Total Posts:133|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical Proof that God does not exist

Utopian
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no God- and I can prove it rationally.

The proof depends on the specific definition of God.

If God is defined as a man with a long gray beard who sits on mount Olympus, then we can go to mount Olympus, see there is no one there, thus disprove his existence.

If God is defined in a self-contradictory way, Such as the invisible pink unicorn (nothing can be invisible AND pink) we can also disprove it's existence. We can disprove that something exists by proving that the parameters of it's existence are not true.

Here is a Logical Proof that God does not exist based on a definition of God that matches the traditional Western concept.

QUESTION: Is There A God?

GIVEN: (these statements are the basis for the proof- they are accepted or rejected, but they are not debated)

A.) God is defined as:
1.) An Intelligence, not simply a force of nature like electricity.
2.) Created the Universe, not simply one creature within it;
3.) Interacts with the Universe, in one way or another.

B.) For the purposes of this discussion, I am not going to debate creationists about Adam and Eve, or the entire history of scientific discovery. So, science has established that:
The Big Bang occurred 13 Billion years ago, evolution is a process of nature whereby life changes over time, the chain of causality shows that every action is preceded by previous action(s) that shaped that action- meaning, all actions are reactions, Chaos Theory and Fractal Mathematics show that complex patterns and structures evolve over time through natural processes without a designer.

B.) The God of the Gaps assertion is done to counter the argument from Ignorance. If someone claims "there is no God, because there is no evidence of it", one can counter that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While the counter-argument is true, it simply pushes God into the gaps of our knowledge.

But the gap is shrinking.

Primitive men believed God lived on the mountaintop.
We have been to the mountaintop- and God is not there.

So, primitive man moved God to the Sky.
We have been to the sky- and God is not there.

So the concept of god moved again.

And so it continues to move, and the concept of God keeps changing to fit within the gaps of our knowledge, because as our knowledge extends, we do not find evidence for God.

***
My assertion is that while there are still gaps in our knowledge, we have now accumulated enough knowledge that the gaps are too small to fit a concept of God that has the three defined characteristics.
***

1.) God is defined as an intelligence. In the past, this was based on people seeing patterns in nature, and believing such patterns cannot arise by "chance", thus their must be a designer.

We now know about Chaos Theory, and with recursive algorithms like in Fractal Mathematics we know that simple, repetitive, step by step processes yield complex designs with no designer.

Evolution is a simple, repetitive step by step process.

The chain of causality itself is a simple, repetitive step by step process.

THUS, just as no novels would mean there are no authors, and no music would mean there are no musicians; with no evidence of design, there can be no Designer.

2.) God is defined as the creator of life, and the universe. We now know how life evolved, we have a firm grasp of how life originated, and we know about the Big bang. This would place God in the tiny gap at the creation of the Universe, but that is being explained with M-Theory.

THUS, there is a very tiny gap left for God, at the "creation" of the multiverse, if the multiverse even had a "beginning".

3.) This is the important part of the proof, from which the final conclusion can be drawn:

God is believed to interact with the universe directly, thus altering it in some way.

Yet, when we look at the universe all we have found is a step by step chain of causality, of one event leading to another event; going all the way back to the big bang.

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But the absence of any evidence at all does indicate that whatever it is, if it exists it's environmental impact is minuscule.

Thus, if there is any such hypothetical being in existence,
that being is so insignificant and irrelevant that it is not worthy of the grand label "God".

Could there be additional "natural forces" that lack intelligence? Sure, most definitely.

Could there be powerful alien beings in the universe, so powerful that we might think of them as god-like? Sure, could be.

Is there a divine governing intelligence responsible for the creation and sustenance of the universe, that interacts with the universe in any detectable way?

No.

... not unless it died before we started looking!
Utopian
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 11:45:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can rephrase this proof as a metaphor about a chair:

There is a wooden chair.
Does it have intelligence?
Well, how can we know?
We can only know if it has intelligence if it can communicate to us in some way- such as through it's actions.
We observe the chair.
It has no impact on it's surroundings whatsoever.
It does not talk, it does not use telepathy, it does not move, it does not grow.
It just sits there.

Does that prove that it has no intelligence?
No, that WOULD be an argument from ignorance, so we are not doing that.

It DOES prove that if the chair DOES have intelligence,
It has no relevance to us, because it has an undetectable influence on our universe.

Plus, if we have a myth of ancient mighty chairs with great wisdom working miracles, that proves that this chair is not one of them; it does not fit the definition.

... the key part of that is the word "relevance".

For any religion to exist, God must be more than a hypothetical possible origin of the universe. That would simply be Deism.

God must be RELEVANT to us in some way by interacting with the universe.

So no detection of interaction means that either there is no God, or if God exists, it is not relevant, thus not "God".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 4:26:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The OP's argument is coherent but not really as solid as it could be, anyway here is one I recently thought of..

Prelude

There are only two options:

Either it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical "outside" the universe, or it is nonsensical.

Argument


If it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical "outside" the universe, then based on all available knowledge:

P1: If the universe was caused, it logically would be the most powerful, most complex, and most probable cause.

P2: Non-sentient causes are more powerful and complex than sentient causes, and outnumber sentient causes by an extremely large margin.

P3: When faced with the two options of a hypothetical non-sentient cause and a sentient cause of the universe, it is more logical to go with a non-sentient cause.

If it is nonsensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical "outside" the universe:

P1: Causes occur within the universe

P2: It is nonsensical to believe a cause can exist outside the universe, because they occur within the universe

P3: The universe was most likely uncaused

Conclusion

The universe most likely, had no sentient cause.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 4:29:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:
There is no God- and I can prove it rationally.

The proof depends on the specific definition of God.

If God is defined as a man with a long gray beard who sits on mount Olympus, then we can go to mount Olympus, see there is no one there, thus disprove his existence.

If God is defined in a self-contradictory way, Such as the invisible pink unicorn (nothing can be invisible AND pink) we can also disprove it's existence. We can disprove that something exists by proving that the parameters of it's existence are not true.

