Disproving god with the laws of logic

[freethinker44]

Tell me Thief or Venatoris, what is a god to you? What distinguishing quality must a god show you or possess before you consider it to be a god? Basically, what is your definition of a god? And you can define a god, you do it every day. You have some minimal definition that you use to judge whether every day things and people around you are not gods, what are those qualities that separate god from everything else? Please be specific.

 

[richardlowellt]

Or perhaps the premise is easier for you.
How about an undeniable line of logic, showing there can be no God?

[/QUOTE]Not very hard to do, Dr. Victor Stenger does it very well in his book God The Failed Hypothesis, How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. I love chapter 6 The failures of revelation, Chapter 2 The Illusion of design, chapter 4 Cosmic evidence, It might be a little scary for you, but a real good read.

 

[Vile Atheist]

This has been illuminating. Thief just charges on, ignoring all the objections I raise to his line of thinking while continuing to mutter "cause and effect...cause and effect..." and vociferously claiming that he has not heard any objections to his argument. It has been very illuminating. Hands down, one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever had the misfortune of coming into contact with.

 

[Thief]

Claiming someone else to be intellectually dishonest is a shallow offering.
Especially when that someone has an i.q. of 125.

But of course that doesn't really matter does it?
Many atheists cling to their non-belief simply because the spiritual responsibilities are beyond them.

Let's try something different.
Could the singularity be a creation?

 

[freethinker44]

Could god be a creation?

Whatever your answer, go ahead and apply that to literally everything that exists.

 

[Thief]

Exactly.
God is the source.

 

[freethinker44]

What is the source of god?

 

[Thief]

I think we're finally getting somewhere.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Claiming someone else to be intellectually dishonest is a shallow offering.
Especially when that someone has an i.q. of 125.

But of course that doesn't really matter does it?
Many atheists cling to their non-belief simply because the spiritual responsibilities are beyond them.

Let's try something different.
Could the singularity be a creation?

Your purported IQ is hardly an issue if you refuse to even address the arguments against your position and then claim there is no argument against your position. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. And you fit that definition to a tee.

And I note how you continue to attempt to divert attention away from the arguments to try and shirk the burden of actually addressing my points. You deny being intellectually dishonest while simultaneously continuing to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[freethinker44]

I think we're finally getting somewhere.

Maybe, but it seems like we are going in circles. You say the universe needs a source, but your logic is flawed because if everything must have a source, then so must god in order for any rational person to accept that theory. If god needs no source, then nothing needs a source, which would mean your agument is useless because we wouldn't need to use god to explain the existence of anything since everything could be the source of its own existence. So, what is the source god?

 

[Thief]

A fair question.
Though it may seem I've been trying to avoid it...not really.

Most believers consider God to be spirit.
As such, the physical laws we humans endure, do not apply to Him.
He is greater than His creation.

Yeah, I know...a convenient viewpoint.
But as an argument, a difficult one to sent aside.
As Creator, and not possessing a body, He has no physical constraints.
Time and space mean nothing to His getting about.....even though He made them.
Yeah I know...more convenience.

But science would have us believe the universe (one word) came from a singularity. Fine.
But of course, the singularity 'came from something'.
Science can't go there. Take all things to a truly singular point, and everything we could talk about disappears into the void.
No light, no sound, no movement, and no numbers.

So then the argumentative ploy...given by science....cause and effect.
Can't have one without the other....and we have a singularity to deal with.
Science doesn't have a God...but I do.

 

[rageoftyrael]

you still haven't explained why god doesn't need a cause. now, science basically implies that everything is expanding, right? so it would seem logical that it all started at one point. unfortunately, that doesn't explain how what is in that point got there to begin with. so essentially, at the moment, science can't really explain how everything was started. even if the big bang is true, that isn't really the start of the universe, is it?

of course, at this point, we will happily admit that we don't know. we don't make stuff up, just to have an answer. i'll even say that i don't know whether or not there is a god. here's my problem with most people's god theories. that's all they are! people have never met their god, and yet describe what this god is like. i've never met joe danielson(made up name), but i think i'll describe him anyway. He's really tall, blonde hair, green eyes, a little pudgy, quite nice really. Now, he COULD exist, but if he does, it's by shear random luck than through actual intelligence that i knew this.

 

[freethinker44]

A fair question.
Though it may seem I've been trying to avoid it...not really.

Most believers consider God to be spirit.
As such, the physical laws we humans endure, do not apply to Him.
He is greater than His creation.

Yeah, I know...a convenient viewpoint.
But as an argument, a difficult one to sent aside.
As Creator, and not possessing a body, He has no physical constraints.
Time and space mean nothing to His getting about.....even though He made them.
Yeah I know...more convenience.

