Disproving god with the laws of logic

[Vile Atheist]

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

You didn't even read it. If you did, answer the question. What is the qualitative difference between my faith God doesn't exist and your faith that God does?

You're being dishonest again, avoiding uncomfortable questions.

 

[rageoftyrael]

He can't, contentiusmaximus. He can't answer your question, because if he answers it, he would either invalidate his own argument, by agreeing, or invalidate his argument by diagreeing with it. So, he must ignore it. Hey Thief, just say you have faith that he's not asking the question, and then obviously that means he isn't asking the question, and you can live on comfortable in your fantasy land again.

I will agree with thief on one point though. We can't disprove god with logic. God has been made suitably untouchable, so we can't disprove it. As i've said all along, we can point out the inconsistencies, the fallacies, etc... be we can't actually disprove it. It doesn't matter that common sense implies his nonexistence.

 

[Vile Atheist]

He can't, contentiusmaximus. He can't answer your question, because if he answers it, he would either invalidate his own argument, by agreeing, or invalidate his argument by diagreeing with it. So, he must ignore it. Hey Thief, just say you have faith that he's not asking the question, and then obviously that means he isn't asking the question, and you can live on comfortable in your fantasy land again.

I will agree with thief on one point though. We can't disprove god with logic. God has been made suitably untouchable, so we can't disprove it. As i've said all along, we can point out the inconsistencies, the fallacies, etc... be we can't actually disprove it. It doesn't matter that common sense implies his nonexistence.

Agree mostly. We can dispose of some models of God with logic. But not all. And there is always the existence of weasel arguments, too, to keep their God alive.

But I find the argument from "faith" the most illogical and repulsive of all, much less the notion that it requires no proving.

So in case he missed it, I'll ask it again. Thief: What is the qualitative difference between my faith God doesn't exist and your faith God does?

 

[Willamena]

What is the qualitative difference between my faith God doesn't exist and your faith that God does?

There is none. They are both fine examples of faith.

 

[Humanistheart]

If you did, answer the question. What is the qualitative difference between my faith God doesn't exist and your faith that God does?

.

While this wsn't directed at me I'd say the difference is that you have seen no evidence of a god, and thus have no reason to assume one exists, where as the faith in god is also based on nothing, yet those who believe have come to a positive conclusion to his existence somehow.

 

[Vile Atheist]

While this wsn't directed at me I'd say the difference is that you have seen no evidence of a god, and thus have no reason to assume one exists, where as the faith in god is also based on nothing, yet those who believe have come to a positive conclusion to his existence somehow.

You recognize that because you're intellectually honest. You recognize that there is no evidence to support God and don't make the conclusion God exists. And rightfully so.

There is none. They are both fine examples of faith

Great. Now which is more rational?

Edit: Let me elaborate.

If there is any difference (i.e. one claim of faith is more rational than another), then there IS a qualitative difference between the two faith claims.

As such, you would be forced to admit - going by your claim that there is no qualitative difference - that both faith-claims are equally rational. In other words, it is just as rational to accept a claim based on no evidence as it is to reject a claim based on no evidence.

But both you and I know that you do not adhere to this. If you did, then you would be forced to accept that the next time you turn your computer on, it might explode. You have no proof for this. But - if there is no qualitative difference between the two claims of faith - it would be just as rational to reject that claim based on no proof (which is clear you do, otherwise you would probably cease coming to RF, lest you get blown up) as it is rational to accept the claim that it might blow up.

The problem with faith claims is that there is an infinite number of possible faith claims and none can be verified. There are an infinite number of claims, but using science, we can narrow it down to one, or a few very, very, VERY (Hell, I'll add one more) VERY probable truth(s), based on our current knowledge. And we can test and make those claims falsifiable and fit them to our available evidence.

And yet, you're honestly willing to tell me that there is no qualitative difference between my claim and Thief's? There is. There is no evidence for God. And based on our current knowledge, atheism is - at least at this instant - the most probable truth.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

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!

Maybe 'God did it'. Maybe, but 'Maybe' and 'Proof' are not the same things. You DO need to prove it, because otherwise, by default, you just lost the arguement. Surely somebody trained in arguement, like yourself, should know at least basic things like burden of proof.

The definition of faith isn't something that doesn't need proving. It's believing something without proof. If you can't prove it, it doesn't mean you can't take it on faith, you just can't take it on logic. And if you can't take it on logic, regardless of whether you're right or not, you lose the logical arguement.

Saying it over and over again doesn't help in an arguement. It just annoys other people debating with you. If you wanted to preach to me, saying it over and over again... Well... It might be ok. But in an arguement, it adds nothing. You can't just repeat an assertion over and over like that will one day make it valid. It just doesn't.

