Logic: There is no God

Post Reply New Topic

Then why are you treating it as a logical maxim? Indeed many aspects of general and special relativity have been confirmed; the closed and finite nature of the universe can scarcely be amongst these. The nature of scientific theories is that they should be revised in the light of fresh evidence. Newtonian physics may not have been utterly wrong, but it still needed correction to account for some things. Given your emphasis on "logic is logic" as distinct from scientific hypothesis, I am unclear as to how your argument is quite so conclusive. Still, very interesting. By what criteria have the propositions concerning the nature of the universe as closed and finite been proven?

To turn to Griff, why are you saying that if time was finite (having an end, in this case probably a beginning as well) then there would be no need for the universe to have a beginning? Surely you mean infinite? If I have made a foolish error, my apologies in advance. What is meant by the common statement that time began with the Big Bang? In what sense was such a reaction not within time? How is time to be defined?

science: oh yeah... i can see how that could have struck a different vein from what i intended. im from germany, no religious fundamentalist ideas for me, please.
its just a topic that somehow stirs me, too (the role of science in todays worldview) - after learning a lot of how science works methodically, i found it funny that it is used by a lot of people in the same way as other people use religion. its seen as the primal dictum that fills the world with meaning. if you have a phenomenon that cant be backed up by science in a satisfying way (say chinese medicine, spontaneous self-healing of cancer... you know our days "miracles"), its declared as insubstantial, an illusion, idiocy, etctera... the argumentative structure is the same as "he said something that is not in the holy book! burn him!".

re the christian bible: i fully agree with you on that one. its a book written by humans (for humans in times when metaphysical talk wasnt so common amongst everyday people, so its written in a way they could somehow understand it) - but it contains a metaphysical assumption on the nature of the world. that, in my eyes, is the core of christianity.
from that point of view, science and any religious belief dont contradict each other: having a master entity outside our reach (even outside the confines of time) that intended this universe, that gave the universe an objective meaning for those within, doesnt say anything about how this came to look like for the likes of us. were just talking two different questions here, so i dont see how they need to contradict each other, when discussed in a tactful manner.

IMO, such a god would not deserve my respect or worship.

Yes, He is above His own laws. Remember, those laws were taylor-made to fit humans. He couldn't be limited by them if He tried -- His infinity would exceed all their bounds. If you had a hamster, and put it in a cage, should I call you a hypocritical a**hole? After all, you're allowed to roam free!

Uh! How can you have a wrong "double-standard" in referrence to GOD, and humans??? Different beings, different rules. Duh!

Last edited by Ragtime on 31 May 2007, 10:54 am, edited 4 times in total.

Here ye, Here ye!! Xenon knows the mind of God!!

(What's He thinking now, Xenon?? I'm just dying to know!)

Last edited by Ragtime on 31 May 2007, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

I like this ^ open-mindedness better than the closed, angry cursings against God.

(That's ^ the close-mindedness I was referring to.)

That's a shame, and a bit closed-minded.
"There are more things in Heaven and earth...than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -Shakespeare

How is it close-minded?

Because of what that Shakespeare quote alludes to. He could actually be deserving of your worship while you're unaware of that.

Which is why I said, 'in my opinion.' That is how I see it. Someone who says it would be wrong for me to be in a relationship with someone I love, without justifying it to me, as far as I am concerned, is not worthy of my respect.

That's why I said "a bit". I would not have added that qualifier if you said you were sure.

You seem pretty convinced about what you think is 'truth.'
Does that not then make you close-minded as well?

Bad logic. One is that you can never know if the universe is "finite and closed", since your knowledge is dependent upon your limited ability to understand the universe. Look at the progress of human knowledge, if you look at human beings historical record, EVERY SINGLE GENERATION thought "they had all the answers" only to be swept away as time went on. Next there are limits to logic and rationality, since by definition one has no reason to believe that the universe exists "logically", since your understanding of logic may in fact be limited by the small computational power and memory capacity of your mind. Why do I say that? well.

In my opinion using superior logic (boolean logic) the finite necessarily requires the infinite, why? In boolean logic you either EXIST (always) or you do not (never). period. There are no "inbetween" existent states or "non-existent states", since by definition to have a non-existent state means you can *never* exist. In human terms humans are "finite" in the sense that their consciousness is not 'temporally continuous for eternity' but to say that you never existed at one point is stupid because for you to exist... using boolean logic you must have *always existed* in some form (even if in non conscious spread atoms across the planet/universe form).

When people die "they" cease to exist but their components truly don't if you were to hang around long enough.

What are your views on authority? Do you think it can be good, or is it always bad?

It depends on if I'm right, doesn't it? If you thought 2 + 2 = 4, and refused to accept the assertion that the solution is actually 5, would you be close-minded?