God is not logically possible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2012, 11:27 PM
 
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 06:00 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Guess I'll somewhat correct myself, your agnostic as to the nature of god except that you "know" he exists and is singular. This you infer or intuite, from the existence of the universe,

Correct. That’s how I see it.
Quote:alhough I dont get how you can have problems with the universe being created from "nothing" or having had a beginning, but accept that a god having what I must assume is exactly the same nature is just natural. I wont go as far as you and say the idea is absurd, but I dont see any difference between the existence of a god or a universe, if you find it absurd for the universe to be eternal or start without "cause" I dont really understand how a god who must have formed without "cause" or be eternal seems obvious to you. To me its the same problem.

What you’re saying would make sense if the universe had no sign of ever having “begun.” But modern cosmology points to the Big Bang and the singularity, which implies a beginning. That may not be the case—there may have never been a big bang and the cosmologists may be wrong, but I’m just working from that assumption.

As for God being eternal and therefore having not beginning, this is an absolute logical necessity if God actually exits. It may not be the case that God exists, but if He does, he has to be eternal—otherwise, He’s just another contingent element in the universe, and that’s not “God.”

Quote: As to dramatic precognition, evident consciousness in paramecia I have had no such expierances or made no such observations not going to say your wrong or anything, just gonna say I remain highly skeptical of both.

Fine. But it’s been reported to you. If you want to know the truth, seek it out. If you just want to be an atheist no matter what the truth is, then be an atheist. But then you’re no different than the most superstitious Catholic going to mass on a daily basis, you’re no more enlightened, and you’re no more advanced. You just have a different religion.

Quote: As to your assumption, that God is like you, you say its just a convienant assumption and not an assertion as to the actual nature of god then thats fine, makes good pragmatic sense even to frame it thus. Ive never met you, but I wouldnt call you egotistical, Ive even seen you self depricate, you do hold strong if somewhat fluid convictions. Far from being a critism, I mean that is in your credit as it demonstrates a willingness to modify your beliefs in the face of new data and that you work from an internal model that is self consistent on which you base your views. I certainly dont agree with your conclusions, but that is niether my concern, or need concern you.

Great. Thanks.

Quote:As to horribly spelled, but well put. Thanks Im glad my meaning was taken, Im dyslexic spelling is an approximate thing to me, the big words I can spell I can spell because Ive deliberatly learned them through repition everything else is a phonetic approximation.

I’m not sure how that makes you dyslexic. That’s what everyone has to do to spell words—or use a word processor like I’m doing now. But who am I to rob a person of their most cherished disability label?

Quote: Lastly, nice to see you back, hope you and yours are in good spirits and good health.

Nice to be back. Thanks.

(01-09-2012 07:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The theist assertion that there is something therefore God is babble. It is the argument from ignorance.

No it’s not. It makes perfect sense. Atheism is babble. The only intellectually honest positions are theism or agnosticism. Atheism is just another religion seeking as much power as it can obtain in this world in this time.

Quote:I assert that the universe exists there[fore] the universe exists.

That just makes you sound like an uneducated rube. It makes you sound like an old man who is no longer capable of critical insight and therefore must rely on well-ingrained dogmatism. It’s pathetic.


(01-09-2012 09:06 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's a circular argument with you believers.
"The universe must have been created at some point by something" but then we ask, "well who created God?", and then you answer "nothing, God has always been there".

It's stupid because what can be said for "god" can be said for say some electron or whatever. "That electron has always been there".

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.

Quote:I think this is key "reason". When you accept that there doesn't have to be a reaosn, you'll forget this whole God business.

But that would make a person an idiot.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
01-09-2012, 11:33 PM
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 11:27 PM)Egor Wrote:  But that would make a person an idiot.

Tell 'em, prophet. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
01-09-2012, 11:38 PM
 
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 01:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The theist idea "well did this all just come about for no reason", is an Argument from Ignorance, and God of the gaps. You also assume YOU know the reason. What if there is a reason, and you don't know it, (yet) ? You're only interested if it's your reason.

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
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2012, 11:47 PM
 
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 03:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So what information, exactly, are you missing that you want ? What do you need explained ? There is nothing we cannot explain. We know how everything we can see and detect, came about. The only pieces missing are the first few fractions of a second. It sounds like you just need some more education. But throw out some stuff. Name 5 things you want explained, that you think you don't have an explanation for.

Dark matter
Dark energy
Gravity
Electomagnetism
Why light acts like a wave and a particle at the same time.

I fully admit I need more education. Please school me.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
02-09-2012, 12:01 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 11:38 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(01-09-2012 01:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The theist idea "well did this all just come about for no reason", is an Argument from Ignorance, and God of the gaps. You also assume YOU know the reason. What if there is a reason, and you don't know it, (yet) ? You're only interested if it's your reason.

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

No reason and No intent are different things.

Try not to confuse the two.

Since you are up in making such big claims, Why do more learned men disagree with you on the notion that something CAN'T come from nothing? What information do YOU have that is denied to them?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 12:03 AM
 
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 07:02 PM)Godless Wrote:  Well Egor since it seems you have changed your tone quite a bit since I last engaged you I have two questions I feel you need to be able to answer to keep your view consistent.

1. You assert that the universe has not always existed. This is a huge claim. How do you know the universe has not always existed?

I don't. It's what I've been taught in school, specifically an astronomy class I once took in college. Also, because everything seems to be contingent, it makes sense that there was a beginning. Also, the fact that the night sky is not filled with starlight, suggests there was a beginning and the universe is not eternal.

But even having said all that, yes, it is simply my belief that the universe has not always existed.

Quote: I see no reason to believe your claim anymore then I would see a reason to believe the claim the universe has always existed. Neither side seems to be able to present evidence to their case.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You need to go play in the shallow end of the pool with your little arm floaters on.

Quote:2. You also assert that something cannot come from nothing. How do you know what a nothing looks like or acts? I can't say I've ever seen a nothing or had any way of interacting with nothing. So how do you know that something can or cannot come from nothing when we have never encountered the kind of nothing you are speaking of.

You said it yourself, "We have never encountered nothing." And that's true; we haven't. "Nothingness" does not exist anywhere and never has. We know this because "nothingness" is necessarily an immutable state of being. That's one of the main reasons I assert that the only thing which actually exists is God.

Quote:What I'm seeing here is an ability to say "I don't know" when it comes to what god is but the inability to say "I don't know" when it comes to the idea of a god itself. That's all Atheism is. Atheism is simply saying "I don't know" and I see no evidence for any gods.

No, that's agnosticism. Atheism says there is no God. They always have. It's what you all believe. If that isn't the case, then the word "atheism" has no meaning at all. "Atheism" literally means "No God." And I realize that's your main tactic these days: sterilize the word "atheism" so it has no meaning because you know damn well it's not a logical position. It's just what you do to defeat religion and take its place in the world. That doesn't make religion right--in fact they are all horribly wrong. It makes atheism wrong, as well. The fact is God exists, and we don't know shit about Him. The question is can we know anything?

Quote:You may also wish to go look up the kalam argument and it's rebuttals you are coming dangerously close to using that argument here.

I'm fully aware of all the cosmological arguments and their rebuttals.Smartass
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 12:19 AM
 
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 12:01 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Since you are up in making such big claims, Why do more learned men disagree with you on the notion that something CAN'T come from nothing? What information do YOU have that is denied to them?

No one seriously believes that. Lawrance Krauss goes around preaching that as a pop-Dawkinesque wannabe important atheist, but he's about it, that is unless you include all the atheists with an axe to grind who have to believe that idea in order for atheism to make any sense at all.

The "nothingness" that Krauss descibes in his book "A Universe From Nothing," is not even a true nothingness--it's more like simply empty space, but empty space is part of the universe. I've read his book; have you?

But none of that matters anyway. There is no such thing as "nothingness." There never has been. If nothingness exists anywhere it exists everywhere and it is an immutable state of being. It's not like the universe is floating in a sea of nothingness. And when you realize that, you will come to the conclusion that only God exists. Because the other side of the coin from nothingness is an utter acosmic monism. And acosmic monism leads ultimately to only one religious belief: If you want to know God, know yourself.
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 12:25 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 12:19 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 12:01 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Since you are up in making such big claims, Why do more learned men disagree with you on the notion that something CAN'T come from nothing? What information do YOU have that is denied to them?

No one seriously believes that. Lawrance Krauss goes around preaching that as a pop-Dawkinesque wannabe important atheist, but he's about it, that is unless you include all the atheists with an axe to grind who have to believe that idea in order for atheism to make any sense at all.

The "nothingness" that Krauss descibes in his book "A Universe From Nothing," is not even a true nothingness--it's more like simply empty space, but empty space is part of the universe. I've read his book; have you?

