Disproving god with the laws of logic

[freethinker44]

Why not just say simplify it and say the universe exists and we live in it. I just don't like metaphor I guess, I would rather just call something what it is than romanticize about it.

 

[freethinker44]

If you are a deist, then my argument against god wouldn't apply to you. You don't believe in god as a separate being, you are taking something that already exists and then calling it god, which is fine, I guess giving something meaning it wouldn't normally have is just human nature. But if you start to give it physical traits it doesn't have, you are bringing your beliefs out of the "unprovable" realm.

If you believe in the traditioinal "abrahamic" god (islam, judaism, or christianity), then I believe this argument destroys your idea of a god. And if claim any of those three religions and don't claim god as an absolute athourity then you might want to read your holy book again because they have clear definitions of who and what god is. As with anything that claims perfection, you don't need to disprove it in its entirety, just one wrong charactaristic proves the whole thing imperfect.

 

[Kurt31416]

I donno, I've been reading about the Samaritan version of the Torah and their other beliefs. It's older than the Jewish version by maybe as much as 1000 years. All the anthropomorphic context of God is missing. Some argue there are no angels, demons, etc. whatsoever, too. At least it's unclear in the places where the Jewish Torah has explicit supernatural beings.

And after all, Einstein, Jefferson, Spinoza and the historical Jesus used the word "God". Just carrying on the tradition.

 

[themadhair]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/83843-mathematical-proof-god.html
^ All you need to know about where Kurt is coming from.

Also, you have yet to define random for me thief.

 

[Kurt31416]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/83843-mathematical-proof-god.html
^ All you need to know about where Kurt is coming from.

Also, you have yet to define random for me thief.

Here's where I'm coming from, I don't think you have a clue what the difference between statistical randomness and algorithmic randomness is, and what they mean.

 

[themadhair]

Here's where I'm coming from, I don't think you have a clue what the difference between statistical randomness and algorithmic randomness is, and what they mean.

What does this have to this topic?

 

[Kurt31416]

You asked for a defintion of randomness. Try to focus.

 

[Kurt31416]

I guess that means you have no clue what the difference is?

 

[themadhair]

You asked for a defintion of randomness. Try to focus.

I asked thief what the definition of random was. The reason I did so is because thief appears to have bought into a specific concept of random that involves his/her particular theology. When a person thinks that randomness is an argument against an observable proposition this is usually the case. By asking thief the question I wanted to get him/her to consider the concept and hopefully realise the mistake he/she is making.

Since you asked:
Statistical randomness is definitionally a crap p-value.
Algorithmic randomness is definitionally a crap compressibility value.

 

[Kurt31416]

Well, other than what I said here, and is in the definition of the word, what's the difference? I mean, you asked for a definition or randomness, and those are the two fundamental kinds.

For instance, what is more complex, human beings, or the soup of chemicals a human is made of?

 

[Thief]

Has anyone read post#138?
It describes the demo I saw on the tv science documentary.
It seemed simple and straight forward.
Can't see why anyone would have difficulty grasping the concept.

As per request....
Webster's defines 'random' at length.
For this topic line....a haphazard course....chance progress.

Nature repeats...lacking regularity.
DNA splices repeatedly (conception)...lacking precise replication.

DNA, and the environment operate under repeated actions.
The action repeats...at random.

Random events do not 'disprove' God.
I give God credit for having set such things into motion
His immediate presence...or 'hands on' efforts are not required.

 

[themadhair]

Well, other than what I said here, and is in the definition of the word, what's the difference?

I wasn’t interested in a specific definition so much as trying to get thief to consider the concept. As I said, I suspect him/her has a concept that involves his/her theology.

I mean, you asked for a definition or randomness, and those are the two fundamental kinds.

I don’t consider any aspect of evolution to be due to randomness. Natural selection isn’t random, and the chemistry behind genetic mutations isn’t random. The term random as used in the phrase ‘random mutation’ is referring more to our inability to predict them rather than possessing an inherent randomness.

For instance, what is more complex, human beings, or the soup of chemicals a human is made of?

You’d have to define what metric you are using to measure complexity. These questions need a rigorous foundation before they can be answered.

 

[Kurt31416]

The defintion of complexity as in your algorithmic randomness being compressibility definition.

For example, a zipped up computer file is more complex than one that isn't. More information on the CD.

 

[freethinker44]

Has anyone read post#138?
It describes the demo I saw on the tv science documentary.
It seemed simple and straight forward.
Can't see why anyone would have difficulty grasping the concept.

As per request....
Webster's defines 'random' at length.
For this topic line....a haphazard course....chance progress.

Nature repeats...lacking regularity.
DNA splices repeatedly (conception)...lacking precise replication.

DNA, and the environment operate under repeated actions.
The action repeats...at random.

Random events do not 'disprove' God.
I give God credit for having set such things into motion
His immediate presence...or 'hands on' efforts are not required.

Did someone say randomness disproves god?

 

[Thief]

You're losing your train of thought.
The discussion digressed.
DNA and the random events behind it, became an issue.
I say that portion of this OP has been covered.

Random events do not disprove God.
DNA does not disprove God.

Did You have another approach to disproving God?

BTW, there are parallel topic lines running in the forum.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

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.

I didnt see any attempt by richard, i only saw one by freethinker44 which I do not find to be very conclusive. It is based on several assumptions and (as he himself states) at least one "belief"

 

[Vile Atheist]

I didnt see any attempt by richard, i only saw one by freethinker44 which I do not find to be very conclusive. It is based on several assumptions and (as he himself states) at least one "belief"

Was it freethinker? That's what I get for not reading all the posts. My apologies.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Was it freethinker? That's what I get for not reading all the posts. My apologies.

post 82

 

[Bware]

Thief here...okay....I can drag you along.

All of your senses feed info into your brain.
Life has no mystery. You are here to learn all that you can before you die.

When dead............
Stand up. Separate from your flesh.
If you fail to do so, you will follow your body into the box, and the box into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.
No form of light follows a man into the grave.
No sunlight, moonlight, starlight,...or philosophical light.
It really is dark down there.

If you succeed in standing up..............
Anyone who went before you could be there to receive you.
Therefore, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.........
Because They will do so.

As for God...........................
He set this all up. This is not my handiwork.
And you don't get to plead ignorance.
You've read this.

Writing all my posts in poetry form makes me seem smarter..........
The smartness.
Do you see it?
Does your god see it to too?
It's hard to see in the darkness.
In the darkness there is no light, turn the light on......
See it and stand up.
Stand because he let's you.

 

[Thief]

Hey Bware....
I can see your displeasure about my technique.

You should refrain sarcasm. It does suit you.
Your last post contained no useful rebuttal.