Disproving god with the laws of logic

[freethinker44]

Incompleteness to a system doesn't mean completely false. Some things are incomplete but not all, you could even have some things that are comepletely right in an incomplete system. I've demonstrated minimum characteristics god must have in order to be called god. Then I've shown how any being cannot possess those charactaristics without contradicting its own existence. Even if the difinition of god I have falls under the category of incomplete, doesn't matter, I have shown god to a false concept at the minimum level, everything above that doesn't. Even the highest possible lifeform in this universe or any other level of existence wouldn't be a god, it would just be another species of life only highly advanced. There could very well be a being or group of beings who did start life on earth or maybe even created our solar system, but whatever they are, they cannot be a god

 

[Archer]

Not a wisecrack at all. I define love as an action, much as many Christians do. When Jesus commands us to love our neighbors, he isn't talking about having a pleasant feeling toward them. He's talking about acts of kindness and goodwill. Those are things we can definitely see and can trace back to the intent of the one doing the loving. Not so with the pleasant feeling some people get in Church.

It still lightened the mood But I do see what you are saying. I do not watch the news due to spewing of hatred around the world and just assumed you were being facetious.

If we look we can definitely see the love, mothers and children, men and women young and old, It is what Jesus was all about and the father God though his punishments can be extreme.

Unfortunately we just cant say God is love as love is irrational at times and there would be too much controversy over trying to prove that.

 

[Kurt31416]

Incompleteness to a system doesn't mean completely false. Some things are incomplete but not all, you could even have some things that are comepletely right in an incomplete system.

Correct. We can do all kinds of calculations and put men on the moon, and knock down ICBM's, and do the Quantum Mechanics on X-Ray diffractions and prove the helical structure of DNA, and so on.

I've demonstrated minimum characteristics god must have in order to be called god.

I suspect Einstein, Jefferson, Spinoza and the historical Jesus of Thomas don't go by that definition.

Then I've shown how any being cannot possess those charactaristics without contradicting its own existence.

Probably why Einstein, Jefferson, Spinoza and the historical Jesus of Thomas didn't buy that definition.

 

[Archer]

Incompleteness to a system doesn't mean completely false. Some things are incomplete but not all, you could even have some things that are comepletely right in an incomplete system. I've demonstrated minimum characteristics god must have in order to be called god. Then I've shown how any being cannot possess those charactaristics without contradicting its own existence. Even if the difinition of god I have falls under the category of incomplete, doesn't matter, I have shown god to a false concept at the minimum level, everything above that doesn't. Even the highest possible lifeform in this universe or any other level of existence wouldn't be a god, it would just be another species of life only highly advanced. There could very well be a being or group of beings who did start life on earth or maybe even created our solar system, but whatever they are, they cannot be a god

If I tell you I had a revelation would you believe it? What about an epiphany?

Can there be a God? yes but you must accept that you cannot see him or prove him. I can feel the presence of God and I only feel sorry for those who cant. Some of us have no choice to believe as we have seen the truth (revelation). Do not discount what you cant see or understand.

I completely agree with the premise of no God, but as much as I deny what I know I still cant escape it.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I can feel the presence of God and I only feel sorry for those who cant. Some of us have no choice to believe as we have seen the truth (revelation). Do not discount what you cant see or understand.

I completely agree with the premise of no God, but as much as I deny what I know I still cant escape it.

1. How do you know the "presence" you feel is God?

2. How do you know the "presence" you feel is not, say, another God?

3. How do you discount the very real and likely explanation the "presence" you feel is a construct created by the powerful human mind?

4. Why would God bestow you with powers to believe in him, and yet not me? I seek evidence for God and yet I cannot find any.

5. And furthermore, why would God punish me eternally for his own neglect?

6. If you had no choice but to believe in God, that negates your free will.

7. I do not discount what I cannot see or understand. But I can discount it if there is no proof it exists.

8. If I can't understand God, why can you?

9. How can you verify details of God that you supposedly "know"?

10. If you deny what you know, and apply that to all aspects of your life, you will seriously find yourself in a myriad of problems in this life and I truly sympathize.



