Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Unique Arguments Against God's Existence

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 1:14:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

============================

These next three arguments are original arguments I've created:

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence). 
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent/infinite. 
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom) 
P4: God pervades all things. (P2) 
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4) 
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5) 
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

Argument from Satan

P1: God is omnibenevolent.
P2: God is non-contingent. (He is necessarily and independently existent.)
P3: Satan is contingent on God. (Satan can't be non-contingent because that would make him a God, but monotheist doctrine says there can only be one God.)
P4: Satan is evil.
P5: If Satan is contingent on God, then God is responsible for the evil committed by Satan. [P3, P4]
P6: Gods omnibenevolence is inconsistent with being responsible for evil. (Evil is compatible with God, but he can't be the cause of it.)
C: God and Satan cannot simultaneously exist. [P1, P4, P5, P6]

Argument from Omnipresence and Non-Visibility

P1: If God exists, God is omnipresent.
P2: There exists photons of light visible to the eye.
P3: If God exists, God is present in visible light photons.
P4: If God is present in visible light, then he is visible to us. (If God is absent from our sight, he isn't present everywhere.)
P5: God is not visible to us.
C: God does not exist.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 1:18:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your final one is a bit flawed. We can't see everything (dark matter, for example), and it is possible that God only radiates photons with wavelengths outside of the visible light spectrum.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 1:25:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 1:18:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Your final one is a bit flawed. We can't see everything (dark matter, for example), and it is possible that God only radiates photons with wavelengths outside of the visible light spectrum.

A visible light photon is a pocket of energy. God is absent from this pocket of energy known as a visible light photon. The fact that God is absent from our realm of sight contradicts the notion that God is present everywhere.

But yes, the final argument isn't entirely serious. Though if sound, it could be a real refutation.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 1:26:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 1:18:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Your final one is a bit flawed. We can't see everything (dark matter, for example), and it is possible that God only radiates photons with wavelengths outside of the visible light spectrum.

inb4 "God is background radiation"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 1:28:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 1:14:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

The Fool: Quantum mechanichs cant give certainty so it could only at best give probablity..
============================

These next three arguments are original arguments I've created:

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence). 
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent/infinite. 
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom) 
P4: God pervades all things. (P2) 
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4) 
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5) 
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

The Fool: I think this works if the premises are defended. I could defend them.

Argument from Satan

P1: God is omnibenevolent.
P2: God is non-contingent. (He is necessarily and independently existent.)
P3: Satan is contingent on God. (Satan can't be non-contingent because that would make him a God, but monotheist doctrine says there can only be one God.)
P4: Satan is evil.
P5: If Satan is contingent on God, then God is responsible for the evil committed by Satan. [P3, P4]
P6: Gods omnibenevolence is inconsistent with being responsible for evil. (Evil is compatible with God, but he can't be the cause of it.)
C: God and Satan cannot simultaneously exist. [P1, P4, P5, P6]

The Fool: This is really an interpretatoin of the argument from evil.

Argument from Omnipresence and Non-Visibility

P1: If God exists, God is omnipresent.
P2: There exists photons of light visible to the eye.
P3: If God exists, God is present in visible light photons.
P4: If God is present in visible light, then he is visible to us. (If God is absent from our sight, he isn't present everywhere.)
P5: God is not visible to us.
C: God does not exist.

The Fool: Theist don't claim that he pervaids all things in that sense. but it does highlight a major problem for god being trancedent of the universe and yet pervading at the same time. Another good refutation is to say that invibility is a lack of something and therefore he is not perfect.
"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
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 1:30:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Expansion on the Modified Argument from the Universe

Contention 1: The existence of a whole system cannot precede the existence of the parts that it consists of. If the "whole system" (in this case God) added more parts to himself, then he is not actually a whole system, he would be incomplete. God's nature doesn't allow him to be an incomplete being. 

Contention 2: Modifying himself is a form of "construction," not "creation." In philosophy, there's a distinction; "construction" is making something from pre-existing materials and "creation" is making something from nothing, ex nihilo.

Contention 3: P3 is an axiom. It's called the Principle of Limitation: For every composite phenomena A, A cannot be the cause of its components. 
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 1:44:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 1:25:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 1:18:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Your final one is a bit flawed. We can't see everything (dark matter, for example), and it is possible that God only radiates photons with wavelengths outside of the visible light spectrum.

A visible light photon is a pocket of energy. God is absent from this pocket of energy known as a visible light photon. The fact that God is absent from our realm of sight contradicts the notion that God is present everywhere.

Ok, but now you are assuming that you can see all aspects of photons (and that you can even see photons themselves, which is not true).
But yes, the final argument isn't entirely serious. Though if sound, it could be a real refutation.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 1:47:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 1:30:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Expansion on the Modified Argument from the Universe

Contention 1: The existence of a whole system cannot precede the existence of the parts that it consists of. If the "whole system" (in this case God) added more parts to himself, then he is not actually a whole system, he would be incomplete. God's nature doesn't allow him to be an incomplete being. 

The Fool: I am with you on that but theist are going to pull a supernatural card, in which got is understood in the way they want and yet incomprencible at the very sametime. Which make absolutly not sense. But then again, it never did. But it should make them pull back to a trancedence argument of being outside the universe or any other place which nobody can check.

Contention 2: Modifying himself is a form of "construction," not "creation." In philosophy, there's a distinction; "construction" is making something from pre-existing materials and "creation" is making something from nothing, ex nihilo.

