Disproving god with the laws of logic

[freethinker44]

Why do people go to the trouble of trying to disprove something they swear they do not believe exists ? Wouldn't the time be better spent painting the living room, or washing windows ?
If a person tells me : "I just had a thought." I reply "I don't believe that you did. Prove it." That other person can't prove it, but he/she can make something UP, and I can keep saying that I just don't believe them, because I don't see that thought in front of me in tangible form.

Well, first off, I really really enjoy philosophy and the question of god is an important philosophically, so this kind of is my hobby.

Another thing, when politicians make decions for how other people should live soley based on their "relationship" with god then I think it is hugely important to take into question the existence of this god that they are going to make me live by

 

[freethinker44]

To free thinker.

I haven’t read on TAG so I’ll have go on what you have said, earlier on when you were asked to define God you stated “I would define god as THE standard for everything” That would make it impossible for God to change His mind, if He is the absolute Standard whatever He said it is, that is what it is if He is standard that is, mind you that you said it yourself He is the standard.

Nope, what has happened here is that you painted yourself to a corner. What you have shown is the non-existence of logic in your arguments.

I don't see how i painted myself in a corner. You can't have absolute logic with an absolute god, and I believe a god can't be a god without being absolute. I'll sum it again maybe clear it up a little.

If logic is absolute then god would be constrained by them, if you say he can't be constrained by them, that means he must be able to change them if he chooses to. If they can be changed then they are not absolute, If they are absolute and cannot be changed, god could not be a god.

I haven't painted myself in a corner, I have either shown that the laws of logic are not absolute or I have shown that the existence of god is logically impossible. That depends on how unchanging the laws of logic are. Christian philosophers claimed the laws are absolute and since they are purely conceptual, they must have been thought into existence. I agree, the laws are absolute, but once that logic is applied you find that god and logic cannot exist together.

So, to apply logic, I ask, can god not be god?

Yes or no. If yes, god violates the laws of logic making them not absolute, if no, god becomes subjective to the laws of logic making god not absolute.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

this post is just to check what type of member i am...

 

[nonbeliever_92]

damn still don't know. :/

 

[nonbeliever_92]

ooh! I'm a sophmore, and I just discovered my Frubals page

 

[McBell]

ooh! I'm a sophmore, and I just discovered my Frubals page

Frubals page?
There is a Frubals page?
Where?

 

[Humanistheart]

Frubals page?
There is a Frubals page?
Where?

Maybe the author's reffering to the User CP page?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

no, i've found my frubals! wait, let me find them again...

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Oh, nevermind it was my CP page, didn't know it stood for Control Panel

 

[themadhair]

If a person tells me : "I just had a thought." I reply "I don't believe that you did. Prove it." That other person can't prove it, but he/she can make something UP, and I can keep saying that I just don't believe them, because I don't see that thought in front of me in tangible form.

See my signature.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are you serious?

Yes.
from: Common fallacies
Logical Fallacies
proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

 

[Thief]

Okay...so tangible proof doesn't work here?

If I move your coffee cup, when you're not looking, can you say I don't exist?
( You need not know my person to know 'somebody' is near by.)

When you look up, the idea of cause and effect doesn't apply?
The movement and flow of things leaves you say this is NOT the handiwork of intellect? Or do you label God as a mindless force?

The complexity, diversity, and interaction of life on this planet is pure coincidence?

The person you are is NOT a reflection of 'something' similar....on a spiritual level?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Okay...so tangible proof doesn't work here?

If I move your coffee cup, when you're not looking, can you say I don't exist?
( You need not know my person to know 'somebody' is near by.)

When you look up, the idea of cause and effect doesn't apply?
The movement and flow of things leaves you say this is NOT the handiwork of intellect? Or do you label God as a mindless force?

The complexity, diversity, and interaction of life on this planet is pure coincidence?

The person you are is NOT a reflection of 'something' similar....on a spiritual level?

This post is another logical fallacy called a red herring. The OP spoke of logical applications. Logic has rules.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Okay...so tangible proof doesn't work here?

If I move your coffee cup, when you're not looking, can you say I don't exist?
( You need not know my person to know 'somebody' is near by.)

When you look up, the idea of cause and effect doesn't apply?
The movement and flow of things leaves you say this is NOT the handiwork of intellect? Or do you label God as a mindless force?

The complexity, diversity, and interaction of life on this planet is pure coincidence?

The person you are is NOT a reflection of 'something' similar....on a spiritual level?

Evolution shows us that the world around us is anything but random.

 

[Thief]

Proving God by cause and effect is not a red herring.
Random events are essential to evolution.
A discussion about evolution......now.....would be a red herring.

 

[themadhair]

Random events are essential to evolution.

Define random. When you truly understand what the word means, and then understand the role of chemistry in producing genetic variation, then you will see the problem with what you wrote.

 

[Thief]

Random events have been taken to a new level of study.
It is now regarded as science to itself.
The new science has been given the name Chaos.

There are ongoing attempts to describe Chaos, with equations of probability.
But essentially it describes repeated events having repeated results.
The outstanding character is the variations...... as the results have resemblance to the previous event....but not exactly.

No one can predict the flight path of a dandelion seed.
The lack of exact prediction doesn't stop them from reproducing.

Lightning strike can be probable, even induced, but the potency and the display are never the same.

Everyone has heard about snowflakes.

Random events are essential to this world.

Do you regard the big bang as a random event....not having cause and effect? The process now appears to be ongoing...with new stars generated even as I write this.

 

[themadhair]

The new science has been given the name Chaos.

facepalm.jpg

Genuine question here – but how in the purple skies of Möbius can you hope to even have a discussion on this??? I’m not being belligerent or disrespectful when I say this, but you appear to have been filled with huge chunks of crap that you have mistaken for science. Until you unlearn this crap I don’t see how any discussion could even occur.

 

[Thief]

The "crap" as you call it was presented on public tv as a science documentary.

Many examples were demonstrated to display the concept.

 

[richardlowellt]

Frubals page?
There is a Frubals page?
Where?

And what is your take on the logic displayed on post #82 dealing with a non-existent God?