Logic: There is no God

Post Reply New Topic

AG, I strongly suggest that you read some of my posts in this thread. I've delivered insights on the topic that I haven't seen suggested elsewhere.

No. I'm just a glutton for abuse. I'm taking a vacation for the Summer, though, and I'll be spending it with a psychotic and lovable sadist. I'll see you in August. Maybe.

I don't know what stopped
Jesus Christ from turning
every hungry stone into bread
and I don't remember hearing how Moses
reacted when the innocent first born sons lay dead
well I guess God was a lot more demonstrative back when
he flamboyantly parted the sea,
now everybody's praying,
don't pray on me.

I know that some of your posts are insightful, I wasn't mostly dealing with them, I was dealing with your attack on my comment as being logically flawed. Frankly, I was not all that concerned with getting into a huge debate but rather with that one point.


Ok, bdsm, got it.

God resides everywhere,he is imaterial,pure,unique...not like an old man with a long beard or something one can grasp or look at.

God creates the laws of the universe, He is not subject to them.

Logic isn't the point of religion. I use the logic that there is no reason to try to destroy faith, as it is only a positive thing for me.

Believing in god is like believing in Superman. Yeah you can't technically proove it, but it isn't something that should have to be prooved. Why does nobody try to proove that Superman doesn't exist? Because 1. it can't be prooven, and 2. common since would tell you he didn't exist.
Now as far as human interpretation they call religions are concerned, pretty much all of the mainstream perceptions of them have been prooven wrong with fossils found in the ground that proove in evolution. It is possible there is another way of seeing religion in a way that coincides with the information we have found scientifically, but I can guarantee you there isn't some superhuman ghost with superman powers flying around in the sky stalking our every move. If a universal god exists, I doubt seriously that it would be a conscious being, if anything it would be a nameless, formless source of energy that operates kinda like a giant supercomputer. And it would be neither fully good or bad. It's likely work things through complex mathematical equations beyond most peoples' comprehension.

Actually probably beyond all peoples' comprehension

That's how I see it. But whenever I try and point that out, people get mad at me.

oh well... if you see only things like creationism in religion, then we really arent discussing the subject of religion.

to paint a very simple picture (a lot more words could be written on that subject):
metaphysical things, among which religion and faith fall, are attempts at answering the question: "WHY?"
physical events like natural science are attempts to answer the question: "HOW?"

religions are not about proving the "physical" existance of some entity that by some weird magic doesnt follow the rules of all things having existence in that physical way. religions also are not about how the world came to be (creationism and the like). basically, creationism fails as it tries to take a model for explaining a "why" to explain a "how" - thats as much a failure as trying to derive the meaning of life (a "why") from natural science (which is a system for getting "how"s).

however, what a lot of people dont see is that both attempts, religion and natural science, are mere attempts. religion only "works" when accepting a lot of premises that dont need to be accepted. what not so many people see is that natural science is as much a system of speculation and premises that need to be accepted. methodically, natural science is a rulebound version of the way we naturally interpret the world: observing and linking observed phenomena via causality. yet, you dont need to believe that causality has actual existence in the world. you dont even need to accept that there is a world outside of you that sustains you with a stream of phenomena (basically, this conclusion is just another attempt at linking things and concpets with causality).
at the end of the day, science "only" delivers models that predict to a better or worse degree what will happen. there is no "truth" in gravitational forces - they are a model that yields working results. that doesnt mean gravitational forces have actual existence (that would be taking for real what is mere method).
they are an interpretation for the "how"-part of what we perceive as the world of a certain phenomenon.
just the same as the existence of god is one interpretation for explaining the "why"-part of what we perceive as the world.

a simple example for showing the gap between "how" and "why":
i am walking to the bank because i have no mor emoney in my wallet.
now, i can describe the "how" of me walking to the bank in as much detail as i want. from just describing the way i need to take to how walking works physiologically, how much calories i burn on the way, ... - i wont get one hint of why i am actually going to the bank. just because attempts at answering HOW i walk to the bank dont answer WHY i am going to the bank, or even hint at the possibility of a WHY in the confines of how-terms, doesnt mean i walk to the bank for no reason.
to answer that question, i have to ask a different question and use other means to answer it.

some people might not care at all why i go to the bank, some might find it even more substantial than how i get there.

actually, quite simple isnt it?

logic dictates that burden of proof lays on the side of trying to prove something's existence...not prove its non-existence.



so therefore, it is not my job to prove god doesn't exist but rather to be skeptical and debate all evidence of an existence of a deity.



i'm doing a job and winning my case.....religion is just in contempt of court right now.

only if logic was the only way to come to conclusions would your case be so simple, skafather.
your case works for people who came to faith through logic. thats not the case for all. to the rest, logic wont play a role in their assumption.

other than that, using abstract logics in a god debate is sooooo middle ages (literally middle ages. logics based philosophy/theology was the hype back then).

logic is the only way to come to conclusions.







anyone who comes to the conclusion of "faith" through logic is using faulty logic.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfw7hUEujUw[/youtube]

you're confusing logic with US criminal law

sensory assertions (recognizing a person or an object), for example, dont use logic, while they are a very valid conclusion as to what or whom we see.
in everyday life, causality is used much more than logic. causality even violates logic openly, yet we do it all the time and even based science on it.



or accepts premises that are different from yours.
id agree myself that most people want a god only because they are hardwired to interpret things as cause and effect, and effects (their own self) without cause (god) highly distresses them.
but logic itself doesnt dictate anything about which premises are "more acceptable" than others. a mindset or a paradigma does, though.