God is not logically possible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2012, 12:53 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
First of all I do know a great deal about claims of how the universe started. I've read a great deal on the topic from a wide variety of sources and while I don't pretend to fully understand the physics behind it all I'm unconvinced anyone has a solid argument on the topic. Thus the very statement I made that we just don't know.

As for the second point you understand that you are basically invoking the "something cannot come from nothing therefore god"
argument again. Why do you have such contentions about discarding such a bad argument?

Finally there is no mass conspiracy to redefine what Atheism means or replace religion. When you make a claim like that you just sound like an idiot. It's like a peek at how you used to act around here and how crazy I think you really are.

Still to rebuke your point is rather simple. Do you understand the difference between saying "I do not beleive X is true" and "I beleive X is false."? If so what do you think that difference is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 12:58 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2012 01:09 AM by Atothetheist.)
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 12:48 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(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 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?

I never said PhD, I said submit your counter argument to be peerrviewed.

Krauss said people would claim its not "nothing."

If your definition of nothing doesn't exist, then why the fuck does it even matter? If you admit that the nothing that you think is nothing doesn't exist, why make it the "Nothing" you think the universe formed from, in the atheist "worldview"?

There's no point in dispelling a falsehood? Jesus, with that type of thinking we still be living in the stone age. Now, he might be using nothing in a different manner, but the definition of nothing and the scientific version of nothing might be similar in a way that scientists deem it to be nothing.

I am not a defender of Krauss, I just am wondering why bother whining over it, and, if you truly feel like you are right, not trying to submit a counter argument to the scientists to correct the definition, or expand on the meaning of nothing.

Because after all, Egor, the only thing you seem to know about is nothing.

You may NOT think highly of me, Egor, after I said that, but I couldn't care less.

I am a contributing(donating) member of this forum, that's why my name is in red.

[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, 01:05 AM
 
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 12:25 AM)nach_in Wrote:  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

Interesting. Basically you're saying that in a field of nothingness, anything is possible because there are no laws or logic preventing anything from happening, including something simply popping into existence.

But you've simply come full circle to a definition of God. 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.

You are simply using the word "nothing" as an alternative to the word "God."

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
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 01:18 AM
 
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 12:58 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I never said PhD, I said submit your counter argument to be peerrviewed.

Krauss said people would claim its not "nothing."

If your definition of nothing doesn't exist, then why the fuck does it even matter? If you admit that the nothing that you think is nothing doesn't exist, why make it the "Nothing" you think the universe formed from, in the atheist "worldview"?

No problem. If you admit that your nothingness is really the something that the universe spontaneously formed in, then we have no argument. Of course you are left with the necessity of a creator again, but that's your problem, not mine.

Quote:You may think highly of me, Egor, after I said that, but I couldn't care less.

Frankly, I like Russians. I've worked with a few, and I really had a good time and a lot of laughs, so I will give you a lot of points for writing English as well as you do. However, you are in no danger whatsoever of me thinking "highly" of you. I think the word you are looking for is "badly."

But I don't think badly of you either. It's just the language barrier at work.




Quote:I am a contributing(donating) member of this forum, that's why my name is in red.

Oh. Thanks. Well now I want my name in red, too.
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 01:29 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 01:05 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 12:25 AM)nach_in Wrote:  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

Interesting. Basically you're saying that in a field of nothingness, anything is possible because there are no laws or logic preventing anything from happening, including something simply popping into existence.

But you've simply come full circle to a definition of God. 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.

You are simply using the word "nothing" as an alternative to the word "God."

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

Of course we'er duelling in the realm of speculation and wild guessing, but from time to time this things lead to real answers so it may be not a complete waste of time Tongue

There is no absurdity in something popping out of nothing because there're no rules to it, about the lack of all potentials, that wouldn't be possible because a potential requires a time frame to be an adequate concept and there's not time in our nothingness so there's no potentials nor lack of potentials, even a god could come into existence from this nothing I'm trying to describe.

About me equating nothing to god, that's not quite right, there's no religious consequence to my description of nothing, there's no will nor conciousness, so there's nothing to praise, there's no mystic truth about it, it's just a nothing so deprived of anything that even rules like the causality principle don't apply. So something could exist prior to its cause, and from that point on, for that thing that violated the principle in the first place, the rules apply, because now rules exist within it.

I'll try to simplify: You define god as a simple first cause and nothing else (because you claim there's no other possible knowledge about this god), but there's something there at the beginning. I don't make that claim, I say there's nothing, and because there's nothing then something can come into existence. Yes, it sounds absurd, but hey! we're speculating so I can get away with it Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 01:31 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 01:18 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 12:58 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I never said PhD, I said submit your counter argument to be peerrviewed.

Krauss said people would claim its not "nothing."

If your definition of nothing doesn't exist, then why the fuck does it even matter? If you admit that the nothing that you think is nothing doesn't exist, why make it the "Nothing" you think the universe formed from, in the atheist "worldview"?

No problem. If you admit that your nothingness is really the something that the universe spontaneously formed in, then we have no argument. Of course you are left with the necessity of a creator again, but that's your problem, not mine.

Quote:You may think highly of me, Egor, after I said that, but I couldn't care less.

Frankly, I like Russians. I've worked with a few, and I really had a good time and a lot of laughs, so I will give you a lot of points for writing English as well as you do. However, you are in no danger whatsoever of me thinking "highly" of you. I think the word you are looking for is "badly."

But I don't think badly of you either. It's just the language barrier at work.




Quote:I am a contributing(donating) member of this forum, that's why my name is in red.

Oh. Thanks. Well now I want my name in red, too.

I editted my post before you posted. Just Sayian.

[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, 02:45 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(02-09-2012 12:03 AM)Egor Wrote:  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."
Is that an argument from ignorance? Either way, you're blatantly wrong.

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society.

(02-09-2012 12:03 AM)Egor Wrote:  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?
That depends on what kind of atheist you are. I wouldn't consider gnostic atheism the logical position, but agnostic atheism instead. Regardless, you have yet to provide us with coherent evidence for the existence your god. Until you are able to do that, it's the same old story.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
02-09-2012, 03:24 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 03:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-09-2012 03:37 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Basically I just don't think it's reasonable to look at the makeup of the history of the Universe and then come to a conclusion that it all just... happened (with no explanation).

The Multiverse Theory is better than "It just happened" or "No reason at all".

Is it alright if I say someone is irrational if they say to me "There is no explanation for the Universe".
To me, that seems like special pleading since the Universe itself is subject to the laws of nature.
If I were to write a book (It would be massive lol) that wrote the entire story of the Universe, going backwards in time, and the purpose or cause of every molecule and then came to the end of the book and said "The Universe - it just happened" You can rightly say that the last part of the book is irrational.

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.

Its those first fractions of a second that are the issue, as to 5 questions I can think of 2 that no amount of further educational will answer.

1. What insigated the "big bang",
2. In those first few micro seconds where our understanding peters out, what was going on.
That is exactly is the information we are missing, that is what at least some of us would love to have explained.

You say we can explain everyhing and that there is nothing we cant explain. I am literally agog. Ideasonscribe, is not alone evidently in requiring some more education, I myself am ingnorant as far as everything goes, perhaps you could educate us both further.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 03:56 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(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.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 04:18 AM
RE: God is not logically possible
(01-09-2012 10:24 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-09-2012 04:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  We don't actually know if this happens.

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?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: