Disproving god with the laws of logic

[dogsgod]

It's easy to explain how a high degree of order can be produced from totally random events such as the flip of a coin. it's a totally random event, 50/50 odds whether or not a flipped coin will result in heads or tails. Even if after ten heads in a row, the odds are still fifty fifty, and the more times we flip, the order increasingly reverts to 50/50 because the chances increase of 10 tails in a row occurring which offsets the ten heads in a row. This happens in nature all the time, the odds of having a boy or a girl are 50/50, and the more babies are born, the more the odds revert to 50/50.

 

[McBell]

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

He chose a version of god he could logically show cannot exist and then showed how it logically could not exist.

 

[Vile Atheist]

*PING*

Not entirely true. You can disproove certain defined gods. As soon as "god" is not an abstract term for "anything" but gets concrete you can argue.

*PONG*

Not necessarily. Even a well-defined God can be said to contradict logic. It's just easier to see how improbable and irrelevant a particular god is the more defined it is. This is why most definitions of God are sufficiently vague. It allows plenty of room to weasel around tough questions.

Edit: The kicker to this, though, is if you define a God as being subject to the laws of logic, THEN you can disprove it by ruling out how it logically is not possible. That's what Richard is doing. Richard has essentially defined a God that IS subject to the laws of logic when a lot of theists subscribe to a God that supposedly can transgress the laws of logic. It's in a sense one giant strawman.

 

[Thief]

So...perhaps...logic is the wrong tool applied?

Logic should flow from observation to conclusion.
A broken technique is not always obvious.
I will break it...on purpose.

Going back to the big bang...God would not be able to observe anything.
Nothing as yet, would exist.
There can be no form...at all....there is only the void.

No plan can be drawn, no geometry. No direction. No light.
Nothing to think about. No means to think...no logic.

Therefore the big bang is not possible.
And God's ability to say...."I am" is not possible.

But I keep looking up. "Something" happened...and "Something" caused it.

It is likely that logic was not applied.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So...perhaps...logic is the wrong tool applied?

Logic should flow from observation to conclusion.
A broken technique is not always obvious.
I will break it...on purpose.

Going back to the big bang...God would not be able to observe anything.
Nothing as yet, would exist.
There can be no form...at all....there is only the void.

No plan can be drawn, no geometry. No direction. No light.
Nothing to think about. No means to think...no logic.

Therefore the big bang is not possible.
And God's ability to say...."I am" is not possible.

But I keep looking up. "Something" happened...and "Something" caused it.

It is likely that logic was not applied.

ContentiusMaximus here. You must be high as a kite right now.

 

[emiliano]

So...perhaps...logic is the wrong tool applied?

Logic should flow from observation to conclusion.
A broken technique is not always obvious.
I will break it...on purpose.

Going back to the big bang...God would not be able to observe anything.
Nothing as yet, would exist.
There can be no form...at all....there is only the void.

No plan can be drawn, no geometry. No direction. No light.
Nothing to think about. No means to think...no logic.

Therefore the big bang is not possible.
And God's ability to say...."I am" is not possible.

But I keep looking up. "Something" happened...and "Something" caused it.

It is likely that logic was not applied.

You're so right it is the wrong tool to use:
Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference [Concise OED]. Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning, and determine whether it is correct or not. To use the technical terms, we determine whether the reasoning is valid or invalid.
The believe in God is by Faith, we individually believe that that there is a God, the conflict with non-believer arises when believer are drawn to these Logical arguments that demand that we provide them with a logical argument to convince them and make them believe though premises that we know conduct to the conclusions cemented in their system of beliefs, I think that that is what it meant by seek and you’ll find, if you allow them to submit you to their rules what other result could you get but what you get? You can only convince them if they have Faith and this is gift from God.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You can only convince them if they have Faith and this is gift from God.

Right. A few things here.

So I can only be convinced of God's existence, once I believe God exists. Seems quite backwards and redundant to me.

And then faith is a gift from God? So then why does God choose to throw non-believers like me into eternal hellfire when he hasn't bestowed this precious gift onto me? That seems quite sadistic. I mean God is keeping the only means I can believe in him away from me purposely. And I know it's purposely because if God is omnipotent, he should be able to give me faith. So therefore God must not have intent to give me faith? And why is that?