But none of that matters anyway. There is no such thing as "nothingness." There never has been. If nothingness exists anywhere it exists everywhere and it is an immutable state of being. It's not like the universe is floating in a sea of nothingness. And when you realize that, you will come to the conclusion that only God exists. Because the other side of the coin from nothingness is an utter acosmic monism. And acosmic monism leads ultimately to only one religious belief: If you want to know God, know yourself.

How can you know nothingness is immutable? as I see it nothingness is also the absence of physical rules (as we understand them) and also logical laws, because is just nothing, it's not bound by anything, otherwise it would be something, ergo, something could pop into existence from nothingness because there's no rule that prevent it from happening. Nothingness could change its nature because there isn't an immutable state for it, because it's absolutely nothing including laws

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 12:26 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 12:19 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 12:01 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Since you are up in making such big claims, Why do more learned men disagree with you on the notion that something CAN'T come from nothing? What information do YOU have that is denied to them?

No one seriously believes that. Lawrance Krauss goes around preaching that as a pop-Dawkinesque wannabe important atheist, but he's about it, that is unless you include all the atheists with an axe to grind who have to believe that idea in order for atheism to make any sense at all.

The "nothingness" that Krauss descibes in his book "A Universe From Nothing," is not even a true nothingness--it's more like simply empty space, but empty space is part of the universe. I've read his book; have you?

But none of that matters anyway. There is no such thing as "nothingness." There never has been. If nothingness exists anywhere it exists everywhere and it is an immutable state of being. It's not like the universe is floating in a sea of nothingness. And when you realize that, you will come to the conclusion that only God exists. Because the other side of the coin from nothingness is an utter acosmic monism. And acosmic monism leads ultimately to only one religion belief: If you want to know God, know yourself.
First of all, I have read the book, many times infact. I highly doubt you have since what you are saying IS what he expected people to say. "Its not Nothing." Well then, the nothing you would like to imagine, doesn't exist, but is a figment of the mind.

Last time I checked, Egor, you were a book reviewer, not a phycisit, or even a scientist. How can you critize a scientists work when you don't even know the full material? Now, you may ask me how can I believe it, but I assure you I can believe it, because it seems to be backed by evidence.

In order to deny his findings, you must first make a counter argument, and submit it to peer(scientists) review for me to EVEN consider it to be hot shit.

Now, if you honestly think he is wrong, or misguided, call him out, instead of whine and bitch to a normal person.

Go ahead, give it a whirl, lets see if you can really counter him, and prove him to know nothing about nothing.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 12:48 AM
 
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 12:26 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  First of all, I have read the book, many times infact. I highly doubt you have since what you are saying IS what he expected people to say. "Its not Nothing."

Wait a minute: You say I haven't read his book but then accuse me of saying what he said people would say who have read his book. Consider

Quote:Well then, the nothing you would like to imagine, doesn't exist, but is a figment of the mind.

That's right: True nothingness cannot exist.

Quote:Last time I checked, Egor, you were a book reviewer, not a phycisit, or even a scientist. How can you critize a scientists work when you don't even know the full material? Now, you may ask me how can I believe it, but I assure you I can believe it, because it seems to be backed by evidence.

Believe whatever you want. And who cares if I'm not a physicist? I can look at the world and use logic and reason to reach conclusions.

Quote:In order to deny his findings, you must first make a counter argument, and submit it to peer(scientists) review for me to EVEN consider it to be hot shit.

Darn. I have to do all that? You mean, I have to get a Ph.D. in physics to argue against Krauss or you won't consider me to be "hot shit"? What the hell am I going to do? I want so much for you to consider me hot shit. I mean, if you believed me then I would be right, and I want so much to be right. If only I could convince you, but to do that, I'm going to have to send you a peer reviewed paper. Weeping

Or, I suppose I could just not give a damn what you think.

Quote:Now, if you honestly think he is wrong, or misguided, call him out, instead of whine and bitch to a normal person.

What? I'm having a discussion in an atheist forum. What are you the defender of all things Krauss?

Quote:Go ahead, give it a whirl, lets see if you can really counter him, and prove him to know nothing about nothing.

There is no point. He has defined "nothing" to mean something other than what it normally means. He may be right in his theory, but it doesn't matter because what he means by nothing and what is generally, philosophically, understood by the word "nothing" are not the same thing.

If you want to believe the universe came from nothing as Krauss describes it, that's fine, but in doing so you do nothing to eliminate the need for a creator of the universe.

By the way, why is your name in red? Are you a moderator or administrator? I thought they were in purple or green?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: