created clothing/gender roles/ and even religion. It’s taught by humans. Why would we have to follow others who know no more than we do?

    I’m only 21 and lost my faith about 4 years ago after being raised Baptist. Once you start to question it it’s hard to just be like everyone else and follow blindly. I felt more at ease when I believed it, yes, because you know what’s going to happen when you die and you know you’ll see your loved ones again. It’s comforting, which to me is why it is so accepted by everyone.

    • An excellent response, Devon. You hit the nail on the head. The bible was written by people who claim that they were chosen, without offering any proof. It is very contradictory, too, vis. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” and then “Turn the other cheek.”

      Flying saucers and little green men from Mars have never provided one shred of material evidence that they exist, and neither has God. If he does exist, then why does he allow such terrible suffering all over the world?

      And if Christians believe their God is the only god, and Muslims believe that Allah is the only God, then somebody has got to be wrong, haven’t they?

      I believe in Jesus, but I’m afraid that the rest is, as far as I am concerned, pure propaganda and a means of the churches enriching themselves at the expense of their followers – who are often amongst the poorest people in the world, yet you seldom see a hungry priest, or one wearing rags.

      Yet, when people are in extremis, they turn to the church for comfort, and in the hope of saving their souls on the basis of beliefs instilled into them. You are quite right. Thank you for such an interesting comment.

  11. I have never been comfortable in the whole god thing. I actually would like to be able to accept the concept of god, but it seems so illogical that the whole idea seems ridiculous.
    The only “proof ” of the existance of god is written in the bible, which was written, and rewritten, by many different men, and every time it was rewritten, it was written like the writer perceived it or thought it should be. It is said that the bible has been rewritten over two thousand times. It had to have been changed a little each time it was rewritten, so is any of it true, or is it just a book of stories?

    • Bob: “Proof” is in they eye of the beholder.
      Do you want to believe that there is substance to our existence? That there is something more than material existence? That we are a part of something bigger than ourselves? That there is something/someone bigger, higher, more noble, more awesome, more “right” than ourselves? Do you want to feel the touch of something beyond yourself, whether outside or deep within?

      We each must make a decision whether to be a spiritual person, to take a spiritual path. It has nothing to do with accepting supernaturally inspired bodies of literature or buying into some ancient religious system’s canned beliefs. Belief is about what and who you are.

      I once thought I could be an agnostic or an atheist. I even dated an atheist, Trouble is, after one date I realized that I could never be an atheist, and that I did not want to be an agnostic either, even though every person (in my opinion) has a certain element of agnosticism ingrained, especially so in this age.

      Do you feel a need to worship? Why do you feel that need? Does it urge you on toward that something, you know not what?

      Many religious people are not spiritual. They “believe in God” they way you might believe in “gravity” or space travel. But they have no inner life. I believe that some of you who posted were feeling that gravitational pull of the spirit. The spirit “draws” us to God and to Jesus Christ as well.

      Believing does not require that you believe in an omnipotent Big-man in the sky who strikes people down with anger. These beliefs are vestiges of ancient religions, based in magic!

      As for me, I want to seek the Spirit of God, to know the God who, perhaps, cannot be known but who, on the other hand may be known through the process of the seeking.

      There is a kind of death involved; maybe that’s why it is so hard for us. Because we have to deny some paths in order to seek the higher path and to experience the things of God, the things of the Spirit. This is the lifestyle of a Christian mystic, by the way.

      So when you make your decisions about spiritual things, may you make a wise choice that will result in your living the kind of life you wish to live. Some will become belief-full beings. Others will be destitute of the spirit. But these are choices we make.

      Hope that helps.

  12. Has anyboddy ever considered at what stage god entered this universe was it before or after the Big Bang? and if it was after, where did he come from? I am old and wished I had some answers before my ‘lights’ go out’!


