Logic: There is no God

Post Reply New Topic

This is a fundamental error. One can not prove anything in physics; one can only falsify things. Theories become accepted by the scientific community if they are shown to be consistent and are backed up by empirical evidence. The concept of 'proving' something is outside of the scope of the scientific method. Most physicists would be willing to change their 'belief' in physical theories in the face of new empirical evidence that pointed in a different direction.

Possibly, but after a certain amount of evidence and lack of falsification most people will agree on the term 'proven'....(acknowledging that it means, proven until something else disproves it)...

The universe is a closed physical system. Ok? How does that prove that divine beings beyond our comprehension cannot intervene? You are claiming that physics disproves something beyond its study as the nature of divine beings is not a matter of physics but rather philosophy. God, being a divine being, can interfere with the universe however he wanted and no physicist could prove anything one way or another. He is beyond your study, and although one can attack the idea of a divine being on logical consistency or likelihood, one cannot attack it on physical rules as God has already been defined as having an ability to defy them.

Oh, so what you're saying is that God can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he can defy the laws of nature because he said so, right?

Because he is a divine being he is therefore not bound by nature, I mean, a metaphysical thing like God is not going to necessarily be bound by the rules that bind the rest of us. Griff, this entire debate will go back to "God is defined as this therefore X is true/false" so "because he said so" is a valid argument as to why an attack on the metaphysical concept of God is incorrect, just like an attack on Marxism can be invalidated by a statement by Karl Marx. This is not to say that a belief in God cannot be argued against on logical grounds such as perhaps some logical contradiction or disbelieved on the grounds of Ockham's razor, those are logical choices, the issue is that if one is to attack a belief it is wise that they use good arguments against it. Also repeating a statement about 19 times doesn't make it a more valid attack, it only annoys the crap out of the people who read your arguments. Just letting you know.

It's still a circular argument, though, you prat. Don't you get that? It doesn't have any philosophical bone structure. It is intellectually emaciated. Look: what you are stating RIGHT HERE is that, "God is not bound by nature because he is not bound by nature." Why? How so? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Easy! Since the argument is circular, you can merely repeat that, "He is not bound by nature." It's cheap and useless.

The fact, though, is that the entire belief is then based upon arbitration of the unknown. This is philosophically boneless and self-masturbatory, and I am justified in having contempt for those who base their beliefs upon it. The belief is nutless and dickless simply because it is defined as being unverifiable.

Please refer to the several comments that I have made in various threads on this subject matter.

I have presented plentiful sound reasoning on this subject. Feel free to address it properly if you have the balls.

It very aptly demonstrates the idea that I regard the God concept as circular, thus philosophically spineless.

This is exactly why your circular arguments annoy me, though. I bet you don't have the balls to address my main arguments on this subject. You seem quite comfortable with beating up a stylistic approach as a strawman, but I don't think you have the nuts to handle yourself in a real discussion. I dare you to take me up on a truly meaty discussion on the subject matter, girly-man.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. - Albert Einstein

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. - Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein

sorry i like to quote

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

—Nietzsche

No, it is a matter of definition. The argument is that God by his nature isn't bound by nature, the reason is that God is defined as having that quality. It is no more circular than any other definition!

Well that, a faith in the teachings of old texts, and perhaps a belief in having one's own personal experience. I would not call you justified in having contempt for those people though, it seems ridiculous to have contempt for those who have not acted against you. Also, all other religions are unprovable, so what? You can't prove most things that would be considered higher, you can't prove moral truth, you can't even prove that this universe is real, we obviously have a major philosophical dilemma in knowing the important things.

Griff, I don't really care to go around researching your stuff.

Griff, I am not saying that some of your attacks are improper. Not only that but Griff, do not refer to me in this manner you dickless, contemptible, mindless, butt-ugly, f**ked-up piece of s**t. Do I make myself clear you ass-raping pedophile?

Except this isn't a circular definition so much as it was the apt use of a definition. The question was not why God is defined as this, but rather is he defined as this, and even if the question was "Is God bound by the laws of nature" we end up having to simply refer back to the definition and repeating it until someone's head explodes. The definitions of terms are not things that can really be examined with that much clarity.


Griff, as I said earlier, you are a base, piece of garbage below my contempt given your annoying tendencies. I don't use personal attacks until they are used against me. Not only that but I did not use a straw man either, I referred back to a statement made by eipsa, I didn't even bother with your arguments at all. Get a grip you psychotic f***head.

Good point... I have an -extremely- difficult time believing that there is a God, or any all-knowing power or whatever, but there's no proof of anything either way, and there never will be during our lifetime.

Although there's no proof that I won't be proved wrong during our lifetimes.

