Why God can not exist - logical arguments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(19-06-2014 02:12 AM)mlecyq Wrote:  Here are some arguments why God can not exist and why religion is nonsense:
1. God knows if you go to heaven or hell and you can't change it but still he gives you free will. Logically impossible.
2. God creates something out of nothing- equation 0+0 =1
3. God is immortal and he can commit suicide.
...

More examples, on my youtube video, link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-5M6lgCM8
The Abrahamic god cannot exist because:
1. He knows everything that will happen in the future which means he knows everything that each of us will do before we are even born.
2. He therefore knows many of us will go to hell and suffer unimaginable eternal torment.
3. He allows us to be born, sin, and go to hell anyway when it would have been far more merciful to stop us from ever being born in the first place.
4. The Abrahamic god therefore is not an all loving god which, of course, contradicts the doctrines.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 11:52 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 01:06 PM by Logisch.)
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
Oh look, a drive by youtube advertiser promoting his channel without responding to any questions... nothing to see here.

(edited because meh, not worth the time)

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 12:55 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 12:58 PM by Freethought.)
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 08:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If the universe began to exist, then it needs a cause. Upon a conceptual analysis of what properties said cause must at minimum possess, we arrive at an efficient cause that possess properties which have been traditionally attributed to what we call "God".

Rosa Rubicondior’s primary objection to the Kalam is that it is a God Of The Gaps argument. When one says that an argument is a God Of The Gaps argument, one means the arguer is filling a gap of scientific knowledge with God. They are saying that they do not know how it happened and therefore it must be God.

This is fallacious because such an argument is predicated only on ones’ own ignorance, and the conclusion that God exists would have to be the only possible explanation in such an argument. But the Kalam Cosmological argument is not like that.

This argument is predicated upon unpacking what it means to be the cause of the universe. The cause of the universe cannot be natural because nature is part of and contingent upon the universe. It cannot be spacial or temporal, because as Rosa pointed out, space and time were proven to be contingent upon the universe. So the cause of the universe must be: beyond nature, beyond space, and beyond time.

But there are only two types of things that fit that description: abstract objects, and personal minds. But abstract objects do not stand in causal relation with anything, that is what makes them abstract. Therefore the cause of the universe must be a transcendent, personal mind.

So you see, this argument does not just insert God as a sort of explanatory hypothesis, as Rosa Rubicondior’s objection implies. It is deductive.

This is not an argument for the Christian God, for the traits attributed to God in His revelation to man would be an unjustified consequence of this argument. One cannot conclude that the personal mind has omnipotence or omniscience from this argument. To insert the Christian God, Zeus, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a committee of Greco-Roman gods or a peanut-butter sandwich (as Rosa suggested) would all be unjustified because the traits that they contain do not follow deductively (Also a peanut-butter sandwich, Zeus and the FSM are all contingent upon space and therefore could not be the cause of space).

The traits of this personal transcendence are left in open question for future inquiry.

http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/01/wh...-the-gaps/

I do read your sources, so there's no need to quote them.



(22-06-2014 08:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Indeed you stated this but have supplied no reason to think so that I have not already shown to be without merit.

This is what you responded when I said the Kalam was self refuting. If you forgot, I gave you the example of gods own infinite thoughts that evidently cause the infinite regression you're trying to get away from.


(22-06-2014 08:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  There is no reason to assume that the cause of the universe "came into existence" that's why.

Why not? Why is god's origin exempt from your argument? You have to apply it rather than just saying "there's no reason to assume". Otherwise, I could just say that about the universe. There's all the reason to skeptically investigate gods origin the same way we do about the universe. So far, you haven't given me an explanation to gods origin (other than saying he's infinite, which I already said doesn't work the same way the universe doesn't)

(22-06-2014 08:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you agree that things that come into existence have causes, then the universe has a cause if it came into existence.

And that cause would need a cause. If you just said god had to be uncaused, why not save a step? Anyways, it's interesting to hear your opinion (I used to share it). I'd have liked to hear more of it rather than just quotes from sources or an appeal to authority ("dr." WLC, in this case).

If you want to continue this discussion, don't hesitate to send me a PM as I feel it'd be more appropriate than to talk about it on this thread.

Everyday is judgement day. Use your judgement, use reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Freethought's post
22-06-2014, 01:13 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
Can we just take another pause, while ol' JW cleans the WLC santorum out again, to consider another gaping hole?
(in the argument)

Cosmological arguments are deistic. That's it. Ignoring the infinite regress, ignoring the deliberate equivocation, ignoring the vacuity of the unjustifiable premises... Taking that whole failure pile on board, it only leads to non-interventionist deism.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-06-2014, 01:59 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 05:26 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 09:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 05:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Any plausible mechanism of action will do. Until then, any talk of God is nothing more than a masturbatory red herring designed to distract from that untenable position.

