Disproving god with the laws of logic

[Vile Atheist]

You say science cannot attribute any cause of a photon?
Okay...science didn't do it.....God did.

Really guys.
You cannot disprove God by logic. Logic does not apply.
The technique won't work.
Each time you offer objection...a believer will say...God first.

We are several hundred replies into this and you don't get it.
And you think I'm stubborn!

God caused photons? Where is your proof for this?

I'm not trying to disprove God through logic. But we've already shown "cause and effect" to be invalid using science.

And I don't get it!? You cannot give me an naturalistic cause of photons and yet you keep repeating "cause and effect" as if repeating it more and more somehow bestows validity upon it.

Sorry, I'm not interested in discussing with someone who is so intellectually dishonest. I cannot think of a more fruitless exercise. Even in the face of fact, you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[Thief]

We haven't been discussing fact.
We've been discussing technique.

Logic is a method...a tool.
And it's the wrong tool for 'disproving God with the laws of logic'.

If you want to show God as non-existent.....

 

[Vile Atheist]

No wonder you're so confused, you don't even know what I'm arguing!

Where did I say I was "disproving God using the laws of logic"? Where did I say I wanted to show God as non-existent? Care to quote me? Because I'll quote myself here...apparently you have no reading comprehension:

I'm not trying to disprove God through logic. But we've already shown "cause and effect" to be invalid using science.

So I have no idea what the hell YOU are trying to argue when I've explicitly stated I am not trying to disprove God using logic.

So what the hell are you arguing then? Cause and effect is true? Then you must give a cause for photons. And if you choose "God", you must prove it naturalistically. If you can't - and I really doubt you can - then sorry, we have nothing to discuss. Good day.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Actually, Thief...I got to thinking about it.

You were earlier trying to use a messed up version of the argument from contingency, were you not? If you doggedly refuse to accept how cause and effect can be demonstrated to be false scientifically with no justification on your part, perhaps you'll accept this logical refutation of the argument from contingency.

The argument from contingency says that everything that is contingent (unnecessary) has a cause. Everything that is necessary does not require explanation. God is a necessary being for the universe so exist. Therefore God does not require an explanation. Let me defeat the argument from contigency for you so you can see why this argument is invalid.

(1) Everything that is contingent has a cause.
(2) Everything that is necessary does not require an explanation.
(3) The universe is contingent.
(4) Therefore the universe has a cause.
(5) God is a necessary being for the universe to exist.

------ I'm sure you're in complete agreement at least up to here. I am, after all, playing your ball game. -----

(6) If the universe does not exist, God is no longer necessary. [Note: You'll probably try to debate this, but if you do, you have to abandon premise (5). Without the universe existing, God isn't necessary for anything.]
(7) Either the universe is infinite or finite.
(8) Something that has a cause cannot be infinite.
(9) The universe has a cause, so it cannot be infinite.
(10) The universe must therefore be finite and began to exist.
(11) God is infinite.
(12) For an infinite period of time before the beginning of the universe, God was contingent (unnecessary).
(13) Contingent things have a cause.
(14) God has a cause.

 

[Thief]

So how do you really want to play this?
Is science a valid tool of proving?
Is logic a valid tool of proving?

If you say no....neither method can be used to prove God.
Likewise, neither method can be be used to disprove God.

That God remains elusive to some people, won't cause the rest of the world to let go of faith....and faith requires no proving...therefore faith cannot be defeated with logic...(which now appears useless).
Science cannot account for a photon...let alone God.

 

[Standup Philosopher]

Why are we so short-sighted and arrogant as to think the Supreme Being must adhere to our methods of proof? Our three pound brain cannot wrap around God. We are limited to three dimensions and 24 hour time frames. Science is limited to what can be observed with our eyeballs (even enhanced with instruments) and weighed and measured.

God is far beyond all of our limitations. If you want to know him, you must come as a little child. This ticks off people who think they are smart, so often they won't come at all.

Je'

 

[McBell]

So how do you really want to play this?
Is science a valid tool of proving?
Is logic a valid tool of proving?

If you say no....neither method can be used to prove God.
Likewise, neither method can be be used to disprove God.

That God remains elusive to some people, won't cause the rest of the world to let go of faith....and faith requires no proving...therefore faith cannot be defeated with logic...(which now appears useless).
Science cannot account for a photon...let alone God.

