Disproving god with the laws of logic

[Thief]

Well at first it may seem unrelated....
As an atheist...with logic in hand you are attempting to debunk the very existence of God.

As a rogue theologian, I seek to deal with a God....whose motivations might have nothing to do with logic.

I think disproving God....logically or otherwise...is a practice of insanity.

I find the creation to be sufficient proof...He is.
I see the act of creation as something other than logical.

Perhaps the difficulty in persuading me that God does not exist....runs deeper than logic.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps the difficulty in persuading me that God does not exist....runs deeper than logic.

Seems to me that you have already made up your mind on the matter of Gods existence and like a footprint in cement, it will remain for all time.

 

[Thief]

Yeah Mesty...
and with far more permanence than concrete.

 

[freethinker44]

Sane or insane doesn't favor right or wrong, it is just a way humans deal with or can't deal with knowledge they are given or make up.



And are we back on the first cause argument? Can't use that. If we completely ignore the fact that this argument would also apply to god and would create more questions than it answers, the universe itself is proof its own existence. God may or may not have been a first cause, but the argument that something exists so something else created it is not justified.

Cause and effect rule only needs a sufficient cause to produce an effect, the universe is a sufficient cause of its own existence, therefore, in order to prove god exists because you he created the universe you would need to do so without using anything that actually exists in the universe because any proof for a first cause that exists within the universe, is also proof that the universe could have come into existence itself. So, if you can't use any physical evidence for first cause, you either must realize that you don't know whether god exists or use conceptual evidence, and what better proof of god would there be than god himself. So we use our understanding of god, and we do understand god to an extent even if complete understanding is impossible, we understand something about god because we know god exists (I am not actually saying god exists, "god exists" is the hypothesis so you assume it is correct and then test it). So we test what we know about god and if nothing can logically possess that defintion, then regardless of what unknown knowledge we are missing, doesn't matter, because the original concept isn't viable at the basic levels.

 

[McBell]

Yeah Mesty...
and with far more permanence than concrete.

You said it, not me.

 

[Thief]

I reiterate....cause and effect work quite well.
The singularity would be at rest if not acted upon.
"Something" created the singularity.

The expansion would be an ever increasing hollow centered explosion...without rotation. But of course "Something" set the rotation into play....before the expansion could begin.

The effect, clearly seen by observation, is the rotation of the all things this universe (one word) contains.
The Cause...of course ...is God.

When considering the words..."I am!"....the universe is the result of that declaration.

Take away the universe and the declaration fails.

Take away the universe and then you can say...He does not exist.
But then...you wouldn't be there to say so.

 

[freethinker44]

The universe is the simplest explanation for its own existence. And really, all you said isn't even science, it is like a crude explanation of the big bang distorted in a way similar to how any other creationist would missrepresent the theory of evolution to support his own ideology. But I am not going to argue whether what yo say is scientifically possible because all you have said is possible without a conscious being to make it happen. So I will reiterate, the universe itself is a sufficient first cause so if god caused it you need to prove it without using anything belonging to our universe.

 

[Thief]

The big bang is not the theory of evolution.

Cause and effect exist ...theologically.

 

[McBell]

"Something" created the singularity.

Really?
And this is based upon what, exactly?

 

[rageoftyrael]

Hey, he already admitted that logic means little to him, at least in the case of god, so why bother talking to him? He'll try to use his own weird brand of logic to try and change our minds, but his can't be changed, apparently. So don't waste your time, unless you enjoy fruitless endeavors, especially when the person you are wasting your time on tells you that you are wasting your time on them.

 

[emiliano]

Okay....your last post finally betrays you.

You say, that you need only demonstrate that God lacks the 'trait' of a god to prove He doesn't exist.
I don't think that's logical.
Especially if you focus solely on the Christian God.

In the course of 700+ postings....did I miss your disproving that one item...
the one item that shows absolutely....that God does not exist?

I admire your patient, how do you do it? It is funny to see this guys sweat it out, you are doing such a good job, how can anybody give them a logical explanation when they don’t have a clue?

 

[McBell]

how can anybody give them a logical explanation when they don’t have a clue?

Actually we have figured it out:

Seems to me that you have already made up your mind on the matter of Gods existence and like a footprint in cement, it will remain for all time.

Yeah Mesty...
and with far more permanence than concrete.

So all the logic in world, all the truth in the world, all the reasoning in the world won't make a lick of difference.

Isn't it funny how those who claim to value truth the most are most often the ones who choose to blatantly ignore anything that they think goes against their belief?

And none dare call it treason...

 

[Willamena]

So all the logic in world, all the truth in the world, all the reasoning in the world won't make a lick of difference.

Those things can only make a difference to the person who brings them to fruition.

 

[freethinker44]

It's called cognitive dissonance, people will justify and rationalize beliefs when presented with contradictions to them instead of changing their minds.

Quoted from wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people's ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony, or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.
A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

The only way anyone will accept they are wrong is if they come to that conclusion theirself.

 

[McBell]

Those things can only make a difference to the person who brings them to fruition.

Agreed.
to bad some people do not want them even planted.....

 

[Willamena]

It's called cognitive dissonance, people will justify and rationalize beliefs when presented with contradictions to them instead of changing their minds.

Well, that's cognative dissonance for you, not for them.

The only way anyone will accept they are wrong is if they come to that conclusion theirself.

Just so.

 

[Willamena]

Agreed.
to bad some people do not want them even planted.....

Everyone has them planted; the problem I see is that of someone trying to jam their own fruit down someone else's throat.

Which reminds me, it's time for breakfast.

 

[McBell]

Everyone has them planted; the problem I see is that of someone trying to jam their own fruit down someone else's throat.

Yes.
Proof positive that one mans Bull **** is another mans god given absolute truth.

 

[freethinker44]

Well, that's cognative dissonance for you, not for them.

Well, it applies to everyone and everyone does it, I do it too sometimes. I try to catch myself though, and I really do think that I am open to the possibility of a god existing but I would never worship a god. I would acknowledge its existence but never worship.

I think most atheists are at least somewhat resistant to cognitive dissonance because those who were raised religiously, myself included, at some point in our lives we came to question a major life doctorine and we rejected that doctorine and in most cases formed a new one.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yes.
Proof positive that one mans Bull **** is another mans god given absolute truth.

This quote...deserves to be carved in stone and shown to all schoolchildren.