For this view of god to be valid, god would not be able to interact with our universe. To do so he would need to be subject to the laws of our universe. Just because someone is the creator of something doesn't mean he is above that creation. If someone builds a car, and never touches it after he is finished then car cannot affect the creator, but if the creator gets in the car and, say he crashes it, then by interacting with his creation, he becomes subject to it.

If god created the universe and then left it untouched forever, then I will concede and say there is no way to prove or disprove whether that god can exist. But if he interacts with the creation and becomes subject to its physical constraints, then he would immediatally cancel himself out and become nonexistent, because in our universe, such a being could not logically exist.

 

[freethinker44]

For this view of god to be valid, god would not be able to interact with our universe. To do so he would need to be subject to the laws of our universe. Just because someone is the creator of something doesn't mean he is above that creation. If someone builds a car, and never touches it after he is finished then car cannot affect the creator, but if the creator gets in the car and, say he crashes it, then by interacting with his creation, he becomes subject to it.

If god created the universe and then left it untouched forever, then I will concede and say there is no way to prove or disprove whether that god can exist. But if he interacts with the creation and becomes subject to its physical constraints, then he would immediatally cancel himself out and become nonexistent, because in our universe, such a being could not logically exist.

You know what, I just thought of something.

Even the god who doesn't interact cannot logically exist, because even though he is not subject to any physical laws, the mere fact that he could be subject to them is enough to say that he is always subject to them. Just like you or I could be subject to serious injury if we step in front of a bus, that doesn't mean that part of reality doesn't apply if we choose not to interact with it, it is the possibility of being subject to injury that we are subjected to. So even though a god could bypass our physical laws, he is still subjected to the possibility of being subjected to them, and being subjected to something is suggesting of a power higher than that of the one being subjected to, so the possibility of any type of god existing is a logical paradox. Meaning even a god who is outside the constraints of physics or even logic, is still subject to them and therefore is not a god.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

You know what, I just thought of something.

Even the god who doesn't interact cannot logically exist, because even though he is not subject to any physical laws, the mere fact that he could be subject to them is enough to say that he is always subject to them. Just like you or I could be subject to serious injury if we step in front of a bus, that doesn't mean that part of reality doesn't apply if we choose not to interact with it, it is the possibility of being subject to injury that we are subjected to. So even though a god could bypass our physical laws, he is still subjected to the possibility of being subjected to them, and being subjected to something is suggesting of a power higher than that of the one being subjected to, so the possibility of any type of god existing is a logical paradox. Meaning even a god who is outside the constraints of physics or even logic, is still subject to them and therefore is not a god.

"Correct." As such all properly constructed notions of "God" exceed logic as they must be able to violate causality (which violates tautologies).

Edit: This is not merely to allow for "creation" to occur, but also to "protect" the "essence" from definition and thus limitation. Only a completely indeterminate entity is able to "functionally" be a "creator" being in "truth."

MTF

 

[McBell]

For this view of god to be valid, god would not be able to interact with our universe. To do so he would need to be subject to the laws of our universe.

says who?

How do you know this?
Source please.

 

[freethinker44]

says who?

How do you know this?
Source please.

Did you read the rest of it?

 

[freethinker44]

Once god interacts with his creation, he bocomes part of it, and then subject to it.

We can use the "game designer" argument for this.

If someone makes a game, the game is a complete world with whatever laws and rules the designer dictates, but when the designer plays the game he must follow the rules of the game as long as he is interacting with it. We could say that the designer is always subject to the rules of his game even when he leaves the game alone because he is subject to the possibility of being subject to them. Following this logic though, one could say that any kind of objective reality does not exist because everything is subjective to everything else, even god, but then hos can god be god if he is subject to everything as we are.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Once god interacts with his creation, he bocomes part of it, and then subject to it.

We can use the "game designer" argument for this.

If someone makes a game, the game is a complete world with whatever laws and rules the designer dictates, but when the designer plays the game he must follow the rules of the game as long as he is interacting with it. We could say that the designer is always subject to the rules of his game even when he leaves the game alone because he is subject to the possibility of being subject to them. Following this logic though, one could say that any kind of objective reality does not exist because everything is subjective to everything else, even god, but then hos can god be god if he is subject to everything as we are.

Firstly, I think the inspiration of playing games in 'God mode' is inspired by this concept. God interacting inside creation could feasibly occur with a special set of conditions different from those which are normal.

And aside from that, by supplying an avatar into this game world, this designer is existing inside and out of his created universe. He can play in the game whilst doing other things outside his creation. He can even pause his creation, and do several complicated things (edit: outside or inside this creation in the form of programming) that, relative to his creations perspective, would be instantaneous.

All in all, I think your argument isn't that good.

 

[Thief]

Now we are into this 1000 posts, and just getting to it.

God is not subject to His creation.

Even in physical form He would have some leeway.

Oh that's right....Miracles?