And as you have so clearly demonstrated:

Faith is a device of self-delusion, a slight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up.
Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim.
It is trying to breathe life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes.
Misery, iniquity, and utter destruction lurk in the shadows outside its full light, where half-truths snare the faithful disciples, the deeply feeling believers, the selfless followers.
Faith and feelings provide no boundary to limit any delusion, any whim.
They are a virulent poison, giving the numbing illusion of moral sanction to every depravity ever hatched.
​

 

[Thief]

Hey Mesty...
That last post was really a downer.....are you like that all of the time?

And how does it rebuttal my last post?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Why are we so short-sighted and arrogant as to think the Supreme Being must adhere to our methods of proof? Our three pound brain cannot wrap around God. We are limited to three dimensions and 24 hour time frames. Science is limited to what can be observed with our eyeballs (even enhanced with instruments) and weighed and measured.

God is far beyond all of our limitations. If you want to know him, you must come as a little child. This ticks off people who think they are smart, so often they won't come at all.

Je'

I like how christians feel that, when THEY are using methods of proof, they are somehow right, and when atheists use the same methods we are somehow doing it wrong. If God is beyond all our limitations, why do you (Christians) insist on assigning our (limited) qualities to her? How can we know what we can't know? THAT is a logical impossibility.
We created logic based on other systems which we have also created. Logic is not a theological concept. By our own definition of certain words, some sentences cannot (logically) make sense, because we have set the definitions. That has nothing to do with limiting the possibility of God, but only serves to show that some sentences do not make sense due to the definitions we have given them. For example, consider the following:
I have a shape.
This shape is a cube
The shape is also a sphere
And this shape is also a tetrahedron.

Logically the above statements cannot make sense, based solely on the fact that the way they are defined makes it impossible. Even God, who is omnipotent, cannot make them all true. This is because we have created these limited definitions to restrict interpretation - It either is a cube, a sphere, or a tetrahedron (Or something else). It cannot be all 3.

Blind faith is plenty reason enough to believe, it just doesn't make sense to me to believe in something that is logically implausible, especially considering the qualities assigned to said God.

I understand your side of the arguement - I was a christian once (And yes, I was a REAL christian), i'm just arguing the other side of it

GhK.

 

[McBell]

Hey Mesty...
That last post was really a downer.....are you like that all of the time?

And how does it rebuttal my last post?

You have merely shown how it is the way it is with far to many people.

Your faith trumps all else.
You have allowed your faith to over ride all reason.

Yes, it is really truly sad that you are that way.
But to each their own.

 

[Archer]

I must chime in though I should not.

Define Photon
Define quark
Define residual radiation
Do Photons ride the wave, are they always present never moving just appearing to as the wave agitates then? Are we seeing the light wave with moving photons or are we only seeing the effects of an undefined wave causing agitation in dark matter creating the appearance of movement that is actually just a chain reaction.

What is the weight of a photon?
What is the weight of a quark?

If what I say is true would it not account for the effects we see that only have Dark matter as the explanation. The photon may be the missing Item and energy but we can only see them when acted upon by the wave that is light.

 

[freethinker44]

Why are we so short-sighted and arrogant as to think the Supreme Being must adhere to our methods of proof? Our three pound brain cannot wrap around God. We are limited to three dimensions and 24 hour time frames. Science is limited to what can be observed with our eyeballs (even enhanced with instruments) and weighed and measured.

God is far beyond all of our limitations. If you want to know him, you must come as a little child. This ticks off people who think they are smart, so often they won't come at all.

Je'

I'm not trying to picky but almost every little fact you put out there you got wrong.

brain is around 11 pounds.

dimensions were never three but a minimum of four, we have determined 11 today if superstring theory is correct.

I'll give you the 24 hour time frame one even though it isn't entirely accurate, time is relative to gravity and motion, but since we live on earth we use a 24 hour marker to categorize sections of time.

science isn't limited to what we can see, in fact most of quantum theory deals with extremely small unseen particles and mathematical concepts. They are unseen because we see by processing photons that are bounced off of larger particles. In the quantum arena a photon is like a meteor hurling through space, it doesn't bounce off of anything else so we can't see anything there. We only KNOW they are there through extensive mathematical calculations.

As far as having to be like a child to know god, saying I have to be ignorant to understand god is like saying if I know the truth I won't believe. It just validates everything I've learned about religion.

 

[Thief]

I was watching a science program as they interviewed several...having genius type abilities.
It was noted...numbers are not absolute.
It seems that every occasion there is an anomaly.
Even number systems fail unto themselves, and there are equations for which there are no solutions.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I was watching a science program as they interviewed several...having genius type abilities.
It was noted...numbers are not absolute.
It seems that every occasion there is an anomaly.
Even number system fail unto themselves, and there are equations for which there are no solutions.

What math tends to do then is call the answer by the name of a constant. For example... Um... Can't think of an obvious one...

How about: Sqrt(-1) = ...
There is no REAL answer, so they made an IMAGINARY answer, and called it " i "

It doesn't mean a complete fail, it just means we have to tug a little harder towards the gristle end, if you know what I mean.

GhK.

 

[freethinker44]

I was watching a science program as they interviewed several...having genius type abilities.
It was noted...numbers are not absolute.
It seems that every occasion there is an anomaly.
Even number system fail unto themselves, and there are equations for which there are no solutions.

That doesn't necsessarily mean that all number systems completely fail. If it did then 2+2 wouldn't equal four. Scientists run into equations with no answer all the time. They call them gibberish. They don't leave it like that and say "oh well can't solve this one". They erase their chalkboard and start over because they did something wrong. You should read up on string theory, it was kind of discovered because the equations from relativity and quantum theory work perfect in their own fields but fall apart when applied together. Nothing is absolute, I agree with you there, even logic isn't absolute, it is objective though and therefore still disproves god.

 

[freethinker44]

Incidently, I was just reading an article about people who were a genius in one area but a bumbling moron in the rest of thier life. It was kind of interesting, not that all people with genius level IQs are idiot savants but I think it would be wrong to say they were without question simply because they are more intelligent.

 

[Humanistheart]

I said that to qualify the following: It is easy to understand why people would be an Atheist as the lies that people tell themselves are sickening. Most people of faith have no foot to stand on, gay's and women in clergy? marrying two men? these churches should lose their tax exempt status..

Because churches don't uphold the ideals your comfortable with the state needs to get involved and remove tax exempt status. What a ludicrous statment.

My logic is that I am a rational educated person that believes in evolution and science and no matter how much I try to deny the existence of God I find myself talking to him/her/them, there is just so much we do not know.

You talk to an imaginary friend. So much for rational.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So how do you really want to play this?
Is science a valid tool of proving?
Is logic a valid tool of proving?

If you say no....neither method can be used to prove God.
Likewise, neither method can be be used to disprove God.

That God remains elusive to some people, won't cause the rest of the world to let go of faith....and faith requires no proving...therefore faith cannot be defeated with logic...(which now appears useless).
Science cannot account for a photon...let alone God.

Yes, logic and science are valid tools of proving. For baby Jesus' sake, we've relied on it for a few years and it's gotten us pretty far .

And I've never said science and logic can prove/disprove God. You keep asserting this and it's starting to get annoying. Quote me on this, or stop asserting this. I'm not going to address it in every post because you don't actually bother to read what I type.

Science and logic, however, can disprove God with certain attributes and show how they are impossible. They cannot, however, disprove every combination of attributes. There is always a type of God possible. The point is, even the possible types are extremely unlikely.


If faith requires no proving, then it cannot be used as evidence. Evidence is used to verify things. If what you are using to verify something requires no proof at all, then your verification doesn't work.

Furthermore you just assert faith doesn't require proof without reason. Why doesn't faith require proof?

Logic and science are NEVER useless. They are the ONLY useful means we have of understanding the world around us. It's rather idiotic to invent a version of God and claim your only method of "knowing" God requires absolutely no proof. I don't know how you can expect anyone to believe you. And they shouldn't. You haven't demonstrated the existence of your God at all.

 

[Thief]

In reply to #455...
If you are willing to say that logic is not absolute...then you cannot say it is sufficient to disprove God.
In reply to #456...
Using equations to disprove God also fails, because number systems fail.

If you're going to disprove God...your going to need better tools.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Thief, you don't understand, we don't need to disprove god. We cannot actually disprove god, no matter how unlikely he actually is, because he was made suitably undisputable. All we need to do is point out the fact that there is no proof for his existence, that there are obvious logical inconsistencies dealing with your god. That should be enough for intelligent people to stop believing. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case for a lot of people.