Evidence for dualism comes in various forms. The Kalam for example is an argument against materialism/physicalism and thus for dualism because upon a conceptual analysis of what the efficient cause of the universe must be, it is shown that an unembodied mind is the most plausible explanation. Thus we have one argument for the existence of an unembodied mind. If at least one unembodied mind is shown to plausibly exist, then materialism is shown to be more plausibly false.

The fuck we do. The first premise of the Kalam is neither self-evident nor incontrovertible and assumes that Hume never existed and the problems of induction and causation are not problems at all. An unembodied mind is the least plausible explanation.

(21-06-2014 09:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  For example, if, when astronauts hand landed on the moon for the first time in history, they found a pile of what appeared to be ancient machine parts with strange and unknown markings on them, the astronauts would have immediately notified NASA ground control of this and the entire scientific community would have been breaking their necks to hold press conferences about the discovery of evidence of extra terrestrial life on the moon. They would have known nothing at all about how the machine parts got there, who made them, what they were made of, what their purpose was, or what the engravings meant. But they would have still concluded, and quite justifiably, that the most plausible explanation was that some type of extra terrestrial intelligence was the cause of them being there.

The most plausible explanation is not for extraterrestrials but rather, "Well goddam and fuck a duck, it looks like the Russkies beat us here after all. Sneaky commie bastards."

(21-06-2014 09:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 05:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The burden is on you to first present a plausible mechanism of action for this dualism.

That would be absurd. It is absurd because you do not have to have an explanation of the explanation in order to recognize it as the best explanation. Thus, your view is untenable and if scientists held your view, they would never be able to explain anything!

The fuck you babbling on about now. I know scientists. I work with scientists. Hell, I am a scientist. And Jeremy, you're no scientist. They are always looking for empirical evidence for a plausible mechanism of action for every explanation. Why do you think there are like 2 dozen different interpretations of quantum mechanics? At this point, none is more plausible than the others but it is worth noting that none of them consider the Kalam argument as plausible.

Bottom line is you gonna die and disappear into the void like everyone and everything else and your little egotistical arrogant pea brain refuses to accept that you ain't special (except in the "short bus" or "special needs" sense).

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like GirlyMan's post
22-06-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 01:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... it only leads to non-interventionist deism ...

Oh, I don't know about that, CJ. There's considerable anti-masturbation message in something like a Big Bang.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 02:03 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 01:59 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 01:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... it only leads to non-interventionist deism ...

Oh, I don't know about that, CJ. There's considerable anti-masturbation message in something like a Big Bang.

Dunno about that. Some poor guy's gonna be left out of the orgy and end up going for The Big Spooge. Big Grin

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 08:59 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 01:37 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 05:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  2. Even if the philosophical argument against an actual infinite was the only support for two, your objection fails because God is not an actual infinite. Dr. Craig explains why:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite

That response from WLC was hilarious.

Quote:the mathematical notion of an actual infinite is a quantitative concept.

True. And so is the mathematical notion of finite.

And now for the word play ...

Quote: But when theologians speak of the infinity of God, they are not using the word in a mathematical sense to refer to an aggregate of an infinite number of elements. God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative.

Infinity is a number. How can something be quantitative finite yet infinitely qualitative?

Quote: It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on.

Ah so God is quantitatively infinite then!


Quote:omniscience need not entail knowing an infinite number of, say, propositions, much less having an infinite number of thoughts; nor need we think of omnipotence as entailing the ability to do an infinite number of actions

I see that he didn't mention 'eternal' in there which is the sole reason why the existence of actual infinities is being debated.


Quote:Thus, denying that God is actually infinite in the quantitative sense in no way implies that God is finite.

And now he relies on deliberate sleight of hand because what his argument actually states is:

"Thus, denying that God is actually infinite in the quantitative sense in no way implies that God is qualitatively finite."

So there you have it. William Lane Craig deliberately relying on ambiguity and deliberately avoiding addressing the question of quantitatively infinite time. And in the process being intellectually dishonest because the fundamental flaw in his argument has been exposed.

Indeed. "Eternal" means precisely "infinite in time" -- which is VERY DEFINITELY quantitative.


[Image: snakeoil.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
22-06-2014, 09:03 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(22-06-2014 08:46 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 01:11 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  But the difference between me stating that God does not exist and you considering the possibility that he does is that you know and have admitted that you can't put forward a decent case.

If you consider a decent case for the existence of God a case wherein absolute proof of His existence is offered, then you are correct. I cannot do this, nor have I said I could.

That is the burden of proof that you bear. Regardless of how many times and how hard you try to weasel out of it.