Edit: Oh and I know that if you attempt to answer these questions and statements, the word "faith" will come up. Faith is useless. It isn't sufficient to verify anything.

 

[Archer]

I just joined this forum and as is known we are not to argue or debate about God. I have had some very painful and expensive revelations. I think this will be my last post to this thread as I am in tooooooo much pain to mess with the will of god. Good luck all.

Oh, the bad luck was simple surgery to clear a blood clot in my rectum that that mysteriously appeared the morning after I made my first post to this thread (thought it was a hemorrhoid).
After being told no lifting or working out and to take it easy for a week I had a flat on the way home.

I believe 100% as there are no coincidences.

 

[freethinker44]

I started the thread and nothing bad has happened to me. I have saying these things about god for almost 2 decades now and nothing horrible has happened to me. I've even gone to Iraq twice, perfect opportunity god to exact revenge, and yet nothing. Even the bible says people don't get punished in life, they get theirs when they die.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I just joined this forum and as is known we are not to argue or debate about God. I have had some very painful and expensive revelations. I think this will be my last post to this thread as I am in tooooooo much pain to mess with the will of god. Good luck all.

Oh, the bad luck was simple surgery to clear a blood clot in my rectum that that mysteriously appeared the morning after I made my first post to this thread (thought it was a hemorrhoid).
After being told no lifting or working out and to take it easy for a week I had a flat on the way home.

I believe 100% as there are no coincidences.

Not so omnibenevolent then? I never knew rectal thrombosis was his thing but guess I don't know him too well.

How is sharing your views 'messing with the will of God'? If you're a theist then I would imagine you're arguing the case for God. Why would he be angry at you personally for sticking up for him?

Oh well, never mind. Have a good life

GhK.

 

[Archer]

I started the thread and nothing bad has happened to me. I have saying these things about god for almost 2 decades now and nothing horrible has happened to me. I've even gone to Iraq twice, perfect opportunity god to exact revenge, and yet nothing. Even the bible says people don't get punished in life, they get theirs when they die.

Not so omnibenevolent then? I never knew rectal thrombosis was his thing but guess I don't know him too well.

How is sharing your views 'messing with the will of God'? If you're a theist then I would imagine you're arguing the case for God. Why would he be angry at you personally for sticking up for him?

Oh well, never mind. Have a good life

GhK.

Some of us get a redirect!!! And nothing will happen to the non believer because they could not see any association with God they have no relationship with him.

 

[McBell]

Some of us get a redirect!!! And nothing will happen to the non believer because they could not see any association with God they have no relationship with him.

You make a most excellent case to not believe in God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Hi freethinker, your logic is fine but it seems to me you are conflating the deity of creation with the Absolute God. Now you are in the same company of most Christians since they do not make a distinction between the Absolute God and that of one of the two of Its aspects, creation and destruction. In the Hindu tradition, this distinction is made, the Absolute is Brahman, and the creator deity is Brahma, and the destroyer deity is Shiva. Same in the Taoist tradition, the Absolute is Tao, the positive aspect is Yang and the negative in Ying. But Brahman/Tao/Absolute God doesn't do anything, IT is ONE and is beyond duality, IT is neither active nor passive, neither good nor evil, etc.., but rather is THAT in which the ceaseless activity of creation and destruction continues eternally.

Since most Christians don't realize that their creator god is merely the complementary opposite concept of the destroyer god whom they associate with the name Satan/Devil, then it is not the supreme God they are worshiping, but rather one side of a pair of complementary opposite aspects of the manifestation of the ONE God. Presumably they do this because of the curse of eating the metaphorical fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, ie. dualism, thinking that worshiping the 'good' side is better than worshiping the 'evil' side , but in fact they are not worshiping the ONE God at all which is why they remain in the fallen state.

So in conclusion, you logic works well with respect to a deity aspect of Absolute God, such as a creator god, but it doesn't work with respect to the Absolute Itself, for in the ancient traditions, God (Absolute) is understood to be non-dual and remains forever transcendent to dualist conception.

 

[freethinker44]

I have argued in previous posts that anything less than an absolute god, isn't really a god. I'm kind of bored and this thread is starting to die out so I will go through in more detail.

First, you must define god. Now I realize people would object to this, but, if something exists, it has a definition. Assuming god exists, we may never know the complete definition of it. But we do not need a complete definition, you only need a minimalistic definition to make judgement. For example, lets place a rock at the level we would a god, unknowable. (this is just an example, I don't actually believe a rock is god) Now we know a rock exists and we can use logic to define at least one charactaristic, we will say a rock must be hard. Therefore, we can conclude that anything not hard is not a rock. Furthermore, if we can prove that nothing can be hard, we have proven a rock cannot exist. Regardless of what we know of the rock, or even if we know completely the definition of a rock and the rock meets every charactaristic except one, it cannot by definition be a rock. It is merely rock-like but not a rock. The same applies to god. There is actually a practical way to find at least one charactaristic of a god, just ask yourself what the difference between a god and a human is. Even though you know nothing of god, you at least know the difference between yourself and god, so for something to exist, it must meet that minimum requirement or it cannot be a god, it could exist, it just isn't a god.

 

[Thief]

392 posts and NOW you want to finish where you should have started.
Have you read Webster's?
The primary definition describes what a God should be.

If you go back through my postings...GOD...fits that definition.
If you prefer the description of God as a particular person...we can continue from there.

However...by your own admission, lengthy discussions are tiresome, when trying to disprove god.

Faith requires no proving, and logic cannot take it away.

 

[freethinker44]

• Main Entry: 1god
• Pronunciation: \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
• Function: noun
• Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
• Date: before 12th century

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Pretty sure this exactly how I defined god, except I also said it is impossible to have these attributes.

• Main Entry: 1faith
• Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
• Function: noun
• Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
• Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
• Date: 13th century

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Hmmm, doesn't appear to say it needs no proof, just belief in something that doesn't have proof. Since I have disproved god based on the definition of what a god must be, faith is irrelevant. Continued faith even after something has been debunked isn't technically faith then is it, maybe just progpagating a lie.


EDIT: This was taken from Mirriam-Webster dictionary btw

 

[Thief]

Your logic is flawed, and my Webster's seems to read differently.
So where do you want to start?

 

[freethinker44]

I've already stated what I have to say on the subject. Where do you want to start. Are you just going to say I'm wrong and leave it at that or are you going to support it with something.

 

[Thief]

How about posts # 275,279, 284?

The replies I got were shallow. A bit more if anyone would please.

 

[freethinker44]

Eighth grade science lesson...
For every cause there is an effect....for every effect there is a cause.

Or maybe that nun lied to me.

This must also apply to god, if not then why wouldn't anything else also be exempt.

 

[freethinker44]

Your logic fails for the same cause.

What is this 'speck of something' that nullifies the 'void'?
Do you believe in 'something' you cannot explain?

I have no idea what this is in reference to. If you could clarify or explain in more detail that would be helpfull.

 

[freethinker44]

And here is where cause falls short.
I will play the devil's advocate.

Pre-singularity existence cannot be explained.
There are no terms available.
All is void. No science.

No plan can be formulated.
No terms are available.
No experience or direction can be applied. No logic.

However...(no longer devil's advocate)
We exist. The universe exists.
Science requires cause and effect.
Logic is similar.

A creation is a reflection of it's cause. I believe in God.

If there is no logic, then there is no cause and effect. Cause and effect are merely a logical concept. Either way, have already demonstrated that even if there were a creator, it cannot be a god, only god-like.