GhK.

 

[Thief]

So the singularity went 'bang'...all by its 'self'?

I notice your insistence there is no evidence, and fail cause and effect.

I say the singularity is the effect and God is the cause.

Perhaps you can attribute the 'creation' to its 'self'?

 

[Vile Atheist]

So the singularity went 'bang'...all by its 'self'?

I notice your insistence there is no evidence, and fail cause and effect.

I say the singularity is the effect and God is the cause.

Perhaps you can attribute the 'creation' to its 'self'?

Your assertion =/= evidence. But back to my question. What is the qualitative difference between my faith that God doesn't exist and your faith God does?

I'm not going to let you weasel out of that question.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

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?

I think I see what you are driving at, but let me see if I can tease out whats going on...

When I say pass on and quality I mean it in the broadest sense. Pass on means any interaction or relationship, and quality is any aspect of being real that you can think of. So lets examine speed. Something cannot be going fast unless it is actually moving fast. It cannot impart this self-same fast movingness to something else, unless it already is itself moving fast.

This is not to say that "components" are unrecognized. You can take two hydrogen and one oxygen and make water. The "quality" of "waterness" was there it was simply "potential" (unrealized). Nor is multi-state/overlapping qualities grounds to dismiss the idea. I can be both a brother, an uncle, and a father at the same time without changing my essence/my nature. Those qualities are dependent upon wholly separate things. Not all actions/reactions are reversible. Becoming pregnant from sex doesn't mean you can remove the egg and sperm from the woman and become un-pregnant. I know it won't make sense at first, but think about this with respect to water:

Just because water freezes at 32F doesn't mean that in the reverse it will unfreeze at 32.000000001F. And before you balk, just think. What if some attribute of solid water made it more stable, such that water "liked" being solid? It just so happens that the universe is setup with a kind of parity (reversibility) with respect to a great many events/action...

MTF

 

[Thief]

The consequence.
I mentioned it in a previous post.

We all form a perception of this world....best we can.
Some of us fail to consider the next life.

Denial of God won't crossover.
You get to lay in your grave and rot.
I will go on to something else.

So....did the singularity go 'bang'...all by its 'self'?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I've been trained in formal rebuttal.

I tried to take Formal Rebuttal 101 in college, but registration was always full.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I've been trained in formal rebuttal.

When you can snatch the affirmative argument from my hand...it will be time for you to leave.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Hey Mesty....

I've been trained in formal rebuttal.

If it seems a bit strained it's for dragging people like yourself along to a better perspective.

Obviously.....your rebuttal....would be you....trying to make yourself feel better. There's a word for that.

Picking a post line for line has only a shallow appearance of rebuttal.
The premise today is....disproving God with logic.

There won't be any equations. There won't be any photographs.
And because faith does not require proving....I can say...
God is.

I get to say it....repeatedly...without proof.

I have faith that there is no God. Because faith does not require proving...I can say...God is not.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The consequence.
I mentioned it in a previous post.

We all form a perception of this world....best we can.
Some of us fail to consider the next life.

Denial of God won't crossover.
You get to lay in your grave and rot.
I will go on to something else.

So....did the singularity go 'bang'...all by its 'self'?

For someone who claims to have been trained in formal rebuttal, you have **** poor reasoning.

Hell, I'll even be generous and concede to your stupid cause and effect mantra. Now you still need to demonstrate how that "cause" - the cause of everything - is your God.

 

[Willamena]

What is the qualitative difference between my faith God doesn't exist and your faith that God does?

...
Great. Now which is more rational?

Neither is more rational than the other, provided that both are genuinely faith.

Edit: Let me elaborate.

If there is any difference (i.e. one claim of faith is more rational than another), then there IS a qualitative difference between the two faith claims.

As such, you would be forced to admit - going by your claim that there is no qualitative difference - that both faith-claims are equally rational. In other words, it is just as rational to accept a claim based on no evidence as it is to reject a claim based on no evidence.

Both claims are equally rational and both are accepted (by, at very least, the claimants, if they are genuine). Both "faith" claims are (necessarily, by definition) made based on evidence of things that are not in actuality. The faith-claim that God exists is made on evidence, as is the faith-claim that no God exists.

But both you and I know that you do not adhere to this. If you did, then you would be forced to accept that the next time you turn your computer on, it might explode.

I don't follow that reasoning.

You have no proof for this. But - if there is no qualitative difference between the two claims of faith - it would be just as rational to reject that claim based on no proof (which is clear you do, otherwise you would probably cease coming to RF, lest you get blown up) as it is rational to accept the claim that it might blow up.

Not so; rather, it would be rational to accept or reject based on evidence.

(Personally, I accept both claims but that is because that is in accord with my image of what "God" is.)