Here is a Logical Proof that God does not exist based on a definition of God that matches the traditional Western concept.

QUESTION: Is There A God?

GIVEN: (these statements are the basis for the proof- they are accepted or rejected, but they are not debated)

A.) God is defined as:
1.) An Intelligence, not simply a force of nature like electricity.
2.) Created the Universe, not simply one creature within it;
3.) Interacts with the Universe, in one way or another.

B.) For the purposes of this discussion, I am not going to debate creationists about Adam and Eve, or the entire history of scientific discovery. So, science has established that:
The Big Bang occurred 13 Billion years ago, evolution is a process of nature whereby life changes over time, the chain of causality shows that every action is preceded by previous action(s) that shaped that action- meaning, all actions are reactions, Chaos Theory and Fractal Mathematics show that complex patterns and structures evolve over time through natural processes without a designer.

B.) The God of the Gaps assertion is done to counter the argument from Ignorance. If someone claims "there is no God, because there is no evidence of it", one can counter that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While the counter-argument is true, it simply pushes God into the gaps of our knowledge.

But the gap is shrinking.

Primitive men believed God lived on the mountaintop.
We have been to the mountaintop- and God is not there.

So, primitive man moved God to the Sky.
We have been to the sky- and God is not there.

So the concept of god moved again.

And so it continues to move, and the concept of God keeps changing to fit within the gaps of our knowledge, because as our knowledge extends, we do not find evidence for God.

***
My assertion is that while there are still gaps in our knowledge, we have now accumulated enough knowledge that the gaps are too small to fit a concept of God that has the three defined characteristics.
***

1.) God is defined as an intelligence. In the past, this was based on people seeing patterns in nature, and believing such patterns cannot arise by "chance", thus their must be a designer.

We now know about Chaos Theory, and with recursive algorithms like in Fractal Mathematics we know that simple, repetitive, step by step processes yield complex designs with no designer.

Evolution is a simple, repetitive step by step process.

The chain of causality itself is a simple, repetitive step by step process.

THUS, just as no novels would mean there are no authors, and no music would mean there are no musicians; with no evidence of design, there can be no Designer.

2.) God is defined as the creator of life, and the universe. We now know how life evolved, we have a firm grasp of how life originated, and we know about the Big bang. This would place God in the tiny gap at the creation of the Universe, but that is being explained with M-Theory.

THUS, there is a very tiny gap left for God, at the "creation" of the multiverse, if the multiverse even had a "beginning".


3.) This is the important part of the proof, from which the final conclusion can be drawn:

God is believed to interact with the universe directly, thus altering it in some way.

Yet, when we look at the universe all we have found is a step by step chain of causality, of one event leading to another event; going all the way back to the big bang.

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But the absence of any evidence at all does indicate that whatever it is, if it exists it's environmental impact is minuscule.

Thus, if there is any such hypothetical being in existence,
that being is so insignificant and irrelevant that it is not worthy of the grand label "God".

Could there be additional "natural forces" that lack intelligence? Sure, most definitely.

Could there be powerful alien beings in the universe, so powerful that we might think of them as god-like? Sure, could be.

Is there a divine governing intelligence responsible for the creation and sustenance of the universe, that interacts with the universe in any detectable way?

No.

... not unless it died before we started looking!

False. Religion has growed largely over the past century. And Christianity is growing daily. Nice try. But you are another one who will believe when the Anti Christ takes over, and when you are under attack in the next world war.
Expect it, its coming.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 4:35:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just think a line needs to be drawn to stop special pleading by theists.

They say "Time is a principle within the universe, so time does not exist outside the universe" to try and show timelessness. They say "Space is a principle within the universe, so no space exists outside the universe" to show spacelessness. They say "finite beings exist within the universe, so no an eternal being must exist outside of the universe"...You see the problem at the end? If they really stuck with their true reasoning, they would say "beings exist within the universe, so no beings exist outside the universe", they would say "causes exist inside the universe, so no external causes can exist outside the universe"..

They cherry pick properties that exist within the universe which would be opposite "outside" the universe to show timelessness, spacelessness, and eternality but neglect the "opposites" of beings and causes.

Theists arguments = Special pleading, special pleading, special pleading.

This is why the line needs to be drawn.

Either it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical "outside" the universe, or it is nonsensical.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 4:36:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For #1, no real contention there, but it doesn't disprove God, only proves that the Universe, supposedly, does not need a creator.

#2 And, yet, is it not possible that Macro Evolution is wrong?

#3 And, if God is omnipotent, why would it be a big deal that we are unable to see his small interactions with us?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 4:36:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:
Primitive men believed God lived on the mountaintop.
We have been to the mountaintop- and God is not there.

So, primitive man moved God to the Sky.
We have been to the sky- and God is not there.

So the concept of god moved again.

And so it continues to move, and the concept of God keeps changing to fit within the gaps of our knowledge, because as our knowledge extends, we do not find evidence for God.

http://xkcd.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 4:48:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 4:36:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For #1, no real contention there, but it doesn't disprove God, only proves that the Universe, supposedly, does not need a creator.

#2 And, yet, is it not possible that Macro Evolution is wrong?

#3 And, if God is omnipotent, why would it be a big deal that we are unable to see his small interactions with us?

1) Nobody can prove or disprove God, we can only come up with arguments for or against. There is a difference.

2) The arguments and evidence for macro evolution are strong enough to hold true until other evidence comes along which contradicts it. The very fact that I admit the possibility of evidence existing that could contradict macro evolution means that macro evolution could possibly be wrong. The problem is, that based on all available knowledge, macro evolution has a massive amount of evidence supporting it and no evidence contradicting it. At this point in time, it's more rational to hold evolution as true, over not true.

3) This would be like asking:

If there is a being beside me who cannot interact with the physical universe or have any parts of the physical universe interact with him, would it really be irrational to believe that we couldn't interact with him?
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 4:51:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 4:48:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/20/2012 4:36:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For #1, no real contention there, but it doesn't disprove God, only proves that the Universe, supposedly, does not need a creator.

#2 And, yet, is it not possible that Macro Evolution is wrong?

#3 And, if God is omnipotent, why would it be a big deal that we are unable to see his small interactions with us?

1) Nobody can prove or disprove God, we can only come up with arguments for or against. There is a difference.

2) The arguments and evidence for macro evolution are strong enough to hold true until other evidence comes along which contradicts it. The very fact that I admit the possibility of evidence existing that could contradict macro evolution means that macro evolution could possibly be wrong. The problem is, that based on all available knowledge, macro evolution has a massive amount of evidence supporting it and no evidence contradicting it. At this point in time, it's more rational to hold evolution as true, over not true.

3) This would be like asking:

If there is a being beside me who cannot interact with the physical universe or have any parts of the physical universe interact with him, would it really be irrational to believe that we couldn't interact with him?

Atheists only make up less than 10% of the entire world. Our reasons far surpass any logical scientific thing you can throw at us. After 10,000 years it has failed still.
Not impressed by your stance on this issue. It is dead.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 5:17:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 4:51:33 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/20/2012 4:48:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/20/2012 4:36:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For #1, no real contention there, but it doesn't disprove God, only proves that the Universe, supposedly, does not need a creator.

#2 And, yet, is it not possible that Macro Evolution is wrong?

#3 And, if God is omnipotent, why would it be a big deal that we are unable to see his small interactions with us?

1) Nobody can prove or disprove God, we can only come up with arguments for or against. There is a difference.

2) The arguments and evidence for macro evolution are strong enough to hold true until other evidence comes along which contradicts it. The very fact that I admit the possibility of evidence existing that could contradict macro evolution means that macro evolution could possibly be wrong. The problem is, that based on all available knowledge, macro evolution has a massive amount of evidence supporting it and no evidence contradicting it. At this point in time, it's more rational to hold evolution as true, over not true.

3) This would be like asking:

If there is a being beside me who cannot interact with the physical universe or have any parts of the physical universe interact with him, would it really be irrational to believe that we couldn't interact with him?

Atheists only make up less than 10% of the entire world. Our reasons far surpass any logical scientific thing you can throw at us. After 10,000 years it has failed still.
Not impressed by your stance on this issue. It is dead.

"Atheists only make up less than 10% of the entire world."

Ad Populum fallacy.

"Our reasons far surpass any logical scientific thing you can throw at us."

Bare Assertion fallacy.

"After 10,000 years it has failed still."

What has failed, exactly?

"Not impressed by your stance on this issue."

I'm not impressed by your stance on this issue either, that doesn't mean you are presenting any valid arguments.

"It is dead."

Then why are you and me debating right now?

I have encountered many intelligent theists on this website, unfortunately, your feet do not fit the shoe. Also you assume that the masses are somehow more aware of reality that scientists specifically. Why don't you research the population of scientists who are not theists? It wouldn't matter anyway, it would still be fallacious argument to assume that Atheism was more valid on that basis anyway.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 5:57:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We need more definitions. For example: is God a subset (within) the Universe or in the Universe a subset of God and/or some larger domain?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 6:11:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 5:57:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
We need more definitions. For example: is God a subset (within) the Universe or in the Universe a subset of God and/or some larger domain?

Theists believe the universe is a subset of God.

The universe could be a subset of a higher domain, however, we simply don't know. The problem with the God hypothesis is the sentient part, I believe there could be a timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful, immaterial, external mechanism which may have caused (if the universe even needs a cause) the universe, but not a sentient being.
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 4:04:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:
There is no God- and I can prove it rationally.

First, you make a declaration, convincing yourself from the first you have a line of reasoning no one has had before. As Solomon concluded, there is nothing new under the sun. Without reading your post it's reasonable to conclude you'll run a line that's been dealt with before. If I were you I wouldn't make a declarative statement, simply because you want to render an appearance you have something no one has had before. Notwithstanding, the debate remains; nothing conclusive has come to men's minds to give precedence to what you assume is yours to own these days.

The proof depends on the specific definition of God.

This isn't a necessity. Definitions are what men need to label what they perceive of reality. Two men from two cultures can be so distinct that a pecan can be viewed in two ways, distinct one from the other. So, where men are concerned definitions are not the end all to determining a reality. It all depends on individuals if definition is your means to establish your idea. It is like building a house on sinking sand, opinions would assure you'd think you were in the grip of mental quicksand depending on coming up with a definition. Who'd do the defining? You? No way.


If God is defined as a man with a long gray beard who sits on mount Olympus, then we can go to mount Olympus, see there is no one there, thus disprove his existence.

This has no merit as an intellectual expression.

If God is defined in a self-contradictory way, Such as the invisible pink unicorn (nothing can be invisible AND pink) we can also disprove it's existence. We can disprove that something exists by proving that the parameters of it's existence are not true.

What are the parameters you would hinge an argument against the existence of God? :

Here is a Logical Proof that God does not exist based on a definition of God that matches the traditional Western concept.

A traditional concept is no proof, nor are concepts based on what's provable. A concept is an idea, nofhing more. :

QUESTION: Is There A God?

Nothing in this having to do with a proof or lack thereof, this is simply a question.

GIVEN: (these statements are the basis for the proof- they are accepted or rejected, but they are not debated)

This is a false conclusion. The question "Is there a God" is no basis for a proof, the antithesis "There is a God" negates any affect the question has.

A.) God is defined as:
1.) An Intelligence, not simply a force of nature like electricity.
2.) Created the Universe, not simply one creature within it;
3.) Interacts with the Universe, in one way or another.

B.) For the purposes of this discussion, I am not going to debate creationists about Adam and Eve, or the entire history of scientific discovery. So, science has established that:

The Big Bang occurred 13 Billion years ago, evolution is a process of nature whereby life changes over time, the chain of causality shows that every action is preceded by previous action(s) that shaped that action- meaning, all actions are reactions, Chaos Theory and Fractal Mathematics show that complex patterns and structures evolve over time through natural processes without a designer.

Science has not conclusively established any date in the distant past. The most can be claimed are estimates. There is definitely no proof of evolution. What's claimed as evolutionary is no more than adaptation. There is no concluding body of evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Evolution is the only "science" that numbers reject, figures in probability speak in outlandish terms against evolution's propositions. Evolution, to this day is still a theory, not a fact. The chain of causality is speculation, wild speculation as to its application to evolutionary theory.
With Chaos theory you are employing a theory as a proof of another theory. Theories are not proofs of actual facts, it's either the fact is or the proposition is; you have nothing but a proposition using a theory to prove another theory. Fractals show patterns, from whence come the patterns, nature operating randomly? Fractals are inviolate, they follow laws, thereby they exhibit the same characteristics without fail. And, where change goes fractals would be the worst means to establish evolution. Fractals do not transform as evolution proposes is the case with biological entities.

B.) The God of the Gaps assertion is done to counter the argument from Ignorance. If someone claims "there is no God, because there is no evidence of it", one can counter that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While the counter-argument is true, it simply pushes God into the gaps of our knowledge.

The problem with the idea is there are indicators, whose number weighs favorably for a preponderance than a denial of the existence of God. One of those is biblical pophecy, no man knows the future in graphic detail.

The gap is shrinking.

Not in science, based on Newtonian physics. .
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 7:43:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agnostic here.

You said it yourself, everything rests on the definition of God. Our ability to define and describe is limited by logic, the method by which we process data from our senses. How does a logical inconsistency in the inherently flawed way we describe God somehow disprove God's existence?

To me, that's like taking a yardstick, dipping it in the ocean, and saying that the ocean is infinitely deep.

The fact is that your proof doesn't ONLY show that God cannot exist. It can alternatively show that God is poorly described by the parameters of your proof, and that is what theists will argue.

It's acceptable to say that belief in God is illogical, or that it goes against logic to claim that God exists. It's something else to say that logic has the capacity to prove that God does not exist.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 7:51:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 4:04:39 AM, astrocometman wrote:
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:
There is no God- and I can prove it rationally.

First, you make a declaration, convincing yourself from the first you have a line of reasoning no one has had before. As Solomon concluded, there is nothing new under the sun. Without reading your post it's reasonable to conclude you'll run a line that's been dealt with before. If I were you I wouldn't make a declarative statement, simply because you want to render an appearance you have something no one has had before. Notwithstanding, the debate remains; nothing conclusive has come to men's minds to give precedence to what you assume is yours to own these days.

The proof depends on the specific definition of God.

This isn't a necessity. Definitions are what men need to label what they perceive of reality. Two men from two cultures can be so distinct that a pecan can be viewed in two ways, distinct one from the other. So, where men are concerned definitions are not the end all to determining a reality. It all depends on individuals if definition is your means to establish your idea. It is like building a house on sinking sand, opinions would assure you'd think you were in the grip of mental quicksand depending on coming up with a definition. Who'd do the defining? You? No way.


If God is defined as a man with a long gray beard who sits on mount Olympus, then we can go to mount Olympus, see there is no one there, thus disprove his existence.

This has no merit as an intellectual expression.

If God is defined in a self-contradictory way, Such as the invisible pink unicorn (nothing can be invisible AND pink) we can also disprove it's existence. We can disprove that something exists by proving that the parameters of it's existence are not true.

What are the parameters you would hinge an argument against the existence of God? :

Here is a Logical Proof that God does not exist based on a definition of God that matches the traditional Western concept.

A traditional concept is no proof, nor are concepts based on what's provable. A concept is an idea, nofhing more. :

QUESTION: Is There A God?

Nothing in this having to do with a proof or lack thereof, this is simply a question.

GIVEN: (these statements are the basis for the proof- they are accepted or rejected, but they are not debated)

This is a false conclusion. The question "Is there a God" is no basis for a proof, the antithesis "There is a God" negates any affect the question has.

A.) God is defined as:
1.) An Intelligence, not simply a force of nature like electricity.
2.) Created the Universe, not simply one creature within it;
3.) Interacts with the Universe, in one way or another.

B.) For the purposes of this discussion, I am not going to debate creationists about Adam and Eve, or the entire history of scientific discovery. So, science has established that:

The Big Bang occurred 13 Billion years ago, evolution is a process of nature whereby life changes over time, the chain of causality shows that every action is preceded by previous action(s) that shaped that action- meaning, all actions are reactions, Chaos Theory and Fractal Mathematics show that complex patterns and structures evolve over time through natural processes without a designer.

Science has not conclusively established any date in the distant past. The most can be claimed are estimates. There is definitely no proof of evolution. What's claimed as evolutionary is no more than adaptation.
Evolution is based on enduring adaptations, and it has been documented in real time transformations of bacteria and viruses to new species and strains, respectively.
There is no concluding body of evidence of evolution in the fossil record.
The fossil record does support evolution, but it is not the only body of evidence. DNA evidence also exists, for example, as do vestigial structures and homologous structures.
Evolution is the only "science" that numbers reject, figures in probability speak in outlandish terms against evolution's propositions. Evolution, to this day is still a theory, not a fact. The chain of causality is speculation, wild speculation as to its application to evolutionary theory.
Really? Please provide those numbers. Are you willing to do a formal debate on whether or not evolution is correct?
With Chaos theory you are employing a theory as a proof of another theory. Theories are not proofs of actual facts, it's either the fact is or the proposition is; you have nothing but a proposition using a theory to prove another theory. Fractals show patterns, from whence come the patterns, nature operating randomly? Fractals are inviolate, they follow laws, thereby they exhibit the same characteristics without fail. And, where change goes fractals would be the worst means to establish evolution. Fractals do not transform as evolution proposes is the case with biological entities.

Fractals are not biological entities so evolution does not apply to them.

B.) The God of the Gaps assertion is done to counter the argument from Ignorance. If someone claims "there is no God, because there is no evidence of it", one can counter that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While the counter-argument is true, it simply pushes God into the gaps of our knowledge.

The problem with the idea is there are indicators, whose number weighs favorably for a preponderance than a denial of the existence of God. One of those is biblical pophecy, no man knows the future in graphic detail.

Really? The same Biblical prophecies are determined in a myriad of different ways, and they are all interpreted metaphorically, meaning that we do not actually know what the author's intent was. If they were meant to be literal, none of them have actually occurred.
The gap is shrinking.

Not in science, based on Newtonian physics. .
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 7:52:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:

Such as the invisible pink unicorn (nothing can be invisible AND pink) we can also disprove it's existence. We can disprove that something exists by proving that the parameters of it's existence are not true.

Concealment?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 8:03:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:

Such as the invisible pink unicorn (nothing can be invisible AND pink) we can also disprove it's existence. We can disprove that something exists by proving that the parameters of it's existence are not true.

Proving that the parameters of existence for something are false doesn't prove that something does not exist. It can also imply that the parameters are flawed.

Ask any theist worth his salt what his reason for believing in God is. You'll never get something logical, observable, measurable, or refutable as an answer.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 8:09:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 8:03:13 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:

Such as the invisible pink unicorn (nothing can be invisible AND pink) we can also disprove it's existence. We can disprove that something exists by proving that the parameters of it's existence are not true.

Proving that the parameters of existence for something are false doesn't prove that something does not exist. It can also imply that the parameters are flawed.

Ask any theist worth his salt what his reason for believing in God is. You'll never get something logical, observable, measurable, or refutable as an answer.

This. Ultimately, it is nothing more than "I have faith." Cool. I have faith that I am really a witch and that my letter from Hogwarts will arrive any day now. That does not mean that my beliefs are correct.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 8:16:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 8:09:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This. Ultimately, it is nothing more than "I have faith." Cool. I have faith that I am really a witch and that my letter from Hogwarts will arrive any day now. That does not mean that my beliefs are correct.

You have absolutely no idea what faith is, being an atheist. From what I gather, theists feel their faith as strongly as atheists accept the logical axioms of identity and contradiction.

That being said, you are in no place to state whether or not their beliefs are correct. You can say that their beliefs are illogical or unrealistic. You cannot say that their beliefs are correct.

On the flip side, a theist can say that they believe in God wholeheartedly, that their faith is unshakable, etc. But no theist can claim that belief in God is the result of a logical or scientific proof, or that their belief is realistic.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 8:25:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 8:16:46 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/21/2012 8:09:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This. Ultimately, it is nothing more than "I have faith." Cool. I have faith that I am really a witch and that my letter from Hogwarts will arrive any day now. That does not mean that my beliefs are correct.

You have absolutely no idea what faith is, being an atheist. From what I gather, theists feel their faith as strongly as atheists accept the logical axioms of identity and contradiction.

That being said, you are in no place to state whether or not their beliefs are correct. You can say that their beliefs are illogical or unrealistic. You cannot say that their beliefs are correct.

On the flip side, a theist can say that they believe in God wholeheartedly, that their faith is unshakable, etc. But no theist can claim that belief in God is the result of a logical or scientific proof, or that their belief is realistic.

My argument was that faith does not translate into truth. Just because an individual believes something does not mean that it is true.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 8:30:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 8:25:34 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
My argument was that faith does not translate into truth. Just because an individual believes something does not mean that it is true.

I know. I'm just clarifying on what you're skirting around, but not outright saying. I used to be an atheist too.

Just because an argument is logically sound, it doesn't make it true either.

Truth in and of itself, doesn't matter. It's the practical application that matters. A theist believing something has the same practical result as an atheist deducing something through logic and evidence. Both the theist and the atheist act in complete and total confidence.

In short, to say that belief doesn't dictate truth is philosophically null, because for theists, they are one and the same.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 9:02:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 8:16:46 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/21/2012 8:09:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This. Ultimately, it is nothing more than "I have faith." Cool. I have faith that I am really a witch and that my letter from Hogwarts will arrive any day now. That does not mean that my beliefs are correct.

You have absolutely no idea what faith is, being an atheist. From what I gather, theists feel their faith as strongly as atheists accept the logical axioms of identity and contradiction.

That being said, you are in no place to state whether or not their beliefs are correct. You can say that their beliefs are illogical or unrealistic. You cannot say that their beliefs are correct.

On the flip side, a theist can say that they believe in God wholeheartedly, that their faith is unshakable, etc. But no theist can claim that belief in God is the result of a logical or scientific proof, or that their belief is realistic.


Oh, really?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 9:07:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 9:02:40 AM, Jon1 wrote:
At 3/21/2012 8:16:46 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/21/2012 8:09:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This. Ultimately, it is nothing more than "I have faith." Cool. I have faith that I am really a witch and that my letter from Hogwarts will arrive any day now. That does not mean that my beliefs are correct.

You have absolutely no idea what faith is, being an atheist. From what I gather, theists feel their faith as strongly as atheists accept the logical axioms of identity and contradiction.

That being said, you are in no place to state whether or not their beliefs are correct. You can say that their beliefs are illogical or unrealistic. You cannot say that their beliefs are correct.

On the flip side, a theist can say that they believe in God wholeheartedly, that their faith is unshakable, etc. But no theist can claim that belief in God is the result of a logical or scientific proof, or that their belief is realistic.


Oh, really?

Please provide the proof.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 10:29:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:
There is no God- and I can prove it rationally.

The proof depends on the specific definition of God.

If God is defined as a man with a long gray beard who sits on mount Olympus, then we can go to mount Olympus, see there is no one there, thus disprove his existence.

If God is defined in a self-contradictory way, Such as the invisible pink unicorn (nothing can be invisible AND pink) we can also disprove it's existence. We can disprove that something exists by proving that the parameters of it's existence are not true.

Here is a Logical Proof that God does not exist based on a definition of God that matches the traditional Western concept.

QUESTION: Is There A God?

GIVEN: (these statements are the basis for the proof- they are accepted or rejected, but they are not debated)

A.) God is defined as:
1.) An Intelligence, not simply a force of nature like electricity.
2.) Created the Universe, not simply one creature within it;
3.) Interacts with the Universe, in one way or another.

B.) For the purposes of this discussion, I am not going to debate creationists about Adam and Eve, or the entire history of scientific discovery. So, science has established that:
The Big Bang occurred 13 Billion years ago, evolution is a process of nature whereby life changes over time, the chain of causality shows that every action is preceded by previous action(s) that shaped that action- meaning, all actions are reactions, Chaos Theory and Fractal Mathematics show that complex patterns and structures evolve over time through natural processes without a designer.

B.) The God of the Gaps assertion is done to counter the argument from Ignorance. If someone claims "there is no God, because there is no evidence of it", one can counter that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While the counter-argument is true, it simply pushes God into the gaps of our knowledge.

But the gap is shrinking.

Primitive men believed God lived on the mountaintop.
We have been to the mountaintop- and God is not there.

So, primitive man moved God to the Sky.
We have been to the sky- and God is not there.

So the concept of god moved again.

And so it continues to move, and the concept of God keeps changing to fit within the gaps of our knowledge, because as our knowledge extends, we do not find evidence for God.

***
My assertion is that while there are still gaps in our knowledge, we have now accumulated enough knowledge that the gaps are too small to fit a concept of God that has the three defined characteristics.
***

1.) God is defined as an intelligence. In the past, this was based on people seeing patterns in nature, and believing such patterns cannot arise by "chance", thus their must be a designer.

We now know about Chaos Theory, and with recursive algorithms like in Fractal Mathematics we know that simple, repetitive, step by step processes yield complex designs with no designer.

Evolution is a simple, repetitive step by step process.

The chain of causality itself is a simple, repetitive step by step process.

THUS, just as no novels would mean there are no authors, and no music would mean there are no musicians; with no evidence of design, there can be no Designer.

2.) God is defined as the creator of life, and the universe. We now know how life evolved, we have a firm grasp of how life originated, and we know about the Big bang. This would place God in the tiny gap at the creation of the Universe, but that is being explained with M-Theory.

THUS, there is a very tiny gap left for God, at the "creation" of the multiverse, if the multiverse even had a "beginning".


3.) This is the important part of the proof, from which the final conclusion can be drawn:

God is believed to interact with the universe directly, thus altering it in some way.

Yet, when we look at the universe all we have found is a step by step chain of causality, of one event leading to another event; going all the way back to the big bang.

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But the absence of any evidence at all does indicate that whatever it is, if it exists it's environmental impact is minuscule.

Thus, if there is any such hypothetical being in existence,
that being is so insignificant and irrelevant that it is not worthy of the grand label "God".

Could there be additional "natural forces" that lack intelligence? Sure, most definitely.

Could there be powerful alien beings in the universe, so powerful that we might think of them as god-like? Sure, could be.

Is there a divine governing intelligence responsible for the creation and sustenance of the universe, that interacts with the universe in any detectable way?

No.

... not unless it died before we started looking!

Response: Your whole argument that God does not exist is debunked in just a few sentences.

Point 1.
Human species is an intelligent species.

Therefore, the origin of humans has to derive from an intelligent being, in other words God. To say otherwise means that humans came from unintelligence, which makes no sense. Unintelligence cannot create intelligence because by definition,,.......IT'S UNINTELLIGENT.

Point 2.

Intelligence is required in creating anything that is a pattern that repeats itself. The proof is easily shown in the destruction of tornadoes, and one who suffers any mental deficiency. Even a new born child is proof. For in all cases, neither a tornado or a new born can create a repeated pattern. A tornado creates disorder. A new born doesn't have a clue. Thus this is proof alone that intelligence is required to create a repeating pattern. As such, the order of the univerese and its origin clearly originates from intelligent design, thus proving that God is the originator of the universe and all that is in it and life itself.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 11:11:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Point 1.
Human species is an intelligent species.

Therefore, the origin of humans has to derive from an intelligent being, in other words God. To say otherwise means that humans came from unintelligence, which makes no sense. Unintelligence cannot create intelligence because by definition,,.......IT'S UNINTELLIGENT.:

Humans did come from other intelligent beings... namely, their parents.

Point 2.

Intelligence is required in creating anything that is a pattern that repeats itself. The proof is easily shown in the destruction of tornadoes, and one who suffers any mental deficiency. Even a new born child is proof. For in all cases, neither a tornado or a new born can create a repeated pattern. A tornado creates disorder.:

You have a very humancentric view of it. The processes that create tornado's are uniformed conditions that are very orderly. That's how meteorologists can predict their occurrences under certain atmospheric conditions. Just because it causes disorder in the lives of humans doesn't mean it itself is disorder.

A new born doesn't have a clue. Thus this is proof alone that intelligence is required to create a repeating pattern. As such, the order of the univerese and its origin clearly originates from intelligent design, thus proving that God is the originator of the universe and all that is in it and life itself.:

Supposing that the universe is ordered, and supposing one could determine that intelligence comes from order, how does that de facto mean that "God" (whatever the f*ck that means) is responsible?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:09:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 4:04:39 AM, astrocometman wrote:
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:
There is no God- and I can prove it rationally.

First, you make a declaration, convincing yourself from the first you have a line of reasoning no one has had before. As Solomon concluded, there is nothing new under the sun. Without reading your post it's reasonable to conclude you'll run a line that's been dealt with before. If I were you I wouldn't make a declarative statement, simply because you want to render an appearance you have something no one has had before. Notwithstanding, the debate remains; nothing conclusive has come to men's minds to give precedence to what you assume is yours to own these days.

The proof depends on the specific definition of God.

This isn't a necessity. Definitions are what men need to label what they perceive of reality. Two men from two cultures can be so distinct that a pecan can be viewed in two ways, distinct one from the other. So, where men are concerned definitions are not the end all to determining a reality. It all depends on individuals if definition is your means to establish your idea. It is like building a house on sinking sand, opinions would assure you'd think you were in the grip of mental quicksand depending on coming up with a definition. Who'd do the defining? You? No way.


If God is defined as a man with a long gray beard who sits on mount Olympus, then we can go to mount Olympus, see there is no one there, thus disprove his existence.

This has no merit as an intellectual expression.

If God is defined in a self-contradictory way, Such as the invisible pink unicorn (nothing can be invisible AND pink) we can also disprove it's existence. We can disprove that something exists by proving that the parameters of it's existence are not true.

What are the parameters you would hinge an argument against the existence of God? :

Here is a Logical Proof that God does not exist based on a definition of God that matches the traditional Western concept.

A traditional concept is no proof, nor are concepts based on what's provable. A concept is an idea, nofhing more. :

QUESTION: Is There A God?

Nothing in this having to do with a proof or lack thereof, this is simply a question.

GIVEN: (these statements are the basis for the proof- they are accepted or rejected, but they are not debated)

This is a false conclusion. The question "Is there a God" is no basis for a proof, the antithesis "There is a God" negates any affect the question has.

A.) God is defined as:
1.) An Intelligence, not simply a force of nature like electricity.
2.) Created the Universe, not simply one creature within it;
3.) Interacts with the Universe, in one way or another.

B.) For the purposes of this discussion, I am not going to debate creationists about Adam and Eve, or the entire history of scientific discovery. So, science has established that:

The Big Bang occurred 13 Billion years ago, evolution is a process of nature whereby life changes over time, the chain of causality shows that every action is preceded by previous action(s) that shaped that action- meaning, all actions are reactions, Chaos Theory and Fractal Mathematics show that complex patterns and structures evolve over time through natural processes without a designer.

Science has not conclusively established any date in the distant past. The most can be claimed are estimates. There is definitely no proof of evolution. What's claimed as evolutionary is no more than adaptation. There is no concluding body of evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Evolution is the only "science" that numbers reject, figures in probability speak in outlandish terms against evolution's propositions. Evolution, to this day is still a theory, not a fact. The chain of causality is speculation, wild speculation as to its application to evolutionary theory.
With Chaos theory you are employing a theory as a proof of another theory. Theories are not proofs of actual facts, it's either the fact is or the proposition is; you have nothing but a proposition using a theory to prove another theory. Fractals show patterns, from whence come the patterns, nature operating randomly? Fractals are inviolate, they follow laws, thereby they exhibit the same characteristics without fail. And, where change goes fractals would be the worst means to establish evolution. Fractals do not transform as evolution proposes is the case with biological entities.


B.) The God of the Gaps assertion is done to counter the argument from Ignorance. If someone claims "there is no God, because there is no evidence of it", one can counter that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While the counter-argument is true, it simply pushes God into the gaps of our knowledge.

The problem with the idea is there are indicators, whose number weighs favorably for a preponderance than a denial of the existence of God. One of those is biblical pophecy, no man knows the future in graphic detail.

The gap is shrinking.

Not in science, based on Newtonian physics. .

"There is definitely no proof of evolution."

There definitely is proof of evolution, it's a fact. No sophisticated theist denies evolution, they claim that God guided the process (not even William Lane Craig or The Pope denies evolution).

It's clear you are not worthy of serious discussion.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:12:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 8:30:51 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/21/2012 8:25:34 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
My argument was that faith does not translate into truth. Just because an individual believes something does not mean that it is true.

I know. I'm just clarifying on what you're skirting around, but not outright saying. I used to be an atheist too.

Just because an argument is logically sound, it doesn't make it true either.

The Fool: yes it does, logically sound by definition is true in that if the premised are 100% true the conclusion is true. But the ofcourse if the premises are true is the question. But inference is a priori. a part of your mind all ready. Every infernce you make and have made here. You are using x->y whether you like it or not. You are always reasoning because of this that. It not choices. If not you would be constantly random.

Truth in and of itself, doesn't matter. It's the practical application that matters. A theist believing something has the same practical result as an atheist deducing something through logic and evidence. Both the theist and the atheist act in complete and total confidence.

In short, to say that belief doesn't dictate truth is philosophically null, because for theists, they are one and the same.

The Fool: I am sorry kleptin that doesnt make anysense. I think you are not familiar with exacly the difference types of philsohphy. Things like contraditions have authority over us. THat is, not matter what you do or think, or how much faith you have. You cannot, Run in both direction and get somewhere at the same time. Its not an option. Whatever the truth may be the Truth=Truth for something to be (not truth) is false, for it would contradict truth. Therefore a condtradictoin is always false. We don;t have a choice in the matter. For even what you just said to make any sense, it must not contradict. or its nonsense. I Don;t think you grasp what logic is. Logic is an attempt to describe such reality that we don;t have a choice over.

The Fool: Secondly a belief is a subjective feeling of inclination that X is true.

synonyms of belief are the follow:

I have faith that X is true.
I expect that X is true.
I trust that X is true.
I have confidence that X is true.

Its important to recognize the difference between The expectation and X that which is expected.

In that there is nothing about the expecation alone which effects X. RoyalPaladins argument was correct.

Thats why knowledge Is True Justified Belief.

Let E=expectation and x the thing expected.

That is justification is link between the expecation and the X

Without that link you got nonsense. And its not harmless. There has been more deaths, lies, curroption and bloodshed from pure faith systems then any other system ever. E.g. virtually all terrorism is faith based. It is complety irresponsible to turn a blind eye to such problems. In fact its down right IMMORAL.

The Fool: Secondly you are forgeting all of medicine which saves lives, it not just practical for one set of people. That is the more Religion take priority the slower we progresse. Because Religion doesn't ever progress. If we never broke away from that thinking we would be in the very same way. people burning at stake for nonsense. Secondly its immoral that the rest of the population gets dragged down. Others should have to go down with the ship that they have no choice to be on.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:55:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 6:11:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists believe the universe is a subset of God.
Perhaps many or most theists, but not all.

The universe could be a subset of a higher domain, however, we simply don't know.
It doesn't necessarily to be a matter of knowing: it can be a matter of defining. For example, I define the Universe as "all of existence" or all that exists. From this definition, we can see that there cannot be an "outside" to the Universe. One can then say that God is either a subset of the Universe or the Universe itself but cannot be outside or greater than the Universe.

The problem with the God hypothesis is the sentient part, I believe there could be a timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful, immaterial, external mechanism which may have caused (if the universe even needs a cause) the universe, but not a sentient being.
Timeless, ok.
Spaceless, ok.
Eternal, ok.
Powerful, ok.
Sentient, ok.
Immaterial, not if we are talking about physics.
External, not if the Universe is "all of existence."


**********************************************

At 3/21/2012 1:12:51 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
...If not you would be constantly random.
Definitely maybe!
Almost exactly!
Gotta love those contradictions!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:02:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 10:29:14 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/19/2012 11:45:06 PM, Utopian wrote:
There is no God- and I can prove it rationally.


Response: Your whole argument that God does not exist is debunked in just a few sentences.

Point 1.
Human species is an intelligent species.

Therefore, the origin of humans has to derive from an intelligent being, in other words God. To say otherwise means that humans came from unintelligence, which makes no sense. Unintelligence cannot create intelligence because by definition,,.......IT'S UNINTELLIGENT.

Point 2.

Intelligence is required in creating anything that is a pattern that repeats itself. The proof is easily shown in the destruction of tornadoes, and one who suffers any mental deficiency. Even a new born child is proof. For in all cases, neither a tornado or a new born can create a repeated pattern. A tornado creates disorder. A new born doesn't have a clue. Thus this is proof alone that intelligence is required to create a repeating pattern. As such, the order of the univerese and its origin clearly originates from intelligent design, thus proving that God is the originator of the universe and all that is in it and life itself.

I'm not sure if I believe the OP's arguments or not, but I do believe this rebuttal to be false on many levels.

Rebutting your rebuttal

Point 1.
Human species is an intelligent species...


Sure, no argument there.

"Therefore, the origin of humans has to derive from an intelligent being, in other words God."

No they don't, intelligence does not come from intelligence, if you believe so, then please explain a method you would use to create an intelligent being since you are intelligent? If you can't do it, then it's 100% baseless to claim that intelligence can come from intelligence.

"To say otherwise means that humans came from unintelligence, which makes no sense. Unintelligence cannot create intelligence because by definition.......IT'S UNINTELLIGENT."

If intelligence ever created intelligence (if humans ever developed AI for example), it would be due to intelligence imitating non-intelligence. Non-intelligence can produce a tree for example, and intelligence can imitate non-intelligent design by building a chair out of the tree. This doesn't mean that what produced the tree was intelligent, just because we are and we can imitate it.

Theists confuse intelligence and non-intelligence by imitating non-intelligence, noticing similarities, and saying "wow, this must be intelligent too!"

Basically, galaxies existed before brains. Meaning non-intelligence existed before intelligence, therefore, all the evidence points to intelligence coming from non intelligence.

"Point 2.

Intelligence is required in creating anything that is a pattern that repeats itself."


This is the funniest thing I have read on here. Do you believe gravity can love and be intelligent because it can form spiral galaxy patterns that repeats?

Have you ever ever seen a snow flake up close? They look like designed art, patterns that repeat but the cause of the design and form of course, is completely non-sentient/ intelligent.
http://chemistry.about.com...

Basically, most creations that show patterns and repeats itself are completely non-intelligent. Your refutations are not just baseless, but false.

"neither a tornado or a new born can create a repeated pattern"

A new born can't, but ants (non-intelligent organisms) can design without any intelligence.
watch?v=A042J0IDQK4

Also, how is a tornado not a pattern that repeats? There is always a spiral created from a cloud that looks like a funnel and this spiral always touches the ground and it always repeats...Do intelligent beings make tornadoes in the clouds? No, they are wind and atmospheric conditions, and non intelligent

"Thus this is proof alone that intelligence is required to create a repeating pattern."

Wrong, I already showed that gravity can create a repeating patterns, the natural chemistry that takes place can design snow flakes, and certain wind conditions can cause patterns that repeat for just some examples (I could go on all day).

"As such, the order of the univerese and its origin clearly originates from intelligent design"

Wrong, any design you see in the universe shows no signs of reason, logic, problem solving, or anything of the sorts. It only shows signs of non-randomness and order, which we know most likely comes from non-intelligence if you look at the universe as a whole.

Your rebuttal = Bunk
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:12:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:55:50 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/20/2012 6:11:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists believe the universe is a subset of God.
Perhaps many or most theists, but not all.

The universe could be a subset of a higher domain, however, we simply don't know.
It doesn't necessarily to be a matter of knowing: it can be a matter of defining. For example, I define the Universe as "all of existence" or all that exists. From this definition, we can see that there cannot be an "outside" to the Universe. One can then say that God is either a subset of the Universe or the Universe itself but cannot be outside or greater than the Universe.

The problem with the God hypothesis is the sentient part, I believe there could be a timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful, immaterial, external mechanism which may have caused (if the universe even needs a cause) the universe, but not a sentient being.
Timeless, ok.
Spaceless, ok.
Eternal, ok.
Powerful, ok.
Sentient, ok.
Immaterial, not if we are talking about physics.
External, not if the Universe is "all of existence."


**********************************************

At 3/21/2012 1:12:51 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
...If not you would be constantly random.
Definitely maybe!
Almost exactly!
Gotta love those contradictions!


Actually, Gravity is used as an example of an immaterial force in the dictionary, so we can talk about physics and immaterial causes:

"Immaterial

1
not composed of matter <it is only possible to study immaterial forces like gravity by observing their effects on the physical world>
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Immaterial causes are the norm in physics.

Regardless, I was just granting those other attributes for the sake of argument. In reality, I doubt that timelessness and spacelessness is any different than non-existence until shown otherwise.