Quote:Too bad this criterion for a "decent case" is far too restrictive

For YOU to be able to weasel your way around your burden of PROOF. PROOF is PROOF, moron.

Quote: and by its very nature renders much of what you hold to be true "indecent". For there is much that you yourself believe that cannot be proven with absolute certainty yet you nontheless believe it and feel justified in doing so.


[Image: Moving-The-Goalposts.jpg]


Quote:
(22-06-2014 01:11 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  You just want to create enough doubt and make it look like it's a valid question. This is evidence that what's more important to you is that people believe in the existence of God regardless of whether they can justify the belief.

P.S God does not exist

I would love to see one of your arguments that seeks to show that God does not exist.

You and every other asshole theist that ever existed and will ever exist have failed miserably to provide a single shred of EVIDENCE to support your batshit claims of your monster gawd-thing.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
24-06-2014, 08:53 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
Quote: There is no reason to assume that the cause of the universe "came into existence" that's why


There sure as fuck is when you are special-pleading it to be the only fucking thing anywhere that didn't "begin to exist".


Quote: If you agree that things that come into existence have causes, then the universe has a cause if it came into existence.

And again for the zillionth time, your "begins to exist" bullshit is deliberate and dishonest word play and the assumptions you are attempting to hide are that these "things that come into existence" do so OUT OF NOTHING, AND BY MAGIC. Your assumption of magic (the actual existence of which you would have to prove in order to assert it as a premise, which you cannot, which is why you disingenuously attempt to hide this secret premise away from scrutiny) assumes the existence of an entity that possesses this magic -- thus you have set up a fallacious homunculus argument, which again you disingenuously attempt to hide in order to dodge your homunculus-infinite-regress problem.

Your argument is meaningless without its specially-pled, no-beginning-to-exist magic fairy waiting in the wings. It is an intrinsic part of your argument. Which is why the "begins to exist" sleight-of-hand is included, without which the argument collapses under its own weight.

Your biggest problem is your abject dishonesty.

Your having admitted the age of the earth destroys any claim you make of the veracity of your creation myth outright. Your fairy tale book claims that your fairy tale monster created the earth and everything in and around it in SIX DAYS. I HOLD YOU TO THIS. It's YOUR story, you claim that it is true and that it comes straight from your magical sky-daddy. It also claims that the stars and the rest of the universe are merely pinpoints of light on a screen (firmament) revolving around a flat earth. YOU HAVE ALREADY DENIED THIS AND THUS YOU DENY YOUR CREATION MYTH. YOUR ENTIRE FAIRY STORY FALLS WITH THIS.

You cannot cherry-pick what parts of your creation myth you declare to be true and which are made-up. IT'S EITHER ALL ENTIRELY TRUE OR IT'S ALL A MYTH. THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. IT'S ALL OR NOTHING.You set yourself up for this dilemma, painted yourself into this corner, by claiming that your story is "The Truth" and that it comes straight from your sky fairy. YOU CAN'T WEASEL YOUR WAY OUT OF IT.

Police catch criminals by pinning them down on their story and questioning them on it, watching for them to "adjust their facts" when they are presented with information that contradicts their claims. They call this an "evolving story", and that's how they catch a suspect in a lie: "First you told us this, and now, in response to this new information, you are telling us this other thing. They can't both be true."

Your creation myth, straight out of your fairytale book, is your story that you are pinned down on. Six-day creation of a flat earth with a screen of stars and the sun and moon going around it. Your gawd-monster living in the clouds above us. WE HOLD YOU TO THAT STORY.

But now you, in response to new and incontrovertible information that you did not have at the time your story was manufactured by ignorant iron-age goatfuckers, you and every other fucktard xtian apologist are desperately "adjusting your facts" in an attempt to evolve your story to accomodate that information: the age of the earth, the non-geocentric nature of the universe, the fact that we can now for the last century or so fly up into the clouds ourselves and see for ourselves that there is no sky-daddy or magical kingdom in the clouds. We can even see the curvature of the earth for ourselves.

This is how we know that your fairy tales are lies. We can determine for ourselves that crucial parts of your story are lies, and we can see for ourselves your desperate gyrations to "adjust your facts" to accommodate new information as it arises to contradict your evolving story. And thus we can see for ourselves that you are lying pathologically and that your many stories are just more lies.


Quote:2. Even if the philosophical argument against an actual infinite was the only support for two, your objection fails because God is not an actual infinite. Dr. Craig explains why:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite


Way to refute your own asinine assertion that your fairy tale monster is eternal and thus has no "beginning to exist".

And now that THAT bullshit is out of the way, you can no longer special-plead that your fairy tale monster did not BEGIN TO EXIST. And there is your precious cosmological "argument" shit-canned.

Nice Own-goal, asswipe — you and "Larry" Craig both.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: