God is not logically possible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2012, 08:09 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
The same old story from the same old ad hominem slinging Egor.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 10:03 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 03:56 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 04:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The "nihilo", in "ex-nihilo" presumes a structure already in place. One cannot be subject to a system, and be it's creator, (being/nothingnesss, positive/negative, plus/minus, existence/nonexistence etc.)

The phrase, the unverse coming into existence is dctated by the "laws of nature" has been thrown around pretty liberally, here and in some other posts. But, isnt that assertion as limited by the above, as the God creation arguement. That is to say that the "laws of nature" cover the workings of the universe, using that to explain how the universe is formed presume that the system is already in place and is equally unuseful as saying God did it.



presume that the system is already in place

is the only real fact to sustain.

the speculation of the beginning is what makes the idiots argue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 10:13 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 11:27 PM)Egor Wrote:  You can’t say that about an electron. You can’t say that about the universe without discounting modern cosmological theories like the big bang. You can only say that if the universe has always existed. If that’s what you believe, then say so.

Well that's the difference Egor.
I don't claim to know about the origins of everything.
I can't say that is what I believe because I don't know, nobody does.

Quote:But that would make a person an idiot.

What is more idiotic, accepting that we (human kind) don't know where/how/why the universe came from and acknowledging this. OR, your view of knowing we don't know so fabricating your own "sealant" to fill in the gaps.

It's not about being smart or an idiot or whatever. This "theory" of yours doesn't make you smart. Wrong information is worst then no information at all.

Oh and don't get me wrong, I don't know (and don't claim I know) about the origin of everything so for all we know this could all be true that you're preaching. But nobody knows, not even you Egor.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
02-09-2012, 10:16 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 03:24 AM)Humakt Wrote:  So what information, exactly, are you missing that you want ? What do you need explained ?

I am literally agog. Ideasonscribe, is not alone evidently in requiring some more education, I myself am ignorant as far as everything goes, perhaps you could educate us both further.

I've heard of gog, and magog, but never agog. Tongue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2012 11:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 01:05 AM)Egor Wrote:  If God exists, he must be beyond logic, because he is the creator of logic. He must be beyond laws, because he's the one who makes the laws, and he must be unlimited in his creative ability, or else he would be bound in some way, and to be God, he must be unbounded.

In fact, perhaps the only difference between God and true nothingness is that with God, things pop into existence for no reason whatsoever. True nothingness, however, could never do that, because it is void of all things and potentials, and that leads us to an absurdity.

In my speculative opinion that is. Rolleyes

"Beyond" is already a structure in place of "beyond/not beyond".
Where did THAT come from ?
Creation implies Causality is already in place, as well as linear time.
"Nothingness" as total "absence" of anything, (matter/energy), has actually never been observed, (see Krauss).
It's a Metaphysical concept, which may be not really valid. We know it is not in this universe.
Being/nothingness, existence/nonexistence IS a structure.
If "reality" encompasses existence/nonexistence, who made reality ?
A god, who participates only in part of the sub-reality of "existence/nonexistence, cannot have created the larger reality.

Do you remember what book I asked you to review. I need to read it, and can't remember the name.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 11:03 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2012 08:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 11:38 PM)Egor Wrote:  It only takes a moment of consideration to realize that "nothingness" is a necessarily immutable state of being. The case against atheism is very simple.

For atheism to be true the universe must have always existed or it must have materialized for no reason at all.

Anyone can look at the world and see that it is contingent. From that, they can reasonably extrapolate that everything else is contingent in the universe as well. The big bang theory supports this scientifically. Therefore, it is an irrational notion to claim the universe has always existed, because all observations sophisticated or not lead to the opposite conclusion.

To assume the universe materialized from nothing is simply magical, religious thinking and not really worthy of debate. Nothingness is necessarily immutable.

Therefore, atheism is an illogical religious belief, and a "God" of some sort must exist. It is the only logical conclusion one can make. I'm not sure that conclusion makes any difference to us in the end, but it is the only rational conclusion a thinking person can come to. Bangin

Could you please tell us how you think of "nothingness", fine sir.
Also we should define "being". In doing so, use no property which requires spacetime, as we want to be able to use it in reference to gods.

"Nothingness" has never been observed, only imagined. It may or may not exist. If it does, THAT alone is a structural element in reality, which requires Causation, a priori.

Do you mean "a reason" or a "motivation", or a "cause" ? They are all different things. If god caused the universe, Causality had to be in place already, in the structure of reality. What caused causality ... -> ad infinitum. (Infinite Regression).

A reason ? A good reason, a bad reason..what ?
What your brain considers a "sufficient" reason exists (only) because your brain exists, in a universe which exists in what was created as a part of the effect, or result, of your "sufficient reason" idea. That means you can't presume to understand what may exist outside the structure, (of reason/sufficient reason) in which you exist, as a part of. Presuming "oh, the only explanation has to be a god", (who cannot be a person, as person-hood limits infinity, unless by capricious definition, with no evidence). The fact is there could be gazillions of explanations. Our brains are limited by our experiences, in their creative output. Gods are one of gazillions of possibilities. What we can imagine, is a small subset of the total possibilities.

The paradigm of contingent/noncontingent is not helpful, as it doesn't explain enough, including itself.
If god exists, existence/nonexistence, is part of an already extant structure of reality, and the structure has to be in place, already.
If god participates, or has as it' s"necessary condition" one of the substructures in reality, (existence vs nonexistence), then god is not the creator of a larger reality.

Thus, it's a waste of time to argue the existence of god.
That question is not the first question to ask. The first ones are "what is Reality, is that the same thing as Truth, how do we know we can apprehend Reality, and do we apprehend the totality of Reality, and if not, a sufficient amount of it to understand what it's about. The answers to these questions drive the following ones, including the god question.

The "existence" question/argument presumes an already extant, (pre-existent) structure, or concurrent structure, of existence, vs nonexistence. (Existence has no property which does not require spacetime.Every property of intelligent existence require time ... thinking, loving, moving, acting, creating..). If god is intelligent, it implies a "movement" of ideas. That requires time. THAT structure, (existence/nonexistence) had to, at least concurrently, be in place, or come into place, in the universe, if god exists, ((as it presumes it's opposite, (nonexistence)), as a property also, (in, or of the structure). Existence is (a) "something" or property. one has, but is not the thing, itself. If I exist, I have existence, I am not existence, itself. That means it has to be a property of reality, or what god "possesses". If god possesses existence, as a property of god, it's not the god itself. It's a descriptor of the god. There are two choices. God IS existence, or god created existence, and possesses it. If god IS "existence", then we are all gods, as I exist. I'm not a god. The opposites have to exist already, and god could not be the creator of that structure, if he is a part of it. The already extant structure had to come from somewhere. The "nihilo", in "ex-nihilo" presumes a structure already in place. One cannot be subject to a system, and be it's creator, (being/nothingnesss, positive/negative, plus/minus, existence/nonexistence etc.) God is either existence itself, or existence is a property of god.
a. If god possesses a property, that presumes a pre-extant structure, and. b. existence, (as only a part of created reality), could not have been a part of god, before the god created reality. So did god create reality, or was it there along with god, or come first ?

Either "existence" itself, (in their world), is non-contingent, (and thus god IS existence itself), OR it's not, and the property, (existence as a contingent being), had to come into existence, as a result of god. That means god causes his own contingent status. That is meaningless. I have existence. If the possession of existence, per se, or sui generis, makes a being non-contingent, then I also am god. If it does not, then god's existence is not the thing that makes god god, and has to be non-contingent.

Herman Gunkel, the famed Biblical scholar noted that, at the beginning of his amazing book on Genesis, when he discussed the addition of verse 1, to the original verse 1, (now verse 2). The authors of Genesis "got" this pre-existant structure problem. If the earth was "without form and void" and "darkness was upon the face of the deep", then where did darkness, chaos, void, and "without" come from ? God cannot be existence itself, as nonexistence also exists along with existence, in the structure of reality, and thus something "other " than god, always existed also.

Lastly, your statement "It only takes a moment of consideration to realize that "nothingness" is a necessarily immutable state of being. The case against atheism is very simple" presumes that the universe/reality is intuitively accessible to human brains, in whole, or in part, and at least sufficiently, to allow a judgement that we can use what we have, (that is, what "makes sense" to us, actually is a reliable way to access the true nature of reality). We know that is not the case. What our brains see as illogical has been proven to be true, (Relativity, Uncertainty, Dirac), and 99 % of the univers is unknown at this point, (so far called Dark Energy and Dark Matter). Therefore relying on anything, other than actual evidence, is probably not such a good thing. With 99 % of the universe unknown, it may be too early to make judgements, based on what we know. However , the small % we do know about, follows, 100% of the time, certain laws, that we can discover.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 05:32 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 01:17 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(01-09-2012 12:41 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  In short, we shall find, that God has never manifested himself, but to announce inexplicable mysteries, unintelligible doctrines, ridiculous practices; to throw the human mind into fear, distrust, perplexity, and above all, to furnish a never-failing source of dispute to mortals.

Disputes is'nt just caused by religion, we're mostly all athiest/agnostic here, we dispute all the time. In the absence of religion, ego will do just fine to make humans act like dicks Smile Where religion is dangerous, is that it demands absolutes, but again there are plenty here who are absolutist. Its lack of empathy, toleration or just not caring enough that'll keep us at each others throats.

Sad Good point, but I wasn't claiming that religion was the sole reason for disputes.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 07:30 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 04:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-09-2012 10:24 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Dudes' at my work have demonstrated it a distance of 13.5 miles, Chas. Spooky superluminal action at a distance has been motherfucking observed.

Ah, but demonstrated what, exactly?

Entangled ensembles can instantaneously reflect each other's state regardless of spatial distance. ... At least that's my read.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 07:36 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
Hold off the fucking Egor, yeah?

Prophet speaks with minimal entropy. I got my Gwynines, he's got his fundamental monistic consciousness; he keeps redefining it, yeah?

Someone's gotta tell a story. I live with a single absolute, can die and my Gwynnies lives on. Heart

I don't want no more, maybe big E don't want no more either. :/ :\

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 07:41 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
Believing is not my issue. Professing that one's beliefs are logically obvious yet in the same breath saying that it is illogical it is a state of thought I can't wrap my head around. At least Paltrow-worship revolves around a known quantity that can be logically studied.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: