Disproving god with the laws of logic

[freethinker44]

Thief- I have to applaud your tenacity. I won't disagree with your opinion but I will offer a pointer. Stop using the cause and effect argument. It doesn't hold true to your what you're saying unless you can put forth a cause for the existence of god.

Thank you!!

 

[freethinker44]

This is an easy question for me. The only quality I would attribute to a god would be the ability to create the universe. That's it.

The only problem I have with this, is that it leaves room for something greater to exist. I guess the reason this bothers me is that it blurs the line between god, god-like, and completely natural. Basically, there is nothing special about god if this is what a god is. The ability to understand and therefore create what is understood is well within human grasp. We may not have the technology or intellectual capacity to understand the universe as we are now, but I think as our species progresses, that understanding becomes closer and closer. I see no reason why the human species cannot someday understand and unlock the "secrets" of the universe. And if we can understand them, then we could recreate them. So my problem with a creator being the only necessary qualifier for a god is; Humans have the potential to understand and create what is understood, I would never consider myself to be a god, I would never consider an ancestor of mine to be a god, so god must be beyond human potential in order to differentiate between ourselves and god, and I don't believe that creating, even something as perceivably complex as the universe, is beyond human potential.

 

[Thief]

Hey Venatoris....
How are we different?
You would credit God the ability to create the universe?
I think I see someone quoting you, in that way.

Are you people assuming I practice religion, and believe for cause of religion?

Cause and effect is basic.
So many types of argument rely upon it.

The singularity is the effect. God is the cause.

To take away my Creator, take away His creation.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Here's the problem thief. We don't need to take away his creation. You need to bring forth his creation, if you will. Essentially, how did he come to be, himself? For if you wish to use cause and effect, you cannot drop that the moment you move to god himself. essentially, you are willing to use cause and effect to explain your point, but won't actually go so far as to actually believe what you yourself are saying.

If you say that the singularity is the effect and god is the cause, i pose this question to you. What is god's cause? For, using your logic, it is an infinite chain of causes and effects. Which is why we atheists tend to reject this logic, because it answers nothing.

 

[Venatoris]

The only problem I have with this, is that it leaves room for something greater to exist. I guess the reason this bothers me is that it blurs the line between god, god-like, and completely natural. Basically, there is nothing special about god if this is what a god is. The ability to understand and therefore create what is understood is well within human grasp. We may not have the technology or intellectual capacity to understand the universe as we are now, but I think as our species progresses, that understanding becomes closer and closer. I see no reason why the human species cannot someday understand and unlock the "secrets" of the universe. And if we can understand them, then we could recreate them. So my problem with a creator being the only necessary qualifier for a god is; Humans have the potential to understand and create what is understood, I would never consider myself to be a god, I would never consider an ancestor of mine to be a god, so god must be beyond human potential in order to differentiate between ourselves and god, and I don't believe that creating, even something as perceivably complex as the universe, is beyond human potential.

I am in total agreement. The line between god, god-like, and completely natural is only defined by us when we know our current limitations. We can't hope to guess at the limits of our true potential. Hypothetically, If you were god, would you see your abilities as god-like or something completely natural? what would be your basis for comparison? Perhaps as we progress as a species this well defined line will disappear altogether.

Hey Venatoris....
How are we different?
You would credit God the ability to create the universe?
I think I see someone quoting you, in that way.

Yes, that is part of how I would define a god. The difference between us I would guess is that I take in all available information from all sources before coming to a conclusion which I can change with the introduction of new information. I don't reach to justify a preconceived notion, ever. I would rather be open to multiple possibilities than assert that I am right about anything. I know that sounds kind of rude but I can't think of another way to say it.

Are you people assuming I practice religion, and believe for cause of religion?

I don't understand this sentence so I cant answer it.

Cause and effect is basic.
So many types of argument rely upon it.

The singularity is the effect. God is the cause.

To take away my Creator, take away His creation.

I'm not speaking towards your belief here, just how the cause and effect principle doesn't work.
The classic paradox- chicken vs. egg

Which came first? If the chicken came first, from what did it hatch? If the egg came first, how was it laid?
Every cause must have a cause which in turn must have a cause. It's just a logical flaw that applies in this case. Every cause is in itself the effect of another cause.
I hope that makes sense.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Thief- I have to applaud your tenacity. I won't disagree with your opinion but I will offer a pointer. Stop using the cause and effect argument. It doesn't hold true to what you're saying unless you can put forth a cause for the existence of god.

That actually isn't technically true. In order to posit the first cause for any chain of causality you need something which is not already a part of that chain of causality. So to explain how dinosaurs evolved you must first involve something which is not in fact a dinosaur. In the case of something like "God" or "Existence itself" you must posit something which is outside of "God" (which is definitionally impossible) or outside of existence (which must be something which transcends existence).

MTF

 

[Thief]

We may be getting somewhere.....finally.

Science makes an observation, and then seeks the cause...the 'how' portion mentioned in a previous post.

When taking the universe, back to the genesis, the equations begin to disappear, as the forces we know crunch into the singularity.
Geometry collapses and the number system fails.
Emptiness takes over.

The atheist requires 'proof'.
There won't be any science 'proof'. Science can't go there.
No experiment can be made out of nothing.

But the universe (one word) does exist, apparently made out of nothing.
The singularity is God.....saying 'I am."

 

[Willamena]

If there is a "cause" or "effect" applicable to "God" then God is not Creator but creation.

 

[Thief]

Naw, one is physical and the Other isn't.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

well im not here to debate, debate lead to dispute and that leads no where. discussion is better for the mind. imo.

n e ways, if you believe in the big bang then the expansion of the universe is something which u must believe in also, and has been proven.

what is interestign is that i read a passage in the quran saying:

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?

This refers to the universe begining at one point and then being expanded.
agreeing with modern theories today.

another one of interest was:

“We have built the heaven with might, and We are expanding it.”

referign to the expansion of the universe.back in those days, space was refered to as heaven, which u probably already know, i just thought i might add it.

thoughts?

If you're not here to debate, why come to the debate forums?

 

[McBell]

Naw, one is physical and the Other isn't.

so which one isn't physical?
God or the creator?

 

[Humanistheart]

I must say I'm surprised at how long this thread has gone on.

 

[freethinker44]

Me too.

 

[Thief]

Me three.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

thief, answer mesty's question

 

[Morse]

Holy hellfire. This thread is till going?

EDIT: Oh, and Nonbeliever, he will NEVER answer a question. It like the scorpion and the turtle story, its just his nature.

 

[sevenz]

I recently heard about TAG (transcendental argument for god), and it seems strange to me why christians would use this argument. Not only does TAG not prove god exists, but I find it to be strong proof that god CANNOT exist.

I believe the first law makes gods existence impossible. It is the law of identity, that something cannot be something and not something at the same time. These laws are absolute, and christians would claim they are the physical manifestation of gods mind. Now, in order for these laws to be absolute, they must be objective. So they are true regardless of personal opinion or whether or not any mind is there to judge them at all.

So the law of identity states that something cannot be something and not something, and this is the ABSOLUTE (this is important terminology) unchanging law which reflects the mind of an absolute unchanging being (god). This is the christian argument, and it is perfectly sound... until you take a little further.

Here is my reasoning:
If the laws are absolute, then god cannot be something and nothing either, making god subjective to the laws. If god is subjective to the laws then they are not apart of god. If god is not subjective to the laws then the laws are not absolute and the whole argument falls apart anyways. But, the laws are logically sound and seemingly impossible, indeed, something cannot be something it is not. A rock will always be a rock even under a different name or if there no one there to label a rock it will still be a rock. So the logic is absolute, which would mean god cannot be an absolute being and still exist.

I'm sure this argument won't get past the "language barrier" and we will spend the whole discussion defining the word "god" or something but when you strip it down to its simplest form the laws of logic leave little room for a god in my opinion.

you can find a good outline of TAG at the CARM website (it won't let me post a link so you will have to google it) if interested, it is too much for me to post here.

As far as I know this is the TA arguement, there are 99 others, would you like to see them?

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists

(which I think is form an athiest site with about 500 others that mock the existence of God)


Why can't Gods be subject to His own laws?

Also please define "the laws of logic" if you wouldnt mind. Or else I fear there will be a barrier to what logic actually really is. Or we can keep "logic out of it and stick to the truth, that's better than logic unless of course we both agree that its logical that logic would be the truth.

Quite frankly anyone or thing that doesnt belisve in God aka a creator of this whole ball of wax, is the person with the most faith of all the religions. Congratulations!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Or we can keep "logic out of it and stick to the truth, that's better than logic unless of course we both agree that its logical that logic would be the truth.

Classic ...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Also please define "the laws of logic" if you wouldnt mind. Or else I fear there will be a barrier to what logic actually really is.

Hi sevenz, good point but it makes no difference, for ultimately there is no human logic that can explain the transcendent truth behind the perceived 'reality' perceived by mortals. "The wisdom of this world is nonsense in God's sight. That's why Scripture says, "God catches the wise in their cleverness." 1 Corinthians 3:19

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Hi sevenz, good point but it makes no difference, for ultimately there is no human logic that can explain the transcendent truth behind the perceived 'reality' perceived by mortals. "The wisdom of this world is nonsense in God's sight. That's why Scripture says, "God catches the wise in their cleverness." 1 Corinthians 3:19

It seems very easy to evade certain questions by postulating limitations of human logic when it comes to beings such as god.

I would warn you of such easy statements. You see if you define our logic and "wisdom" as nonsense in the sight of some other being then you actually dismantle any supposed reasoning in any supposed scripture by the very same being.
Your "thats why Scripture says" ONLY makes sense if you rely on logic. If you don't you can't actually argue at all.