Disproving god with the laws of logic

[Vile Atheist]

I completely agree GiantHouseKey, that is exactly how it should work, but no one is programmed that way and unfortunately life isn't a judicial system. In most cases perception is reality until proven otherwise. I think that people on both sides should present their views instead of saying one side must prove theirs. Also, when the side that holds the burden of proof also holds the majority vote, it is sometimes in our best interest to pick up their burden for them.

Very true.

 

[richardlowellt]

There is a tea-kettle orbiting somewhere around the sun; but it's such a small object that we cannot even detect it with any instruments.
Prove it doesn't exist

One can use logic and reason to deny the existence of something. a tea-kettle is something made here on Earth, we have no reason to think a tea-kettle could come from anywhere else. Present day technology makes launching a tea-kettle so that it orbit around the sun impossible, so the logical conclusion is---there cannot possibly be a tea-kettle orbiting around the sun.

 

[Vile Atheist]

One can use logic and reason to deny the existence of something. a tea-kettle is something made here on Earth, we have no reason to think a tea-kettle could come from anywhere else. Present day technology makes launching a tea-kettle so that it orbit around the sun impossible, so the logical conclusion is---there cannot possibly be a tea-kettle orbiting around the sun.

Butyoucan'tprovegoddidit........*cough*

 

[Paraprakrti]

I recently heard about TAG (transcendental argument for god), and it seems strange to me why christians would use this argument. Not only does TAG not prove god exists, but I find it to be strong proof that god CANNOT exist.

I believe the first law makes gods existence impossible. It is the law of identity, that something cannot be something and not something at the same time. These laws are absolute, and christians would claim they are the physical manifestation of gods mind. Now, in order for these laws to be absolute, they must be objective. So they are true regardless of personal opinion or whether or not any mind is there to judge them at all.

So the law of identity states that something cannot be something and not something, and this is the ABSOLUTE (this is important terminology) unchanging law which reflects the mind of an absolute unchanging being (god). This is the christian argument, and it is perfectly sound... until you take a little further.

Here is my reasoning:
If the laws are absolute, then god cannot be something and nothing either, making god subjective to the laws. If god is subjective to the laws then they are not apart of god. If god is not subjective to the laws then the laws are not absolute and the whole argument falls apart anyways. But, the laws are logically sound and seemingly impossible, indeed, something cannot be something it is not. A rock will always be a rock even under a different name or if there no one there to label a rock it will still be a rock. So the logic is absolute, which would mean god cannot be an absolute being and still exist.

I'm sure this argument won't get past the "language barrier" and we will spend the whole discussion defining the word "god" or something but when you strip it down to its simplest form the laws of logic leave little room for a god in my opinion.

you can find a good outline of TAG at the CARM website (it won't let me post a link so you will have to google it) if interested, it is too much for me to post here.

First of all, what you are referring to is the law of non-contradiction, not the law of identity.

The theist who uses the TAG argument might respond with something along the lines of saying that the absolute laws of logic do not precede God (as your argument implies) because they are a part of His own nature. This is similar to how Christians often respond to the Euthyphro dilemma - by positing that what is moral is inherent in the nature of God.

Youtuber, Theoretical Bulls***, has a video where he responds to CARM. It is titled "'Slick' Logic." You might be interested in it.

 

[themadhair]

Youtuber, Theoretical Bulls***, has a video where he responds to CARM. It is titled "'Slick' Logic." You might be interested in it.

i linked it earlier in the thread.

 

[Paraprakrti]

i linked it earlier in the thread.

Beat me to it, I see.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Butyoucan'tprovegoddidit........*cough*

You should see a doctor for that cough, CM. I suggest some Taruian-Fides Excrement, it's a homeopathic sure...

 

[Thief]

Thief here....
Are we assuming that God...and the Creator are one in the same?

Let's split this down the middle and see what happens.

Let's say the universe just simply happened. It did.
If you don't want to acknowledge a creator...don't.

But somewhere...there is Someone...bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.
I call Him the Almighty.
Maybe, He wants to be called God.

Are you willing to stand to His face and make denial?

 

[freethinker44]

Thief here....
Are we assuming that God...and the Creator are one in the same?

Let's split this down the middle and see what happens.

Let's say the universe just simply happened. It did.
If you don't want to acknowledge a creator...don't.

But somewhere...there is Someone...bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.
I call Him the Almighty.
Maybe, He wants to be called God.

Are you willing to stand to His face and make denial?

