Logic: There is no God

Post Reply New Topic

I think liking logic is an AS trait, so how about this:

The universe has been proven to be a closed and finite system (i.e. not infinite). If you travel straight up and keep going for long enough you will eventually end up where you started because space-time is curved in the 4th dimension. This has been theorized by Einstein (theory of relativity) and most scientists are in agreement with this and many aspects if not all of his theory have been proven many times by experiments.

If there is a God he can either have influence a) inside our universe or b) outside our universe or c) both inside and outside. However, 'c' is not valid as it would create a paradox: if the universe is finite and closed, then nothing can enter the universe from outside (not even God) as this would mean the universe is not closed and not finite.
If God only resides outside our universe as in option 'B' (i.e. he created it and can now do nothing else with it) then he is uninterresting to us anyway as he has no influence over us except for maybe destroying the universe. And so this leaves option 'A', but if he is inside the universe and can not exit it (because it is finite and closed) then he may have power over us, but he is not a God in the real sense as he does not have power over the universe as a whole (because he can not escape it), he could merely be classified as an advanced alien being.

Conclusion: There is no such thing as a God.

Q.E.D.

Or maybe there's a d) option that your feeble human intellect could not possibly comprehend

There may be hope after all

We know, there's already 2 topics on this

Not according to Logic....

And yet there are so many things we are still learning. Plus, in being the Master of Existence, you don't expect Him to play by the few rules we believe we understand. Embrace the mystery!

No.

Logic is not merely a 'rule' that we have created or something like a scientific theory that we think we understand or can prove. Logic is logic. If A = B = C then A = C. Thats all.
'Embracing the mystery' would require the abandonment of Logic, which I'm not quite ready to do...
However, don't get me wrong, the fact that there can be no God, does not mean f.ex. that we can not have an afterlife or something. This could be entirely possible and I even subscribe to a few alternative ideas, but it does not involve an omnipotent God that created the universe and can influence us (because that is not possible, logically...)

First, I'd like to understand your definition of "God." As I understand it, God is an omnipotent, omnipresent (all places at once), and omniscient (knowing all things) being that created everything in existence. There is no rule that says He cannot exist both within and without our universe.

Second, you are accepting a scientific theory as fact. Logically, if you endlessly move in a straight line, you will always be moving further away from your starting point, never closer. Theories in this sense are ideas used to explain things that may not be explainable, unproven either way.

As a metaphor, and not necessarily a good one at that (all metaphors eventually break down), imagine the universe as a virtual reality in a computer. First, someone had to put that computer together, piece together the VR, and create the rules by which that reality is governed. Further, the creator has influence both within and without the creation. By creating such a "universe" is the programmer bound by the same rules as everything within it?

Logic cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Whether you believe in God or not is called *FAITH*

The whole mess is pretty stupid. They say "the universe had to come from somewhere, so we are going to posit this omnipotent being that created it." I answer, "Alright, smartass, where did this 'omnipotent being' come from?" to which they pertly answer, "Oh, there was no need for this omnipotent being to have been created," so I say, "Alright. Why couldn't I have just said that of the universe? It's even logically supportable. If time is finite, then it is credible for the universe to have merely 'always' existed." Well, they come back with the question, "Well, how is it that you suppose that the universe exists, rather than not?" I comeback with, "Why in the hell would it not exist, rather than exist?" I could go on with this crap all day. It's pointless rubbish, and it serves no purpose other than to get people frustrated.

Furthermore, God is pretty empty as an explanation for the origin of the universe. It's cyclic because you then have to say, "then whence cometh God?" Yeah, don't even say it: you're going to say, "God is infinite, so he didn't have to come from anywhere," and my answer is "Bullscat. How do you know? Answer the question if you're so freaking brilliant." If we just go with the theory that time is finite, the universe didn't have to come from anywhere. Although we don't know that there aren't other forces at work than fourth-dimensional time, supposing them to exist and supposing things about them is nothing but idle supposition, which is hardly anything to put faith in.

Okay, I know that atheists can sound mean, but that's just what's going to happen when a person holds another person intellectually accountable. I'm sorry if being held intellectually accountable hurts your sensitive feelings, but it's not my fault or any atheist's fault if you're a freaking p****. Yeah, I know it's popular for people who hold my views to call themselves "agnostics" these days or other such inane terms, but I've adopted "atheist" as a label because it most clearly reflects the fact that I have no esteem or respect for religiosity. The Christians and all theists altogether shirk intellectual accountability, and I consider them worthless scum for this fact. I would sooner decapitate them with boards than contemplate their beliefs with anything but contempt.

It would be defining God as exactly as you are stating. He can not exist both inside and outside because that would mean that Einstein is wrong, a possibillity but not likely since many aspects of his theories have been proven many times.

[quote=="Soopervilin"]
Second, you are accepting a scientific theory as fact. Logically, if you endlessly move in a straight line, you will always be moving further away from your starting point, never closer. Theories in this sense are ideas used to explain things that may not be explainable, unproven either way.
[/quote]

According to the theory, space-time is curved in the 4th dimension. This means that in-fact if you do travel in a straight line (straight up) then you arrive at your starting point. Think of the universe as a giant inflated baloon, with the galxies on the surface of the baloon. If you travel in any direction you will end up where you started.
Regarding accepting scientific theory as fact, then basically it boils down to wether you'd rather beleive something that has been proven (theory of relativity) or something that has not (god)....

[quote=="Soopervilin"]
As a metaphor, and not necessarily a good one at that (all metaphors eventually break down), imagine the universe as a virtual reality in a computer. First, someone had to put that computer together, piece together the VR, and create the rules by which that reality is governed. Further, the creator has influence both within and without the creation. By creating such a "universe" is the programmer bound by the same rules as everything within it?
[/quote]

Logic cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Whether you believe in God or not is called *FAITH*

But you *can* prove the theory of relativity and that, it seems, implies God can not exist.

Why is it a theory if it was proven?

wouldn't that make it a scientific law?

oops, I goofed on the quoting earlier

If the programmer wants to change a parameter of the program while it is running it means he has to interract with that program somehow. But since the program is running in a *closed* universe, he has no access to the program, can't change any parameters, can't even see whats going on inside (There is no 'output', so to speak, of the program as it is in a closed system) Unless he is himself inside the program, a part of it, then he can change what he wants, but then he has no control over the computer running the program meaning that he is not really omnipotent, but more like any other being being simulated by the program.... (can still delete people and other mischief but is not really by definition a God)

Good question actually. I don't know, which is also why I wrote that 'most aspects' have been proven. I think that maybe it takes a long time before something is considered a 'law' and this theory is only about 100 years old. You will not find many scientists in this world that disagree with it though..

Well, "law of nature" seems to be a bit of an honorary title.