There is no God

[Nicodemus]

If the studies proved that the theory is wrong. Then it's wrong.

It proved unnecessary for explanation.

 

[Santosha]

Exactly. I always assumed that if somebody was responsible for creating logic and physics that they would be beyond their creation, in a different class of 'existence'. The thing is, it is useless attempting to describing such a thing and even more useless debating it.

Yep. But it sure is fun, imaginging what lies outside the framework. What lies outside the universe? Can something only exist in relation to something else? It is possible that God is where relativity ends? All knowing, every existance, every thought, feeling, action, energy, here, in the universe, from beginning to end to beginning and end, cycling forever.. and if this is god.. what lies outside of this? I tell you that to believe mans current use of logic is as good as it gets, and make strong attachments or judgements with it seems very (correction) liimiting to me.

 

[reason]

God may transcend logic, but so does everyone. I can pick my nose. Can logic pick its nose? No. Therefore, I transcend logic: my abilities go beyond the limits of logic. However, that doesn't mean that my or god's existence is not bound by logical constraints. A god that is logically absurd, a god that literally makes no sense, is no god at all. It makes a mockery of god, since any attempt to assign properties to that god must be futile: god may be simultaneously good and evil, capricious and careful, interventionist and laissez faire, loving and hateful, the creator of all and the creator of nothing, or neither of any of these things. A god that is logically inconsistent is indistinguishable from random happenings and so doesn't resemble a living being of any kind.

Withdrawing to the 'god doesn't have to make sense, because god transcends reason and logic' argument is a foolish defence of theism. In an attempt to deflect criticism, one renders it impossible to critique alternative views: nothing has to make sense. When it's impossible to resolve disagreements with peaceful argument, all that remains is the use of force. Far from promoting tolerance toward opposing views, such philosophical positions always beget more conflict.

 

[Qlip]

Yep. But it sure is fun, imaginging what lies outside the framework. What lies outside the universe? Can something only exist in relation to something else? It is possible that God is where relativity ends? All knowing, every existance, every thought, feeling, action, energy, here, in the universe, from beginning to end to beginning and end, cycling forever.. and if this is god.. what lies outside of this? I tell you that to believe mans current use of logic is as good as it gets, and make strong attachments or judgements with it seems very (correction) liimiting to me.

There is the domain of mystic traditions, there's a lot of imagry associated with what's 'beyond the veil'. But as Bruce Lee says (actually it's a Zen Koan), you are looking at the finger and missing the moon in all it's heavenly glory. But just because talking is problematic doesn't mean that we can't indicate the directions of things that can't be described, and it doesn't mean that we can't know things through a different process. So, yes, I agree.

 

[Qlip]

God may transcend logic, but so does everyone. I can pick my nose. Can logic pick its nose? No. Therefore, I transcend logic: my abilities go beyond the limits of logic. However, that doesn't mean that my or god's existence is not bound by logical constraints. A god that is logically absurd, a god that literally makes no sense, is no god at all. It makes a mockery of god, since any attempt to assign properties to that god must be futile: god may be simultaneously good and evil, capricious and careful, interventionist and laissez faire, loving and hateful, the creator of all and the creator of nothing, or neither of any of these things. A god that is logically inconsistent is indistinguishable from random happenings and so doesn't resemble a living being of any kind.

Withdrawing to the 'god doesn't have to make sense, because god transcends reason and logic' argument is a foolish defence of theism. In an attempt to deflect criticism, one renders it impossible to critique alternative views: nothing has to make sense. When it's impossible to resolve disagreements with peaceful argument, all that remains is the use of force. Far from promoting tolerance toward opposing views, such philosophical positions always beget more conflict.

So, your point is that if the Universe isn't ultimately explainable, then you won't ever be able to talk sense into religous extremists and usher in Utopia? hah. Theism isn't the source of conflict in humanity.

 

[reason]

So, your point is that if the Universe isn't ultimately explainable, then you won't ever be able to talk sense into religous extremists and usher in Utopia? hah. Theism isn't the source of conflict in humanity.

I'm saying that anti-rational positions (i.e. positions which deflect any and all possible criticism) tend to beget violent conflict, especially on religious matters. Rather than promoting agnosticism about the nature of God, retreating to the 'God doesn't have to make sense' argument just immunises conflicting visions of God from criticism. Such argumentative tactics are subversive to a civil society which encourages us to fight with words rather than swords.

In any case, the universe is explainable: things that exist make sense and things that don't make sense do not exist. Human brains are universal explainers.

 

[Skip Foreplay]

The two rules of atheism:

1. There is no God.

2. You hate him.

1. There is no Theistic God.

2. You hate the effects that the belief in Theistic Gods causes.


Of course, only the first is necessary (and strictly, it is not) I can explain this if you'd like - the latter is merely common, and for good reason I think.

On another note, those who are quoting the Bible should first tell us why it's a good source for knowledge about God. I'm going to read through the 12 pages now; I just wanted to clear that up

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

God may transcend logic, but so does everyone. I can pick my nose. Can logic pick its nose? No. Therefore, I transcend logic: my abilities go beyond the limits of logic. However, that doesn't mean that my or god's existence is not bound by logical constraints. A god that is logically absurd, a god that literally makes no sense, is no god at all. It makes a mockery of god, since any attempt to assign properties to that god must be futile: god may be simultaneously good and evil, capricious and careful, interventionist and laissez faire, loving and hateful, the creator of all and the creator of nothing, or neither of any of these things. A god that is logically inconsistent is indistinguishable from random happenings and so doesn't resemble a living being of any kind.

Withdrawing to the 'god doesn't have to make sense, because god transcends reason and logic' argument is a foolish defence of theism. In an attempt to deflect criticism, one renders it impossible to critique alternative views: nothing has to make sense. When it's impossible to resolve disagreements with peaceful argument, all that remains is the use of force. Far from promoting tolerance toward opposing views, such philosophical positions always beget more conflict.

What allows you to say that he is everything? It's the same reason why we say that he may not be everything. To think that we could offend God is just as great of arrogance as trying to define him.

 

[Skip Foreplay]

Nerd Girl,

You have an answer to everything that is said to you. I wish you would use a source that wasn't question-begging. That is, literally every one of your posts that I have seen presupposes your being correct as an assumption - using the fact that you are correct to explain why you are correct. That's not useful.

I assert that God is Necessarily irrelevant to ethics - to what is good, or if he is not, than that we could never know the difference between ANY good act or ANY evil act

I have a question that should explain this. I am asking it to all Christians and believers of a conscious creator who still intervenes in affairs. My question to you is Socrates' to Euthyphro: What is good, and ethical, and right? More specifically, what is God's relation to it? More specifically still, do we know what is good because God tells us, or does God love what is good, so that there is a sort of harmony?

 

[reason]

What allows you to say that he is everything? It's the same reason why we say that he may not be everything. To think that we could offend God is just as great of arrogance as trying to define him.

What 'allows' me to say anything? In any case, I wasn't saying that God is everything, but rather that an undefinable god, a logically absurd god, is a god that doesn't exist or is unrecognisable as anything like a conventional god. If 'god' cannot be defined, if it doesn't even have to make sense, then you aren't saying anything when you refer to 'God' or 'Him', because those words have no discernible meaning. It's not arrogant to try and define what one means by 'God', especially for theists who wish to understand and relate to Him. The only concepts that can't be defined are those that do not exist at all, like the highest prime number or a number greater than 2 but less than 1. A God to whom you cannot, in principle, consistently assign any properties, is no God at all, never mind the God of the The Bible (who conspicuously is some things and not other things).

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

What 'allows' me to say anything? In any case, I wasn't saying that God is everything, but rather that an undefinable god, a logically absurd god, is a god that doesn't exist or is unrecognisable as anything like a conventional god. If 'god' cannot be defined, if it doesn't even have to make sense, then you aren't saying anything when you refer to 'God' or 'Him', because those words have no discernible meaning. It's not arrogant to try and define what one means by 'God', especially for theists who wish to understand and relate to Him. The only concepts that can't be defined are those that do not exist at all, like the highest prime number or a number greater than 2 but less than 1. A God to whom you cannot, in principle, consistently assign any properties, is no God at all, never mind the God of the The Bible (who conspicuously is some things and not other things).

So you are saying that if you cannot define God then there is really no God? If so… Then can you see the problem with this thought?

 

[reason]

So you are saying that if you cannot define God then there is really no God? If so… Then can you see the problem with this thought?

A definition is just an abstract category.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I suspect you think that by 'define God' I mean that one should be able to say exactly what God is and is not, once and for all, with no chance of being wrong. Why you would make such a stupid assumption baffles me, but people often baffle me. A definition is just an abstract category.

So… No. Alright. Then you can not know if an illogical God exists. Then you cannot say that a logical god has to exist.

 

[King sns]

It seems kind of silly to talk about God in this light.
Like, "we're humans, we're so smart, so scientific, so much better than God, that we're going to find out what it is. And if we, as humans, can't figure out what it is, then it doesn't exist. Because if there was a God, he would let us figure him out, because we're so big and important and it is necessary."

 

[Qlip]

I'm saying that anti-rational positions (i.e. positions which deflect any and all possible criticism) tend to beget violent conflict, especially on religious matters. Rather than promoting agnosticism about the nature of God, retreating to the 'God doesn't have to make sense' argument just immunises conflicting visions of God from criticism. Such argumentative tactics are subversive to a civil society which encourages us to fight with words rather than swords.

At the root of everybody's belief is a irrational ideology: it's better to live than to die. Everything else is an extension of that. Concepts like God and order have as much benefit to society and the individual as negative aspects. Eitherway, they're with us till the end. Ultimately, some sort of widespread culture of tolarance, backed up with a large sword (a bit of an irony, har har) is the only thing I can see bringing peace, not the hope that everybody will suddently start behaving against their natures.

 

[reason]

So… No. Alright. Then you can not know if an illogical God exists. Then you cannot say that a logical god has to exist.

I can say anything I want to. It's not like the epistemological police will come and arrest me for saying stating something that I don't know to be true. In any case, the relevant question is not what I am "allowed" to say, but whether what I am saying is true or false. Retorting with 'you're not allowed to say that!' is besides the point in the extreme. I have explained why the notion of an 'illogical God' is nothing like what people mean when they refer to 'God', because an 'illogical God' would no more be a god than a logically absurd dog would be a cat. A logically absurd dog is something that just doesn't exist: it is neither really a dog nor really a cat. When people say the word 'God' in a sentence, they mean something by it: they are referring to an entity with definite properties. Maybe they are wrong about what properties God really has, or perhaps there are properties of God which they are not aware of, but they are nonetheless talking about a being that is explicable. All your criticism of this argument amounts to is 'your'e not allowed to say that! You have no right! You could be wrong!', which is all well and good but entirely irrelevant.

I could be wrong, supposing I'm wrong, but if I'm right, then I am certainly right.

 

[Sniffles]

And the discussion takes a new turn.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I can say anything I want to. It's not like the epistemological police will come and arrest me for saying stating something that I don't know to be true. In any case, the relevant question is not what I am "allowed" to say, but whether what I am saying is true or false. Retorting with 'you're not allowed to say that!' is besides the point in the extreme. I have explained why the notion of an 'illogical God' is nothing like what people mean when they refer to 'God', because an 'illogical God' would no more be a god than a logically absurd dog would be a cat. A logically absurd dog is something that just doesn't exist: it is neither really a dog nor really a cat. When people say the word 'God' in a sentence, they mean something by it: they are referring to an entity with definite properties. Maybe they are wrong about what properties God really has, or perhaps there are properties of God which they are not aware of, but they are nonetheless talking about a being that is explicable. All your criticism of this argument amounts to is 'your'e not allowed to say that! You have no right! You could be wrong!', which is all well and good but entirely irrelevant.

I apologize. You can say whatever you wish, you just may be wrong; I personally cannot live with that certainty, but being illogical does exist so technically logic could be an invention of man and god is apart from that.

 

[Sniffles]

I apologize. You can say whatever you wish, you just may be wrong; I personally cannot live with that certainty, but being illogical does exist so technically logic could be an invention of man and god is apart from that.

There is the perspective that god is bound by the laws of logic.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

There is the perspective that god is bound by the laws of logic.

Why is he bound by it? Because we're bound by it?

edit. But we aren't bound by logic because we can still be illogical. I don't see why it's so hard to accept an illogical god.