And at that, inflict the cruelest, most excruciating torture possible for not believing in him, when he has kept this precious gift of faith out of my reach. When you understand what a dick your God is, perhaps you'll start to see things our way.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Right. A few things here.

So I can only be convinced of God's existence, once I believe God exists. Seems quite backwards and redundant to me.

And then faith is a gift from God? So then why does God choose to throw non-believers like me into eternal hellfire when he hasn't bestowed this precious gift onto me? That seems quite sadistic. I mean God is keeping the only means I can believe in him away from me purposely. And I know it's purposely because if God is omnipotent, he should be able to give me faith. So therefore God must not have intent to give me faith? And why is that?

And at that, inflict the cruelest, most excruciating torture possible for not believing in him, when he has kept this precious gift of faith out of my reach. When you understand what a dick your God is, perhaps you'll start to see things our way.
[/size][/font]

I've said it before and i'll say it again.

God is an *******.

-Q

 

[Thief]

The previous two posts are more an emotional rebuttal, than anything else.

So you don't look up.
So you don't like the concept of hell and damnation.
And you won't allow God to pick and choose the company He would keep.

None of that proves or disproves the existence of God.

Regardless of my personal perspective....and the consequence of it....
I still look up.
"Something" happened...and "Something" caused it.

 

[McBell]

"Something" happened...and "Something" caused it.

"what happened" and "What caused it"?

 

[Thief]

Post #105.
I don't mind repeating what I wrote.
Do you have a better question or rebuttal?

 

[McBell]

Post #105.
I don't mind repeating what I wrote.
Do you have a better question or rebuttal?

Actually, all i am doing is trying to get you to clarify what the hell you are talking about.
If you are unwilling/unable to do so, then all you have to do is say so.

 

[themadhair]

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

Many examples were demonstrated to display the concept.

Either the quality of the documentary was **** poor or you may have missed a few things.

Define random.

 

[emiliano]

Right. A few things here.

So I can only be convinced of God's existence, once I believe God exists. Seems quite backwards and redundant to me.

And then faith is a gift from God? So then why does God choose to throw non-believers like me into eternal hellfire when he hasn't bestowed this precious gift onto me? That seems quite sadistic. I mean God is keeping the only means I can believe in him away from me purposely. And I know it's purposely because if God is omnipotent, he should be able to give me faith. So therefore God must not have intent to give me faith? And why is that?

And at that, inflict the cruelest, most excruciating torture possible for not believing in him, when he has kept this precious gift of faith out of my reach. When you understand what a dick your God is, perhaps you'll start to see things our way.
[/size][/font]

There is another characteristic of God, His absolute sovereignty “He has compassion and Mercy on who He wants” How does that grave you? He does not want you in His Kingdom; we are all reprobates till the Lord God in His Mercy gave us Faith, Philosophies and Logical argument do convince anybody. It is you that challenge God so if He decided to take you it on then it is you that have sent you there. You will find out!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So...perhaps...logic is the wrong tool applied?

Logic should flow from observation to conclusion.
A broken technique is not always obvious.
I will break it...on purpose.

Going back to the big bang...God would not be able to observe anything.
Nothing as yet, would exist.
There can be no form...at all....there is only the void.

No plan can be drawn, no geometry. No direction. No light.
Nothing to think about. No means to think...no logic.

Therefore the big bang is not possible.
And God's ability to say...."I am" is not possible.

But I keep looking up. "Something" happened...and "Something" caused it.

It is likely that logic was not applied.

You may be confusing reason with logic.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

I believe the correct term is "nondeterminant."

 

[McBell]

I believe the correct term is "nondeterminant."

naw.
I believe the better term is random.

 

[dogsgod]

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

False. Many events in nature occur randomly while some do not. Genetic mutation is a random process in nature whereas natural selection is anything but random.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

it's peanutbutter jelly time!

 

[Thief]

Genetic mutation is random.
Natural selection is random.

How DNA splices at conception has variables.
The offspring, even within the same litter, might not have identical traits.... demonstrating that genetic qualities are not 100%...one copy to another.

As the offspring develop, their lives will not be identical.
One might be eaten while trying to cross a river...another might fail in a fight for food.

None of this disproves God.

God may have initiated this process....so His immediate 'hands on' influence is not required.