    A.Circular Reasoning

    In his article ‘The other side of time’ (2000) scientist Victor J. Stenger has written that as per the theory of quantum electrodynamics electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs can appear spontaneously for brief periods of time practically out of nothing, which clearly shows that anything that has a beginning need not have to have a cause of that beginning.
    From here he has concluded that our universe may also come literally out of nothing due to quantum fluctuation in the void, and therefore we need not have to imagine that God has done this job.
    But is it true that electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs are appearing literally out of “nothing”? Are scientists absolutely certain that the so-called void is a true void indeed? Because here there is a counter-claim also: God is there, and that God is everywhere. So actually nothing is coming out of “nothing”, only something is coming out of something. Here they will perhaps say: as there is no proof for God’s existence so far, so why should one have to believe that the void here is not a true void? But even if there is no proof for God’s existence, still then it can be shown that scientists’ claim that the universe has literally come out of nothing is a pure case of circular reasoning. If believers say that the void is not a true void at all, and if scientists still then hold that it is nothing but a void, then this is only because they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, and also because they think that God’s non-existence is so well-established a fact that it needs no further proof for substantiation. But if they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, then they are also absolutely certain that God is not the architect, designer, creator of our universe, because it is quite obvious that a non-existent God cannot be the architect, designer, etc. So their starting premise is this: God does not exist, and therefore our universe is definitely not the creation of a God. But if they start from the above premise, then will it be very difficult to reach to the same conclusion?
    But their approach here could have been somehow different. They could have said: well, regarding void, it is found that there is some controversy. Therefore we will not assume that it is a void, rather we will prove that it is such. Then they could have proceeded to give an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe, in which there will be neither any quantum fluctuation in the void, nor any hand of God to be seen anywhere. And their success here could have settled the matter for all time to come.
    By simply ignoring a rumour one cannot kill it, rather it will remain as it is. But if one takes some more trouble on him and exposes that it is nothing but a rumour, then it will die a natural death with no further chance of revival. Let us say that the saying that there is a God and that He is everywhere is nothing but a rumour persisting for thousands of years among mankind. What scientists have done here is this: they have simply ignored the rumour and thus kept it alive. But it would have been far better for them if they could have killed it, as suggested by me.

    B. “Circular Reasoning” Case Reexamined

    There can be basically two types of universe: (1) universe created by God, supposing that there is a God; (2) universe not created by God, supposing that there is no God. Again universe created by God can also be of three types:
    (1a) Universe in which God need not have to intervene at all after its creation. This is the best type of universe that can be created by God.
    (1b) Universe in which God has actually intervened from time to time, but his intervention is a bare minimum.
    (1c) Universe that cannot function at all without God’s very frequent intervention. This is the worst type of universe that can be created by God.
    Therefore we see that there can be four distinct types of universes, and our universe may be any one of the above four types: (1a), (1b), (1c), (2). In case of (1a), scientists will be able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event that has happened in the universe after its origin, because after its creation there is no intervention by God at any moment of its functioning. Only giving natural explanation for its coming into existence will be problematic. In case of (1b) also, most of the events will be easily explained away, without imagining that there is any hand of God behind these events. But for those events where God had actually intervened, scientists will never be able to give any natural explanation. Also explaining origin of the universe will be equally problematic. But in case of (1c), most of the events will remain unexplained, as in this case God had to intervene very frequently. This type of universe will be just like the one as envisaged by Newton: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” So we can with confidence say that our universe is not of this type, otherwise scientists could not have found natural explanation for most of the physical events. In case of type (2) universe, here also there will be natural explanation for each and every physical event, and there will be natural explanation for the origin of the universe also. So from the mere fact that scientists have so far been able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event, it cannot be concluded that our universe is a type (2) universe, because this can be a type (1a) universe as well. The only difference between type (1a) and type (2) universe is this: whereas in case of (1a) no natural explanation will ever be possible for the origin of the universe, it will not be so in case of (2). Therefore until and unless scientists can give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, they cannot claim that it is a type (2) universe. And so, until and unless scientists can give this explanation, they can neither claim that the so-called void is a true void. So scientists cannot proceed to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe with an a priori assumption that the void is a real void, because their failure or success in giving this explanation will only determine as to whether this is a real void or not.

    C. Scientists have taken a forbidden step

    This is about scientists’ claim that our universe has originated from nothing due to a vacuum fluctuation. Here I want to show again that this claim cannot be sustained by reason.
    Abbreviation: origin of the universe from nothing due to vacuum fluctuation (OUNVF)
    We all know that the theorems in Euclidean geometry generally start with some basic assumptions that are accepted as true without any proof. These basic assumptions are called axioms. Similarly scientific theories also start with some basic assumptions. These are called postulates. So far these postulates of scientific theories were all God-independent. I am going to explain what I want to mean by the term “God-independent”. Let us suppose that P is a postulate. Now it may be the case that there is a God. Or it may be the case that there is no God. Now let us suppose it is the case that there is a God, and we find that P is not affected. Again let us further suppose that it is the case there is no God, and again we find that in this case also P is not affected. Then we can say P is God-independent. But in the case under consideration the basic assumption with which scientists start is not at all God-independent. Rather we can say that it is very much God-dependent. Their basic assumption here is this: the void is a real void, and it is nothing but a void. Now if it is the case that there is a God, then this assumption is very much affected, because the void is no longer a real void. If, and only if, it is the case that there is no God, then only it is a real void. Therefore when scientists are saying that the void is a real void, then they are also saying it indirectly that it is the case there is no God, or, that it is a fact there is no God. But my question here is this: are these scientists now in a position to say so? Have their knowledge of the empirical world and its laws and its workings up till now made them competent enough to declare at this stage that there is no God? Because here two points will have to be considered:
    1) They have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe.
    2) Similarly they have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the fact that our universe has become habitable for life, whereas it could have been barren and lifeless as well.
    Now it may so happen that scientists completely fail to give any natural explanation for both 1) and 2). In that case will it not be too early for them to suppose that the void is a real void? Because if they are unsuccessful, then they do not know whether there is a God or not, and therefore neither do they know whether the void is a real void or not. But if they are successful, then they definitely know that there is no God. Then only they can say that the void is a real void. So we can say that 1) and 2) are two hurdles that the scientists must have to cross before they can arrive at a place from where they can boldly declare that God does not exist. This is the place that may be called scientists’ heaven. Because once they can reach there, then they will have no hesitation to deny the existence of God. Because now they have explained the alpha and omega of this universe, starting from its origin up to the coming of man on earth and further beyond, and nowhere they have found any hand of God influencing the course of events in any way. But, to arrive at that place can they take any undue advantage? Or, can they try to reach there by any unfair means? Can they already assume that there is no God, and based on that assumption, can they try to cross any one, or both, of these two hurdles? But in case of 1) they have just done that. That is why I want to say that OUNVF is a pure case of circular reasoning.

    D, Properties of a Whole Thing

    If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
    Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
    I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.

    Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.


    I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
    Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
    I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
    1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
    2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
    3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
    4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
    5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
    6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
    7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.

  14. I am 19 years old and struggle with faith everyday of my life. It twists and turns in my well being like a knife to the stomach. I can’t live like this. My grandmother was very Catholic and once gave me a prayer book to read through, I used to read it every night so I wouldn’t go to hell. At one point I was fine with just dying and rotting in the cold earth, but now the thought consumes me with the the statement that there must be more. I am an aspiring musical talent, and write about it in a lot of material, this seems to help leak the hurt from my torn emotions. I also struggle from depression and anxiety and think it may be because of this. NO ONE should be scared into believing. Follow your heart and do what you think is right to be remembered for your acts, not your faith. I once asked a Cristian converter if Mahatma Gandhi was going to hell, he replied with ” if he had no faith in Jesus, then yes”. How can you have faith in that. The answer is, you cant. Morals can be created through love and respect for everything we have been given and by giving others in need our compassion.

  15. I don’t think that God can be proved as true. It cannot be proved false either. God, I believe, does not exist based on my knowledge. I wish “God” was a gentle figure, not such a judging figure. I want to do good things because I want to help others! Not out of fear or because someone else tells me to. I am an inquisitive person who always questions and that mixed with religion do not mix well.

    Some things that really make me mad are
    -that God reminds me of a bias (He only gives who believe. Why not everyone?)
    -that the bible has never been “reformed”. An example could be abstinence. Of course, back in the day when people got married at age 14, its understandable that they would not have sex till marriage. But now, people marry much later and it does not make sense any more. Sexual intercourse is a natural human desire. Why is it so taboo?

  16. When someone survives, it’s a miracle.
    When someone doesn’t make it, God wanted another angel.

    When a crisis begins, God has no control over the world
    When a crisis ends, it was our prayers which saved the day

    When a loved believer dies, they’ve gone to heaven
    When a loved sinner dies, they’ve gone to heaven

    People will always find ways to justify the things which happen in their lives. I’m just proud I can see through it all.

    • I don’t believe in God either, my wife died 6 years ago, any thought of becoming an angel sitting around in heaven for eternity would have been as alien to her as it is to me. I prefer to think of her as just gone, not to any place in particular, she exists only in my memory and of all the people who loved her.

      • Hello Andy, thanks for visiting my blog. I’m like you. The idea of all of us sitting on clouds playing harps is horrible, don’t you think? Imagine the racket and the crowds. 😀

        I choose to believe that when a person/animal dies, their spirit lives on all around us; it is only the flesh that we can no longer see. As long as we keep remembering them, they will always be with us.

  17. It is appointed for each of us to die once and then to face the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Those who have responded to the gospel with faith and repentance will do so gladly and willingly. Those who have hardened their hearts to the call of the gospel will do so with great fear and trembling.

  18. I think as one of the readers was saying that God cannot be proven, yet neither can he be denied, so let those who believe… believe, and those of us who have not found the “ilumination/ hand of god”… not believe. At the end it is all about how we behave towards others, I believe the bibble should be taken as a euphamism of certain attitudes we should have amongst our cohabitants of earth.

  19. It’s laughable that a supreme being capable of creating all time and space would claim responsibility for creating man. If the creating of man is his crowning achievement, then I seriously challenge his judgment.

    Dr. Faustus sold his soul to the devil for extra-human powers and then used those powers to do the equivalent of palor tricks. Mankind is little more than a cosmic parlor trick. Just look at mankind–an absolute cancer in the body of the world. For a good example of his handiwork–take a serious look at the “Fertile Crescent” today–and think about it.
    That god would become man and die for this miserable creature–and for what purpose? So that this creature could live forever in heaven–doing nothing but glorifying god, on and on and on and on. And why would man buy into this “bargain?” To avoid the alternative that the loving, caring god has provided for those who reject that bargain–burning forever and forever and forever in that lake of fire and brimstone.

    All this amounts to “parlor tricks” for a supreme being capable of creating this awesome universe.

  20. Thanks for following one of my blogs. I am glad you enjoyed today’s post. You might find a post or two that resonate for you on my other blog as well. http://poetryphotosandmusingsohmy.wordpress.com.
    As for the God issue, I have a piece or two that I will be posting one of these days dealing with that. I have so many issues there. The years I worked in Child Protection/Private Counseling, the cases I have dealt with, my own childhood, the death of my daughter before her 2nd birthday… But that is only the tip of the iceberg.
    I look forward to reading more of your work.

  21. Thanks for your comment, Lea. I’ll be interested to read your posts about the God issue. I am so sorry about your daughter. What a terrible thing to happen. Any normal mortal would have done all in their power to prevent that; why didn’t the so-called God if he could?

    I have barely skimmed the surface when writing about all the reasons I do not believe in a God. Think about all the Christian martyrs willing to be torn, burned, eaten, squashed, hanged, decapitated and tortured to death in ingenious ways for their faith. What did they actually benefit? Why didn’t a godly hand appear from the clouds and whisk them visibly up to heaven? While admiring and almost envying those who can unwaveringly believe in “Him” no matter how much misery they suffer, I am more likely to grow feathers and fly around the Eiffel Tower than I am to change my beliefs.

  22. Buddhism does encourage blind faith or following. Contrastingly Buddhism encourages people to think for them selves. Buddhism doesn’t provide absolute rules or commandment. Buddhist follow “rules” not out of fear but it is rational to do so. Buddhism is about happiness.

    Buddhism says that every action has a cause. The concept of Dependent Origination is also important. It is a very hard process to understand. But it sounds very logical to me at the moment.

    The below are some Buddhist teachings on “why things happen?”
    1. Utu Niyama

    Utu Niyama is the natural law of non-living matter. This natural law orders the change of seasons and phenomena related to climate and the weather. It explains the nature of heat and fire, soil and gasses, water and wind. Most natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes would be governed by Utu Niyama.

    Put into modern terms, Utu Niyama would correlate with what we think of as physics, chemistry, geology, and several sciences of inorganic phenomena. The most important point to understand about Utu Niyama is that the matter it governs is not part of the law of karma and is not overridden by karma. So, from a Buddhist perspective, natural disasters such as earthquakes are not caused by karma.

    2. Bija Niyama

    Bija Niyama is the law of living matter, what we would think of as biology. The Pali word bija means “seed,” and so Bija Niyama governs the nature of germs and seeds and the attributes of sprouts, leaves, flowers, fruits, and plant life generally.

    Some modern scholars suggest that laws of genetics that apply to all life, plant and animal, would come under the heading of Bija Niyama.

    3. Kamma Niyama

    Kamma, or karma in Sanskrit, is the law of moral causation. All of our volitional thoughts, words and deeds create an energy that brings about effects, and that process is called karma.

    The important point here is that Kamma Niyama is a kind of natural law, like gravity, that operates without having to be directed by a divine intelligence. In Buddhism, karma is not a cosmic criminal justice system, and no supernatural force or God is directing it to reward the good and punish the wicked.

    Karma is, rather, a natural tendency for skillful (kushala) actions to create beneficial effects, and unskillful (akushala) actions to create harmful or painful effects.

    4. Dhamma Niyama

    The Pali word dhamma, or dharma in Sanskrit, has several meanings. It often is used to refer to the teachings of the Buddha. But it also is used to mean something like “manifestation of reality” or the nature of existence.

    One way to think of Dhamma Niyama is as natural spiritual law. The doctrines of anatta (no self) and shunyata (emptiness) and the marks of existence, for example, would be part of Dhamma Niyama.

    5. Citta Niyama

    Citta, sometimes spelled chitta, means “mind,” “heart,” or “state of consciousness.” Citta Niyama is the law of mental activity — something like psychology. It concerns consciousness, thoughts, and perceptions.

    We tend to think of our minds as “us,” or as the pilot directing us through our lives. But in Buddhism, mental activities are phenomena that arise from causes and conditions, like other phenomena.

    In the teachings of the Five Skandhas, mind is a kind of sense organ, and thoughts are sense objects, in the same way the nose is a sense organ and smells are its objects.

  23. Thank you, Chester, for your visit and for sharing your Buddhist wisdom. I think you put it in a nutshell when you say “Buddhism is about happiness”. Unlike the Christian religion it isn’t based on threats, fear, reprisals or blind belief. I try to live by Buddhist principles. I don’t always succeed, but when I fail I am not threatened with punishment, so I do not live in fear, but in hope.

  24. I struggle daily with the belief in God or a God. Not only with the events in my life but also the world events. My life has been a struggle from as far back as I can remember. My father was controling and abusive. He raised my sister and myself on welfare. My mother has been horribly abused mentally for as far back as I can remember. We had no hot running water, no bathtub, no shower. The kitchen sink drained into a bucket. I could go on but most folks can’t believe what I say is true. All through school I wondered why I couldn’t have things like a new bicycle or even go out to a restaurant. As I got older it seemed as if anything that would improve my life would never work out. I was married at 27 to a woman that turned into nothing short of a nightmare. I still managed to claw my way into a half decent job and even bought a house and a brand new truck shortly befor my 40th birthday. Finally I thought maybe I had paid my dues and life was looking up. NOT!! 23 months later I was served with a PFA and I had fifteen minutes to get what I could and get out. The PFA was totally bogus. I got it dismissed at the hearing but by then it was too late. Fast forward to 2012 and even though she filed for divorce five and a half years ago I can’t get divorced as of yet and have been told that I may have to pay her for the rest of her life. WHY? What have I done to deserve so much abuse? I have since been in two abusive relationships and because of Domestic Relations cannot support myself. I struggle each and every day just to live while I see others just bounce off the walls and everything they touch turns good for them. Why should I believe when all my life has been nothing more than a lesson in futility?

    • I am really sorry that life has dealt you a raw deal. Why should you believe in some “being” who is meant to be almighty? If they are, why should you have had so much difficulty? Did you do anything to deserve it? I expect you feel, like I do, that if the being is so all powerful, they could have given you a helping hand. If they didn’t, then why not? It means that they could do something but didn’t. So you feel personally let down. It does not make sense that this “all powerful, all merciful” being allows all the wickedness and tragedy in the world. The two are incompatible. So either the being doesn’t exist, or it does and is pitiless and cruel. That’s my take on it. And I get sick of hearing that there is a reason for everything and God only knows what it is. BTW, from what you have written your problems are primarily focused around money; I hope that at least you have good health and friends and are able to enjoy some of the beauty of our world – the stars, birdsong, the breeze on your face – creations of Mother Nature, and not somebody sitting up in the sky on a big pink cloud.

  25. I appreciate that you wrote back. Surprised is an understatement. I can see how you could get that money is a central part of my issues. Even when money wasn’t an issue I still had/have a lot of negative issues that plague me. I was in an abusive marriage. I also have some health issues that cannot be identified. I’m an active almost 300 pound man. I can’t seem to lose weight and when I do exercise vigerously I don’t recover like a normal person does. I have tried many doctors and they treat me like I’m nuts.
    My observation of negative things happening to me on a regular basis is shared by others. My divorce for instance is indescribeable in how convaluted it is. Even my lawyer says how screwed up it is. Seems if it weren’t for bad luck I would have no luck at all.
    My sleep patterns are a wreck. I fall asleep but don’t stay asleep. I’m terminally tired. I struggle to sleep and then I struggle all day because I am tired. It just never stops. Docs don’t have an answer for that one either.
    In January I got hooked up with a non denominational pastor and I started going to bible study on Saturday mornings. I also read about half a book by Clancy called Disapointment With God. It sheds some light on the issues I have but offers no proof outside of scripture why I should believe. I didn’t fit in with the bible study group as they all seemed to have college degrees and management positions where they work. I don’t understand the bible and I don’t pretend to. It makes no sense to me why I have to flip through a bunch of pages filled with And He Said or For The Lord is King to get to the point. I actually felt good for a short time and actually had some hope. Along came my reality again and the disappointment was just so much worse because I was so full of false hope and was told that my life was going to change for the better since I found Jesus. NOT!! My divorce was continued for a third time since November and the only right I have is to continue as I have for the last five and a half years. At that point I was suicidal and I have no idea why I didn’t do it. My ex has no accountability for anything. Mortgage twenty months behind $18,000, gas $8,700, electric $4,000 and water $1,500. I’m not focusing on the money at all. The accountability or lack of it is my focus. How does someone steal $30,000 worth of services and no one but me says anything? She and her family trashed that house. The pictures would shock you. A dumpster like you see at a demolition site was too small for just the trash that was outside. Then I find out there is a warrant for my arrest because of all the trash and the house is in my name. I hadn’t been to that place in five years! I went to court and proved my residence elsewhere and the code enforcement officer still wanted me to be responsible. Fortunately the judge was compassionate and let me off. My life is constantly full of totally off the wall hassles and negativity passed on to my from other people.
    If there was this so called God or supernatural being that is all caring and forgiving then why have I been foresaken? I know I keep hearing that there are others worse off than me and I’m sick of hearing it. Someone has to be at the bottom of that list. I’m not asking for miracles, just a shot at a normal life that isn’t stacked against me. If there is anyone out there that can offer some advice to me as to how I get on a different track I would surely give it a shot.

    • I feel for you, and know what it is like when it seems that everything is against you. I had that for many years, and my way of coping with it was to say: “Do your worst, you bastard, you are NOT going to bring me down.” It’s hard hen you can’t find any rhyme or reason in the negative things that attack you, but it’s a better option than giving in and letting it win.

  26. I didn’t answer your quote that you hope I enjoy things like birds and friends and such. Fortunately I am an outside kind of person and I do enjoy those things very much. I’m also a dog trainer as a sort of hobby. I derive much satisfaction and pleasure from that as I am very good at it. I rescued a German Shepherd three years ago that was severely abused. I rehabilitated him and trained him to such a point that people are just in awe of what he can do. So yes I do have good things in life as well but the negativity is just so much more powerful than the good that it overwhelms me at times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s