And yet, you're honestly willing to tell me that there is no qualitative difference between my claim and Thief's?

Yup. Both are faith claims.

 

[Willamena]

We all form a perception of this world....best we can.
Some of us fail to consider the next life.

Some of us have no image of a next life to consider.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Neither is more rational than the other, provided that both are genuinely faith.

I disagree. And even though I'm not going to quote the rest of your post, I'm still going to address it in this spiel. I'm going to make this relevant to the God existing versus not existing question and I'll try my damnedest not to use too many analogies that clutter things up.

We know something exists because it manifests itself. It can be either conceptual or non-conceptual. What is God? Conceptual or non-conceptual? If God is conceptual, God is merely a product of the mind. It's merely a product of the mind because it has no manifestation.

Love is conceptual. But it manifests itself. We can easily see this demonstrated. Concepts of love vary from person to person. But we call the basic concept of an intimate relationship with another person love. God is not conceptual because the concept varies so much from person to person and not one concept has been shown to manifest itself.

So is God non-conceptual? Most people take non-conceptual to mean physical. But God probably isn't physical. If God was physical, we'd probably be able to detect God by now. Non-conceptional does not necessarily need to mean physical, though. There are some truths that are non-conceptional and non-physical.

For example, the statement A = A holds true whether or not there is anyone around to conceptualize it. Imagine a universe identical to ours except in the minor detail that there are no conscious minds to observe and conceptualize. A rock is still a rock. A tree is still a tree. That is a basic truth that does not rely on its being conceived.

So is God non-conceptional and non-physical? If that were so, did God create logical absolutes such as A = A? If God did create those logical absolutes that means that God is not subject to those logical absolutes.

This means God can equal not God. Recall in our logical world, A = A. Rock = rock. Tree = tree. If these don't apply to God, God can also be not God. If God is not God...then it goes without saying that God does not exist.

Even if there were some sort of logical fallacy I'm employing here that I cannot at this moment recognize, it doesn't change the fact that there is no manifestation of God. We call a table a table. There is a table and there is our concept of a table. They are two different things. If our concept of a table were to be erased, the table would still exist. Likewise, if God is non-conceptual, we can erase our concept of God and we can find God to still exist. But we don't.

The flip side of the coin is if God IS subject to logical absolutes like A = A (as in God always equals God), then those existed before God. If there was any point at which God existed and then the logical absolutes did not (i.e. God first, and the logical absolutes were created by God some time later) then as shown previously, it would be possible for God to equal not God and God would not exist. And so how can God be said to be creator of all existence when something exists before God?

But all this talk of non-conceptual, conceptual, and physical entities is only a side argument to the glaring fact there is no manifestation of God. And if there is, please demonstrate it.

Thus, Thief is holding a notion of God - a conceptual notion of God - that is not manifested. Thief is merely trying to bastardize physics and Einstein (rather poorly at that) into justification for his crap deductive reasoning that God MUST HAVE existed prior to everything being created because everything must have a creator (i.e. cause and effect).

So Thief has faith in this non-manifested (and therefore nonexistent) concept. Existence is the state of being. God is not because we can apply no manifestation to the label God that doesn't already have a label for it.

By this I mean those who try and get away with claiming "God is love." No it isn't. Love is love. All they've done is succeeded in sticking a new label on something we already have a label for.

So I put the question to you again and I'll add the details now.

I have faith God doesn't exist. I have no evidence, but my rationale is that there is no manifestation of God. Thief has faith God exists. He has no evidence, but his rationale is that something MUST HAVE created the universe because of cause and effect - a being that ends the infinite regression of "Well what the Hell created that, then!?" In reality, Thief is arguing from the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance: "I cannot conceive of any other way that the universe could have come into existence. Therefore, I KNOW God exists and created the universe."

Now which - again - is more rational?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Just one thing I forgot to add to that, but also important: We don't know something exists because we first conceptualize it and then search for its manifestation. We note the manifestation, then conceptualize it.

So it's quite absurd to have a concept of God before you've even located its manifestation.

 

[Thief]

I must have made this next argument in some other thread....

Faith by definition is belief in a supreme Being...Webster's.
The definition continues to say .....proving is not required.

The statement that faith can be used in the same way to say god does not exist is false.

Replace the word 'faith' with it's definition.....
"I have belief in a supreme Being, that there is no supreme Being."
and now you can see why the argumentative ploy doesn't work.

I cannot change the definition of faith to satisfy the objection, and the objection won't accept the proper use of the noun.

An atheist would be at liberty to say he does not believe in God.
But cannot use the concept of 'faith' to say there is no God.

By definition....an atheist cannot possess 'faith'.....a belief in a supreme Being.