Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove God

[fantome profane]

In order to understand a theist, you have to get into a theist's mind. First, although I admire logic, (I am a Trekkie, and my favorite character is Mr. Spock). But I don't use logic when dealing with my ideas of God. God, in my view, is beyond logic- someone else said this and was laughed, but that is the way it is.

Someone once said that “logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end”.

However I think logic is the only thing we have that we can debate with, communicate with, reason with.

 

[Jeremiah]

Says the atheist.

Of course we're calculating with our mind. I know you think this sounds cool and enlightened, but it's pretty much meaningless. Everything is to be weighed and measured with evidence. We do it with everything else in our lives, why not with God?

"Says the atheist. "

So you are judging what I say based off my orientation?

"Of course we're calculating with our mind."

Well, then, you are only using half of your brain. Although, considering the problems you had grasping unfalsifiable statements, faith might be over your head.

"We do it with everything else in our lives, why not with God?"

Try reading closer, I never suggested you shouldn't.

 

[Jeremiah]

Yes, there are also illogical ideas, but they're not much good for anything. The fact is if something's not logical, it's not worth believing, even for a theist. The concept of God should not be exempt from the principles we apply to everything else in our lives.

"Yes, there are also illogical ideas, but they're not much good for anything. The fact is if something's not logical, it's not worth believing, "

Can you give me a logical reason why we all should not commit suicide?

 

[Tathagata]

I still think the argument of irrelevance is the strongest, at least on a wide scale of possible definitions of "God"

That argument doesn't attempt to disprove God. Also, the argument doesn't work because many believers to this day say that God has a real impact and people have religious experiences all the time. So saying that God doesn't affect our world and should therefore be irrelevant, won't convince any Theists because they see God as having a real impact.

.

 

[jonman122]

That argument doesn't attempt to disprove God. Also, the argument doesn't work because many believers to this day say that God has a real impact and people have religious experiences all the time. So saying that God doesn't affect our world and should therefore be irrelevant, won't convince any Theists because they see God as having a real impact.

.

nothing would really convince any real theist though anyways, because even if you had conclusive proof to them that god did not exist they would just say "well i have faith that he exists, even if you have proof he does not."

 

[Tathagata]

Exactly. I don't think I've heard quantum theory interpreted before in a way that would make this proof cogent.

I hope you're joking. That is the very principle that quantum physics is based on. According to quantum physicist, Michio Kaku, the observation effect has been experimentally proven and has yet to fail a test.

.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I hope you're joking. That is the very principle that quantum physics is based on. According to quantum physicist, Michio Kaku, the observation effect has been experimentally proven and has yet to fail a test.

I define God as the ONE Whole of existence and She/IT and Consciousness is part of the ONE.

To me it takes a big of a leap of faith to believe that human conciseness evolved from matter to the point of having an effect on scientific tests in the field of physics.

My view is that Consciences is endemic to the universe it self. In fact my view seems to be a more simple answer. In that sense it is even a smaller leap of faith.

The Idea of Epiphehomenalism (All subjective phenomena-including consciousness-are a secondary effect of matter.) Is no less believable then Erwin Schrodininger Vedantic view of consciouness. This view can also be experienced in "Mediative states".

 

[PolyHedral]

To me it takes a big of a leap of faith to believe that human conciseness evolved from matter to the point of having an effect on scientific tests in the field of physics.

Indeed. And you'd be totally wrong. Human consciousness is not involved in quantum physics at all. "Observation" involves the wave interacting with anything outside it, alive or not.

 

[Tathagata]

"Observation" involves the wave interacting with anything outside it, alive or not.

If that were the case, they wouldn't call it the observation effect.


.

 

[PolyHedral]

Oh, right, urgh... Sorry, having read up on it, the wave "collapses" (there doesn't seem to be consensus on whether or not it collapses or just expands) when the state is "measured", which, AFAIK, does not have to involve consciousness or living beings at all.

 

[Tathagata]

I define God as the ONE Whole of existence and She/IT and Consciousness is part of the ONE.

I used to be a Pantheist as well, but "everything God, and no God, are identical positions." It also commits a reification.

To me it takes a big of a leap of faith to believe that human conciseness evolved from matter to the point of having an effect on scientific tests in the field of physics.

As I understand it, everything is a wave until we observe it. Our consciousness doesn't actually change or alter quantum particles, but rather it decodes the waves as particles.

My view is that Consciences is endemic to the universe it self. In fact my view seems to be a more simple answer. In that sense it is even a smaller leap of faith.

The Idea of Epiphehomenalism (All subjective phenomena-including consciousness-are a secondary effect of matter.) Is no less believable then Erwin Schrodininger Vedantic view of consciouness. This view can also be experienced in "Mediative states".

And I agree. Consciousness is an emergent phenomena that emerges from matter.


.

 

[sandandfoam]

And I agree. Consciousness is an emergent phenomena that emerges from matter.

How does it do that?

 

[ChristineES]

Yes, there are also illogical ideas, but they're not much good for anything. The fact is if something's not logical, it's not worth believing, even for a theist. The concept of God should not be exempt from the principles we apply to everything else in our lives.

Just because the idea of God is not logical does not mean that it is illogical. If I see a man who is mentally ill on the street, it would not be logical for me to be frightened of him, as most mentally ill people are usually harmless. But it would not be illogical because there is the chance that this person may actually be harmful. It is neither logical or illogical, it is emotions in play.
That is my idea anyway.

 

[Jeremiah]

Just because the idea of God is not logical does not mean that it is illogical. If I see a man who is mentally ill on the street, it would not be logical for me to be frightened of him, as most mentally ill people are usually harmless. But it would not be illogical because there is the chance that this person may actually be harmful. It is neither logical or illogical, it is emotions in play.
That is my idea anyway.

"Just because the idea of God is not logical does not mean that it is illogical."

If gods are a subjective apparition, then they are derived from the human mind, and given the complexity of the idea, they must consequently, to some degree, be logical. The fact that there are a few loose threads, does not unravel the tapestry. However though, the universe is not logical, nor is it sentimental, it is devoid of both reason and care. A god, even a perfect sympathy of mechanics and poetry, is a contradiction to the wild, swirling chaos that surrounds us. Gods are like boxes that people try to encapsulate existence in; a valiant effort and sometimes a brilliant work of art, but, still nonetheless, gods are not what is real.

That is my criticism of gods. I am not going to say they are illogical or that it is irrational to believe in them. Because gods can be logical and faith in gods can be justifiable. Despite that, though, they are still not real. But; I can not think of any reason why an individual must, necessarily, only believe in something that is real.

 

[Magic Man]

So you are judging what I say based off my orientation?

A little bit, yeah. As I said, I'd expect a theist to get taken in by that kind of thinking, which is why they're theists. I'd expect an atheist to understand why that kind of thinking is meaningless.

Well, then, you are only using half of your brain. Although, considering the problems you had grasping unfalsifiable statements, faith might be over your head.

Yes, clearly by using my mind I'm only using half my brain. That makes perfect sense. Also, I had no problems understanding unfalsifiable statements. It was you who had the problem understanding the place that unfalsifiable statements have in our reality. It seems that much of this is over your head.

Try reading closer, I never suggested you shouldn't.

Then maybe you'd like to go back and rephrase what you've been saying. You did, in fact, suggest that.

 

[Magic Man]

Can you give me a logical reason why we all should not commit suicide?

Sure, but it depends on your values. If you don't value you life and all it does is cause you pain and suffering, then it's logical to commit suicide. If you value your life and find some good in it, then it's logical not to commit suicide.

It was a nice try, but ultimately a fail. The point is that illogical ideas are useless. If you enjoy life and are generally very happy with the way things are for you, it's illogical to commit suicide.

 

[Magic Man]

Just because the idea of God is not logical does not mean that it is illogical.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If it's not one it's the other.

If I see a man who is mentally ill on the street, it would not be logical for me to be frightened of him, as most mentally ill people are usually harmless. But it would not be illogical because there is the chance that this person may actually be harmful. It is neither logical or illogical, it is emotions in play.
That is my idea anyway.

I think you're confusing some things here. It could be logical for you to be frightened. It could also be logical for you not to be frightened. It all depends on the premises you're using. The sentence "Ice is hot" could be logical, if you're using the premise that "ice" means "fire".

Anyway, this is beside the point. The point is, if you define an object or being, that definition can be either logical or illogical, but it has to be one or the other.

 

[Magic Man]

I can not think of any reason why an individual must, necessarily, only believe in something that is real.

I don't think you'll find anyone who says people must necessarily only believe in something that is real. But I bet you'd find a lot of people who think it's the best practice in life to only believe in things that are real.

 

[Jeremiah]

A little bit, yeah. As I said, I'd expect a theist to get taken in by that kind of thinking, which is why they're theists. I'd expect an atheist to understand why that kind of thinking is meaningless.



Yes, clearly by using my mind I'm only using half my brain. That makes perfect sense. Also, I had no problems understanding unfalsifiable statements. It was you who had the problem understanding the place that unfalsifiable statements have in our reality. It seems that much of this is over your head.



Then maybe you'd like to go back and rephrase what you've been saying. You did, in fact, suggest that.

"I'd expect an atheist to understand why that kind of thinking is meaningless."

By this statement, it is clear your exception are are misplaced.

"Yes, clearly by using my mind I'm only using half my brain. That makes perfect sense."

Yes, it does makes perfect sense. And I don't really care if you get, I am certainly not gonna clarify myself for you.

" It was you who had the problem understanding the place that unfalsifiable statements have in our reality."'

I think you need to learn how to read. You might want to start by slowing down.

"Then maybe you'd like to go back and rephrase what you've been saying. You did, in fact, suggest that."

No I did not. But, at any rate, try reading the first post I made in this thread, then consider proper context. It is very apparent that you don't take the time to read what is being said. You might want to consider shutting off the autopilot.

 

[Jeremiah]

Sure, but it depends on your values. If you don't value you life and all it does is cause you pain and suffering, then it's logical to commit suicide. If you value your life and find some good in it, then it's logical not to commit suicide.

It was a nice try, but ultimately a fail. The point is that illogical ideas are useless. If you enjoy life and are generally very happy with the way things are for you, it's illogical to commit suicide.

"It was a nice try, but ultimately a fail."

I did not fail, it had the desired effect. You just proved that belief in God is logical.