Blah blah blah. I don't know. There's no proof of anything, except what's happening right in front of us. You can't even trust the stuff recorded on cameras anymore, no matter how obvious something looks it could've been altered.


(pwi)

The fact that the very important truths of how man should live and what he should live for seem beyond our reach is interesting in and of itself. The fact of the matter is that most people make their assumptions on higher matters one that is quite common is morality. We assume that one exists all of the time for some reason, however, nobody can prove their morality but it still continues onward. To be honest, I think that most people somewhere have their ill-conceived proof of some truth.

A few thoughts:

1. Logic is just as limited as the human mind. To believe in God is to believe in something greater than the human mind, something that we cannot understand with our intellect. We describe God as supernatural because we cannot understand or explain God. Faith is recognised by "the leap of faith", everything that can be explained is natural. That which we consider supernatural is, at least partially, beyond comprehension.

2. I do not believe that there is any real difference between spirit and matter. The suggestion that only matter exists is just as absurd as the suggestion that only spirit exists. Maybe everything is spiritual and the spiritual experience is the only experience.

Faith is based on real experience, but it is still neither logic nor science. I know I'm mostly repeating things that have already been said here,I just couldn't shut up.

there is no way of proving that logic is anything beyond the apriori of the human mind.

in science, there is no way of proving anything. people may accept on the term "proven" but that doesnt make the content of a theory "true" in terms of it actually having existence.
"truth" actually is nothing that science is about. science is about working models, not truth. assigning truth to a merely methodical construct is just metaphysically bloating the construct up to the shape of a religious dogma.

the whole logic-to-god argument isnt working, obviously...

A scientist wouldn't. Part of good science is being fully aware of the scope of your results so a scientist wouldn't use the term proven but rather maybe something like 'accepted' or something like that.

This still leaves it as philosophically boneless. It's not a definition because it is limited to suggesting a hypothetical entity that isn't subject to the laws of nature. What, then, is it subject to? What causes it to behave in one way, rather than another? You have told me something that this entity is not, nothing about what it is. The definition doesn't have any meat.

I don't. I only have contempt for those who base their beliefs on the bullhockey that you have posited. A bonafide Christian may believe in something that can't be verified to me, but I cannot refute their personal experiences and feelings. If they have "seen the Lord," then they have seen the Lord, whether it's real or not. They can't be expected to go against their personal feelings and experiences. Their beliefs actually have some meat to them, rather than being some pseudo-philosophical drivel.

A person who masturbates in public hasn't acted against me, either.

Not according to actual believers. To them, their beliefs have been satisfactorily verified through their own experiences. The one problem is that they can't plausibly verify it to others.

Since you are having trouble using the language properly, allow me to help you. What I think you mean, AG, is that abstract concepts cannot be shown to be objects. This is actually the case. An abstract thing like "moral truth," as you so tritely put it, is more like a computer program. Like any computer program, applying it either does something useful or does not.

Then consider paying attention when I post. I may be an arrogant prat, but it's actually the case that I have a much better grasp on the subject matter than you do.

Flattery will get you nowhere!

The definition itself is problematical, though.

I'm a psychotic, arrogant cock. Get it right.

Obviously.

Hehehe. Forums are so much fun.

It is a definition or better yet a fragment of an entire definition because it defines an element of this being. I believe that God has pretty much been defined as mysterious, incomprehensible, and yet powerful and benevolent. Thus meaning that it is difficult to determine the actions of God.


The bullhockey I posited? I did not offer a proof of God, therefore a Christian cannot be a believer because of anything I said. Are you claiming that I was attempting to argue for a God of the gaps? I was merely arguing that a proof of the non-existence of God was not correct.

The major difference is that a person masturbating in public by being in your presence to some extent includes you. Perhaps you need to revise your argument from Christians to the obnoxious Jesus lovers or intolerant and religious or something as there is a difference between a person who masturbates privately and one who masturbates publicly.

I think that is what I meant. Even that isn't absolute proof though.

Ah thanks, however, I think that my use of language was clear enough as it was quite obvious I was not referring to physical height to all but the lowest quality minds. I don't think that is what I meant, abstract concepts cannot be objects as objects are typically defined as directly sensible like a brick. I meant that the correspondence between the claims of an abstract concept and of truth cannot be determined through available methods. Really though, "moral truth" cannot be defined in terms of utility because some of those moral truths are not utilitarian, you argue that a moral truth is defined by the pre-accepted moral truth of another system.

Griff, you are an arrogant prat and I am not certain that you necessarily have a better grasp on this issue than I do.

Then bring up something unclear with how God as a being has been defined.

Sorry. I'll try to remember that.

You mean in that I haven't responded to one of your quotes on the actual subject matter? Yes, otherwise you would see your name in one of my posts and that there would be actual substantive comments being gone over in that post.

Because you are an a**hole?