Is God an incoherent concept (impossible?)?

[sealchan]

How would someone go about proving God is nonexistent logically?

I'm not sure that you can but one might say there is no point thinking something exists if it can't be demonstrated to exist and that that is practically identical to proving it doesn't exist. That is, it carries no truth value and shouldn't factor into any useful discussion.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not sure that you can but one might say there is no point thinking something exists if it can't be demonstrated to exist and that that is practically identical to proving it doesn't exist. That is, it carries no truth value and shouldn't factor into any useful discussion.

Well, it can be demonstrated philosophically that God exists. There are many arguments for that.

Still, what you have done is a Tu Quoque. It by itself is a logical fallacy. So it seems like you are not interested in logic.

 

[sealchan]

Well, it can be demonstrated philosophically that God exists. There are many arguments for that.

Still, what you have done is a Tu Quoque. It by itself is a logical fallacy. So it seems like you are not interested in logic.

That God can be demonstrated to exist philosophically is debatable.

I don't see how anything I said has to do with Tu Quoque fallacy as I did not make any sort of personal attack or even critique. At most I spoke theoretically about how someone might think and that wasn't even in a critical way. I also didn't make any direct truth claim or attempt to disprove anything.

So I am really not following you here.

 

[firedragon]

That God can be demonstrated to exist philosophically is debatable.

If anyone really needs to, everything is debatable.

I don't see how anything I said has to do with Tu Quoque fallacy as I did not make any sort of personal attack or even critique.

A tu Quoque is when you dont address the question or argument but resort to getting into the questioners own hypocrisy. Why do you ask me this when you have that. Thats Tu Quoque. Thats what you did.

Cheers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If anyone really needs to, everything is debatable.
...

In practice it ends with that the 2 or more participants can disagree and all can get away with it.

 

[sealchan]

If anyone really needs to, everything is debatable.



A tu Quoque is when you dont address the question or argument but resort to getting into the questioners own hypocrisy. Why do you ask me this when you have that. Thats Tu Quoque. Thats what you did.

Cheers.

Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I really wasn't making any sort of critique at all, just offering up a possibilty for how someone might make an argument.

Cheers back.

 

[firedragon]

Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I really wasn't making any sort of critique at all, just offering up a possibilty for how someone might make an argument.

Cheers back.

Haha. Alright alright sealchan. This is not a big deal.

Cheers.

 

[Link]

@9-10ths_Penguin I looked up classical replies, but they are not too convincing for me either.

I will try explain how I understand it. God's essence doesn't change but he creates his will, his will is emotionful and linked to him, and is his state, but when we change states, it effects our essence too. Our essence can change by actions and states, and they are related. God's essence doesn't change, but he is in every day in a state.

The state of a day we count (24 hours) takes a thousand years with God and some of if not all his Angels (a). It's not that time doesn't exist with God, it's that it doesn't change his essence, but his state and reaction and emotion does change. Time is not uniform.

In reality he is time. And future and past don't exist, only present. God creates his will and states, just as we do, but his essence doesn't change. I hope that makes sense.

Looking up explanations out there, I could see why they would not be convincing to many.

The two Angels Munkar and Nakeer for example slow time. It's not that time doesn't exist, it's just not uniform as we think.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin I looked up classical replies, but they are not too convincing for me either.

I will try explain how I understand it. God's essence doesn't change but he creates his will, his will is emotionful and linked to him, and is his state, but when we change states, it effects our essence too. Our essence can change by actions and states, and they are related. God's essence doesn't change, but he is in every day in a state.

I'm trying to be as possible in my interpretation of what you're saying, but I can't see any way to read this that's coherent.

The part that I've bolded seems to be contradicting itself.

The state of a day we count (24 hours) takes a thousand years with God and some of if not all his Angels (a). It's not that time doesn't exist with God, it's that it doesn't change his essence, but his state and reaction and emotion does change. Time is not uniform.

In reality he is time. And future and past don't exist, only present. God creates his will and states, just as we do, but his essence doesn't change. I hope that makes sense.

Looking up explanations out there, I could see why they would not be convincing to many.

The two Angels Munkar and Nakeer for example slow time. It's not that time doesn't exist, it's just not uniform as we think.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be relevant. "God doesn't travel uniformly through time" is not the same claim as "God is timeless (i.e. exists outside of time)."

 

[Link]

I tried to explain it God is not timeless but the source of time and creates his own states without change to his essence.

 

[Link]

I tried to explain.

We change states, our states in time effect what our essence is.
God changes states, his states don't effect what his essence is.

The assumption is God's essence must change to be in states, which is why people said God's will is eternal. However hadiths and Quran shows God's will is innovated newly in real time and there is even a verse that says "in every day, he is in a state", in Surah Rahman.

I agree with you will can't be eternal, and must be created in real time. And do that God must change states. What I'm saying is he changes states, but that does not change his essence.

The assumption that it changes his essence is a wrong assumption by theologians, it would not and does not.

 

[KWED]

As for choosing between justice and mercy, it's just that these balance and apply to situations.

The problem you have here is that your version of god is described as "most merciful" and "most just".
"Most" means "highest attainable, unable to be more than".
However, it is patently obvious that Allah is not "as merciful as it is possible to be", nor "as just as it is possible to be".

 

[Link]

The problem you have here is that your version of god is described as "most merciful" and "most just".
"Most" means "highest attainable, unable to be more than".
However, it is patently obvious that Allah is not "as merciful as it is possible to be", nor "as just as it is possible to be".

So the problem is not in God but how people define these words.

 

[KWED]

Hmm. I would honestly like to read this philosopher.

See, all three of these points are making a P1, to Q argument. In general, this P1 has to be coherent with the definition of the object in discussion. In this case, this P1 is made up. Do you understand brother. It's just made out of thin air.

The arguments are absolutely incoherent.

You seem to misunderstand (as usual).
It is logically impossible to be both most just and most merciful as they are mutually exclusive.
Therefor any god who claims to be both is logically impossible.

Feel free to explain how that argument is "absolutely incoherent" though .

 

[KWED]

So the problem is not in God but how people define these words.

God is how he is described by people, nothing more.
There is no observational evidence to draw on, only the claims of people.

 

[KWED]

Thanks for that. I agree with you, in Islam, God is beyond understanding and no knows how he is or in what mode he exists.

This is obvious nonsense.
Islam relies entirely on people claiming that they understand what god is and what he wants.

 

[Link]

You seem to misunderstand (as usual).
It is logically impossible to be both most just and most merciful as they are mutually exclusive.
Therefor any god who claims to be both is logically impossible.

Feel free to explain how that argument is "absolutely incoherent" though .

I understand it. I already explained. I don't like repeating same points.

 

[KWED]

So when the parents of a child with Leukemia prays for the life of their child, but God decides to let the child die anyway, is that consistent with compassion?

I am willing to bet that the response will be along the lines of... "God is teaching someone else a lesson/testing them. And the child ends up in heaven anyway. God is most compassionate."

 

[KWED]

I dont think you are ready for this type of discussion. You are not even trying or being relevant.

Ciao.

 

[KWED]

It is said a negative cannot be proved. How can I disprove an entity which exists in your imagination? Your imagination belongs to your brain.

When a claimant is repeatedly unable to demonstrate the existence of the thing claimed, and the thing is not necessary for any known purpose or explanation, eventually the default position is that it doesn't exist. Obviously this isn't "proof" but it amounts to the same thing.