Disproving god with the laws of logic

[blackout]

I was putting words in his mouth, notice how this thread isn't mine. I shouldn't have said anything.

Nah. it's cool.
I'll catch your posting style soon enough.

Besides you opened up the opportunity for me to make my point better.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I refer to "God" as Perfect Perfection (PP for short) or Supreme Reality (I don't like First Cause as notions of causality don't really relate to this "being"). The problem with interpolation back to a singularity is that that singularity includes time. Our universe is not necessarily synonymous with the totality of reality. We might only be able to go back (however many billion years), but that doesn't mean that the whole cosmos might not be trillions or even eternal.

"God" actually isn't something. That's part of that whole completely logically indeterminate. "God" lacks existence as we understand the term to mean, including "being something." I am "extending" the mystery to outside the bounds of reality. Anything outside of reality is not my concern, whereas a great "void" which is "immune" explanation would be a concern.


But as far as your last point is concerned I agree entirely. Reality is Reality. I find the notion "God" useful when examining the consequences of infinity as it relates to cosmology, but you are correct in noting that "God" generally has a bunch of (in my opinion useless) religious baggage attached which can confuse the issue. And I do not advocate "worship" of Supreme Reality or the "Totality of Reality" or whatever you want to call "All that is" or "Origination of Reality." The notion is completely foreign to me.


I think the cosmos is far more mysterious and wondrous than most people give it credit for. I am a defender of religion in act, but not in ideology; I like to think of it as training wheels for people on their way to accepting ideas which have heavier implications than they are prepared to accept at the time. Whereas the journey inward and outward; the search for answers whether it is tinged with notions of religious experience or a half-obsessed desire to manipulate the cosmos (become a wizard) it hardly matters to me why we search for truth, answers, facts, new experiences, wisdom, etc; so long as we don't stop searching.

MTF

Nice to hear your views, MTF. Certainly refreshing. They even seem at some point to be - in some bizarre way - atheistic. I mean that in the sense that God is not an actual "thing". If I ever were to accept a deity, it would be along the lines of what you have just proposed.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I believe he mentioned he is a deist. Meaning his notion of God is the origin of everything and doesn't really meddle in our lives. I think he accepts scientific explanations after that. But that's just my guestimate. I'll let him speak for himself.

I am a "deist" of sorts. I rather prefer to avoid labels. I believe what I believe is true. I don't believe in creation as an act; I actually prefer something comparable to the gnostic notion of "emanation." The whole notion of Perfection doing well... anything is something of a misnomer. There is "outside of reality" or the "totality of reality" that simply is (but also is not) that is "responsible" for their being well... anything at all. After that is is simply a matter of the "rules" as they apply on down to whatever level/corner of reality we happen to be in.

MTF

 

[Thief]

So......................
I read the letter......offered so vaguely.......

I find I could have signed my own name to note that Einstein wrote.
The letter was not a discourse 'disproving' God.

I mentioned Einstein in previous postings for two reasons.
He objected when atheists try to use his work to disprove God.
He also had some difficulty rationalizing the singularity.
The concept of a 'beginning' is difficult to put into numbers.
When moving back to such a small item with such large consequence his equation didn't hold up well.
The everyday forces we deal with, disappear.
His equation dealt with energy, mass, and motion.
All of this disappears when the singularity is considered.

So there won't be any numbers disproving God.
The singularity will be dealt with.........for now.......philosophically.

There won't be any photographs either.
Telescopes have been around a long time.
We have tons of info about the stars.
But no photos of His face.

Oddly though, one of the contenders here........hit on the argument, as if he was on my side of it.......and I bet he didn't realize what he was doing.
The physical evidence for the existence of God is all around us.
But you have to 'label' Him Creator.

The sarcasm dealt my way clearly indicates an ill perception of my perspective.

As for the redundant rebuttal of 'faith'
I can't take that away.
I would have to contact Webster Dictionary and raise objection......on behalf of the atheist.....and ask them to make a definition that could be nullified by 'logic'.
That won't happen.
So it remains.

As for the 'personal god', briefly mentioned by others.....
The angels take care of the more personal items.

Perhaps a summary would help.
There is a God.
He created all things.
He created you.
If you develop into 'something' He can tolerate.....you get to keep the 'person' you have become.
If not....you get to lay in your grave and rot.

 

[Willamena]

(it violates the tautological laws of identity; something cannot be other than itself and cannot possess qualities other than which it possesses; as such no thing can pass on qualities it does not itself possess because it does not have the quality to begin with)

Who comes up with this stuff? Is "32°F" not a point of freezing as well as melting? How can something "pass on" a quality of itself to something else that didn't already have that quality?

 

[Morse]

The problem I have is the result of "containing" infinities. As near as I can tell (we have no actual experience with infinities so this is technically conjecture) in order to contain an infinity you need something infinite.

As I stated, I may be in the wrong museum, but I'm throwing this idea out there.

Between MTF and I, there is an infinity of points within a finite distance.

But, that is speaking from a mathematical sense and I don't detect anybody but me taking on this mindset, so I doubt that has any relevance. As well, it hardly disproves the rest of his conjecture, and I don't disagree with it, I just thought I'd propose this small tangent.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So......................
I read the letter......offered so vaguely.......

I find I could have signed my own name to note that Einstein wrote.
The letter was not a discourse 'disproving' God.

I mentioned Einstein in previous postings for two reasons.
He objected when atheists try to use his work to disprove God.
He also had some difficulty rationalizing the singularity.
The concept of a 'beginning' is difficult to put into numbers.
When moving back to such a small item with such large consequence his equation didn't hold up well.
The everyday forces we deal with, disappear.
His equation dealt with energy, mass, and motion.
All of this disappears when the singularity is considered.

So there won't be any numbers disproving God.
The singularity will be dealt with.........for now.......philosophically.

There won't be any photographs either.
Telescopes have been around a long time.
We have tons of info about the stars.
But no photos of His face.

Oddly though, one of the contenders here........hit on the argument, as if he was on my side of it.......and I bet he didn't realize what he was doing.
The physical evidence for the existence of God is all around us.
But you have to 'label' Him Creator.

The sarcasm dealt my way clearly indicates an ill perception of my perspective.

As for the redundant rebuttal of 'faith'
I can't take that away.
I would have to contact Webster Dictionary and raise objection......on behalf of the atheist.....and ask them to make a definition that could be nullified by 'logic'.
That won't happen.
So it remains.

As for the 'personal god', briefly mentioned by others.....
The angels take care of the more personal items.

Perhaps a summary would help.
There is a God.
He created all things.
He created you.
If you develop into 'something' He can tolerate.....you get to keep the 'person' you have become.
If not....you get to lay in your grave and rot.

1) You seemingly know very little of Einstein
2) You seemingly know very little about physics.
3) You still haven't rebutted my argument. I'll post it again.

I have faith God doesn't exist. Furthermore, I have faith that I have more faith and stronger faith than you. Faith requires no proving. Therefore God doesn't exist.

4) Here's a summary of things:
God doesn't exist.
He did not create all.
He did not create me.
Even if God existed, I wouldn't want it to "tolerate" me.
And what a logical fallacy "If not...you get to lay in your grave and rot". Of course, if an idea is personally unappealing to you, it's clearly untrue.

5) You offer only non-arguments, Thief. This requires no proving.


Edit: Hey, if you get to spout unsubstantiated BS and claim you don't need to prove it because you have faith, so can I.

 

[Thief]

And by what standard can you assess your faith greater than mine?

At this point it should be clear to anyone reading this thread.....
No atheist can disprove God.

As for having and keeping belief in God.....
There is no logic for which to surrender.

 

[Vile Atheist]

And by what standard can you assess your faith greater than mine?

At this point it should be clear to anyone reading this thread.....
No atheist can disprove God.

As for having and keeping belief in God.....
There is no logic for which to surrender.

By what standard? I don't need to have a standard, Thief. I have faith my faith is greater than yours. Ergo, God does not exist. Therefore I am the atheist that has just disproven God.

 

[Thief]

Your denial is noted.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So who is "right"? Or do you care to admit now that you see the flaws in your own "argument"?

 

[tumbleweed41]

At this point it should be clear to anyone reading this thread.....
No atheist can disprove God.

Conversely, no theist, pantheist, panentheist, deist, or any variation thereof can prove that a god(s) does exist.

However, either side can rationalize till their face turns blue.

 

[Morse]

Conversely, no theist, pantheist, panentheist, deist, or any variation thereof can prove that a god(s) does exist.

However, either side can rationalize till their face turns blue.

They sure can, it just seems that atheists on this forum have been able to do so better than Theists (MOST atheists)

 

[Thief]

Right and wrong are used toward concepts of morality.
Good and bad are used toward the condition of a thing.
Good and evil are used to the nature of an item.
Correct and incorrect toward the answer of a question.

Logically, logic cannot be used to disprove God.

I've been doing this kind of thing for years.
And I take the time and listen to every rant I can find time for.
R. Dawkins has a pretty good routine.
Better than yours.

But I still have the stars overhead, and the earth beneath my feet.
Cause and effect. God did it.

Maybe removing the label 'creator' is your actual target.

Good luck with that!

 

[Morse]

HOLY HECKFIRE THIEF!!!!

Logically, logic cannot be used to disprove God.

Stunning Insight. Truly.

I've been doing this kind of thing for years.

And you've been doing it very well it seems.

Better than yours.

Do you even know what our routine is?

But I still have the stars overhead

You don't 'have' the stars, they are massive balls of gas that you have thus far failed to influence, hold, or control in any way, shape, or form.

and the earth beneath my feet.

Debatable.

Cause and effect.

This statement is logically ferrous and fallacious.

God did it.

I have faith that he didn't.

Maybe

No.

Good luck with that!

Thanks! While you recycle arguments you clearly don't understand and that have been disproved before, we'll be thinking of something with real substance

 

[Thief]

So maybe you got some photos to post?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Right and wrong are used toward concepts of morality.
Good and bad are used toward the condition of a thing.
Good and evil are used to the nature of an item.
Correct and incorrect toward the answer of a question.

Logically, logic cannot be used to disprove God.

I've been doing this kind of thing for years.
And I take the time and listen to every rant I can find time for.
R. Dawkins has a pretty good routine.
Better than yours.

But I still have the stars overhead, and the earth beneath my feet.
Cause and effect. God did it.

Maybe removing the label 'creator' is your actual target.

Good luck with that!

You still haven't responded to my argument.

How is me saying - through faith - that God DOESN'T exist qualitatively different from you saying - through faith - that God DOES exist?

If faith is not falsifiable (as you claim, it requires no proving...), then it has no merit. For someone can just claim the polar opposite of what you are claim (as I have done) through faith. And then how can you determine who is right and who is wrong?

You are now just spewing verbiage. What does any of what you just said have to do with the existence of God? Atheists are under no obligation to disprove anyone's God concept (or at the very least, negate the evidence) until they offer up objective evidence for it. You have yet to do that because you are intellectually dishonest.

You think you can claim to just say something exists when it demonstrably does not. And you attempt to justify this claim through "faith" and "faith requires no proving". And yet, here you are, muttering "cause and effect.....cause and effect" like a broken record as if it has any weight. I thought your faith required no proof? And yet you feel a need to justify it with "cause and effect".

And when other atheists here have torn down your "cause and effect" argument, you merely revert to "I have faith and my notion of God does not require proving". Sorry, but not only is that untrue, it's dishonest. If you make a claim, I don't care if you have faith or not, if you make a claim and say it is factual, the onus is on you to prove it.

The onus is not on the person who dissents from your claim. What kind of ***-backwards world would we live in if that were true? Invisible rainbow unicorns exist, Thief. I have faith. Now prove me wrong using your "logic". You can't. HAHAHAHAHA! I win!!!!

That is essentially the crux of your pathetic "argument". You have nothing to offer to this discussion, other than misconceptions of Einstein and physics, and your dogged, adamant claim that you can claim anything you wish without justification. You can't. And don't expect people to take you seriously or to not laugh at you and be sarcastic when you demonstrate every single quality of an intellectually dishonest person.

Someone intellectually honest would say "I don't know. But this is what I believe." Someone more intellectually honest than that would say "I don't know. But I choose not to believe a claim that has no evidence backing it." You claim to know for fact.

I, on the other hand, (other than when I'm being facetious) claim I don't know. But the mere fact we have not observed God, there are contradictions in holy texts, the claims made by religion are untestable or unfalsifiable...all point to God probably not existing.

 

[Thief]

That was a lot of 'verbiage'.

 

[Vile Atheist]

That was a lot of 'verbiage'.

And unlike what you type, it had some substance to it. That's the difference.

 

[Thief]

Did I miss it?
Did you actually post that all encompassing discussion that destroys all belief in God?
Are you greater than R.Dawkins?