So if someone can overpower you then you will worship him? Is that really all it takes to own you?

 

[Thief]

Thief here...
Been in a few street fights.
If the other guy is mean enough...you will call Him anything He wants to be called....Lord...Master...God....

Of course the discussion is way beyond that.
You are not your own handiwork.
You are made out of dust and your existence is finite.

Unless...you have some attention from your "Creator"
If your Creator wants to be called God....would you say 'nay'?

 

[freethinker44]

I have seen the slick logic video and while I agree with pretty much everything he was saying, I think it is the wrong path to take in debating with a christian about it. It seems to me that most of the arguments against TAG all question just how absolute the laws of logic are. And I agree with what most say, just because something can only be used in a conceptual manner, doesn't mean it HAS to have a mind to explain why it exists. Anyone who thinks about this for longer than two minutes would see that it is just that same old tactic of taking something that can't be argued with and then simply labeling it god or a product of god. In the case of TAG, when an opponent argues against the laws it looks kind of foolish in my opinion. It is sometimes difficult to successfully argue against something so basic as "something cannot be something it's not".
What I am trying to show is that the argument is either invalid if the laws are not absolute or the idea of god is invalid if they are absolute.

As for people saying the laws are apart of god then wouldn't change anything. If the laws are absolute then god must be subjective to them and if god is not subjective to them then they aren't absolute which makes the argument invalid.

 

[freethinker44]

Thief here...
Been in a few street fights.
If the other guy is mean enough...you will call Him anything He wants to be called....Lord...Master...God....

Of course the discussion is way beyond that.
You are not your own handiwork.
You are made out of dust and your existence is finite.

Unless...you have some attention from your "Creator"
If your Creator wants to be called God....would you say 'nay'?

It just sounds like giving in to a bully to me.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...
I suppose the scenario of my previous post would be difficult for anyone under such circumstances.

But I strongly suspect greater ability beyond my own and yours.

Then again...you have no one to answer to.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm sure there are someone or something more powerfull than me, and even if that something actually did have a hand in starting life on Earth that doesn't mean it owns my life. It doesn't even mean I have an obligation AT ALL towards trying to fullfill any plan it may have had, if it wanted a slave it should have created a slave.

Further more, I might be mistaken but when I started this thread I chose religious DEBATES because I assumed preaching belonged in a different thread, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

But somewhere...there is Someone...bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.
I call Him the Almighty.
Maybe, He wants to be called God.

Are you willing to stand to His face and make denial?

No

But then again if god showed me his face then i would be a believer.

-Q

 

[freethinker44]

No

But then again if god showed me his face then i would be a believer.

-Q

I would too. It would be hard not to but believing and worshipping are two very different things.

 

[richardlowellt]

Thief here....
Are we assuming that God...and the Creator are one in the same?

Let's split this down the middle and see what happens.

Let's say the universe just simply happened. It did.
If you don't want to acknowledge a creator...don't.

But somewhere...there is Someone...bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.
I call Him the Almighty.
Maybe, He wants to be called God.

Are you willing to stand to His face and make denial?

Are god and the creator the same thing? Yes, both are imaginary being that exist only in one's imagination.

And exactly how do you know there is "someone" bigger--faster, stronger, more intelligent?

Of course I'm willing to stand to he face and deny his, it's easy when you are talking about an imaginary being.

 

[McBell]

Are you willing to stand to His face and make denial?

I am much more willing to step up to his face and call him out than he is willing to even show himself....

 

[Thief]

Thief here...we may by getting somewhere...maybe not...
Logic is a tool. In my hands it will yield different results than yours.

Logic is reliant on so much input.
A believer will allow input a non-believer will refuse.
( Has anyone read Thomas Aquinas?)

Disproving God with logic won't work.
Faith by definition requires no proving (Webster's)
So this thread got off to a bad start.

Perhaps you should try to prove God does exist.
If you fail...the cause of your failure would become that disproving, you seek. Really. Some people won't believe without proof. Some people will.

As for the previous postings I've made.
I step to the left...or to the right....as I deem appropriate.
So do you.
I believe because I found good cause to do so.
You don't believe...because you haven't.
But assuming I have error in my logic is indeed...an assumption.

Having cause to say "yeah"..I follow through to examine the consequence for doing so.
You would say "nay"...there are consequences for doing so.

 

[logician]

First you have to define a god concept, then you can go about proving it. Specific definitions of certain gods can be disproven.