The Fool: in the bible that is creation. Creation in a natural sense is the reorganizing of matter to match and idea constructed in the mind.


Contention 3: P3 is an axiom. It's called the Principle of Limitation: For every composite phenomena A, A cannot be the cause of its components. 

The Fool: which makes perfect sense. Its sound just like the principle of sufficient Reason(and not its biblical interpretation as suffient explaination) but again the supernatural thing breaks all rules including any logical rules and yet at the same time, they make logical deriviations. <(:6)

Good Job though. Its nice to see people creating argument as appose to just copying others. That is how you tell theolgist from philosophers.
"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
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 2:05:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm waiting for someone to say that God exists because the Bible says he does and that's all we need to know.

My point is that religion - any religion - is all about faith: logic and science has nothing to do with it; they believe because they want to believe.

Furthermore, Christian preachers convince their followers to believe that any argument put forward that questions God's existence is a divine test of their faith.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 2:25:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Argument From Perfection:

1) God, theists claim, is perfect.
2) God, theists claim, created the universe.
3) A perfect being has no need or wants for anything.
4) Being perfect, God does not nor ever has nor ever will have an need or wants for anything.
5) Creation of the universe entails an effort to fulfill a need or want.
6) God, the creator, at some point had a need or want.
7) It is impossible to have a need or want and also to to never have a need or want.
8) God, if anything at all, is either not perfect or not the creator of the world.
9) God, theists assert, must possess both of these qualities (from 1 and 2), therefore this God cannot exist.

The Argument From Immutability:

1 – God, theists claim, is perfect.
2 – God, theists claim, is eternal.
3 – If 1 and 2 are true, God must also be immutable. He can never change, because any change on God's part would necessarily change his absolute, 100% perfection. God is incapable of ever changing. (Which seemingly contradicts his omnipotence but this is besides the point.)
4 – God, theists claim, created the universe.
5 – Creation requires a change on behalf of God. At one point, God willed the world to exist, when before that point, he did not will the world to exist.
6 – God, at one point, has a property at one point in time that he lacks at another point in time.
7 – According to theists, God is immutable and God is not immutable.
(from 3 and 6)
8 – God does not exist.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 2:28:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 2:25:44 PM, jat93 wrote:

The Argument From Immutability:

1 – God, theists claim, is perfect.
2 – God, theists claim, is eternal.
3 – If 1 and 2 are true, God must also be immutable. He can never change, because any change on God's part would necessarily change his absolute, 100% perfection. God is incapable of ever changing. (Which seemingly contradicts his omnipotence but this is besides the point.)
4 – God, theists claim, created the universe.
5 – Creation requires a change on behalf of God. At one point, God willed the world to exist, when before that point, he did not will the world to exist.
6 – God, at one point, has a property at one point in time that he lacks at another point in time.
7 – According to theists, God is immutable and God is not immutable.
(from 3 and 6)
8 – God does not exist.

And certainly if this does not apply to the universe it applies to when he comes down to earth and reveals holy books and speaks with human beings, etc. How could God be totally perfect and eternal thus immutable but still hear and answer prayer and actively speak with select human beings throughout history? It is logically contradictory.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 3:03:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 2:05:30 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I'm waiting for someone to say that God exists because the Bible says he does and that's all we need to know.

My point is that religion - any religion - is all about faith: logic and science has nothing to do with it; they believe because they want to believe.

Furthermore, Christian preachers convince their followers to believe that any argument put forward that questions God's existence is a divine test of their faith.

The Fool: yes no kidding. but try and tell the to the already converted.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 3:09:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Super natural and logic are contradictions. supernatural is beyond rules, including logic, so there could never be a logical deduction of it. These kind of arguments are isolated in the U.S. most likely because high consesus in the majority religion and the current drop in academic success. I personally think the cause of the academic problem is caused by the excessice theology. They rise and fall together. Children stop wondering how the world works when they get the same answer for every question.
"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
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 3:38:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 3:09:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Super natural and logic are contradictions. supernatural is beyond rules, including logic, so there could never be a logical deduction of it.

I have to respectfully disagree. Metaphysical philosophy.

Nothing can escape the grasps of philosophy, not science, not religion, not anything.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 3:46:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My taylormade version of the Argument from Physical Minds

P1: Whatever is a mind, is dependent on a brain
P2: Brains are dependent on matter's existence
P3: A mind could not be the cause of matter's existence
P4: God is defined as a mind that caused matter's existence
C: God does not exist

Thought I'd contribute to this thread :)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 3:53:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 3:46:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My taylormade version of the Argument from Physical Minds

P1: Whatever is a mind, is dependent on a brain
P2: Brains are dependent on matter's existence
P3: A mind could not be the cause of matter's existence
P4: God is defined as a mind that caused matter's existence
C: God does not exist

Thought I'd contribute to this thread :)

The Fool: It doesn't follow by necessity that mind is dependent on matter. It is highly likely that to have mind you must have a physical brain. Most of us should think so. But its not a logical deduction. Science doesn't give logical certainty. just really high mostliklies.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 3:57:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 3:38:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 3:09:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Super natural and logic are contradictions. supernatural is beyond rules, including logic, so there could never be a logical deduction of it.

I have to respectfully disagree. Metaphysical philosophy.

Nothing can escape the grasps of philosophy, not science, not religion, not anything.

The Fool: I agree completely in the sense that philosophy is simply just reasoning, in itself. However I don't know in what way you are responding to me. Or refuting my claim. In what sense do think of this as a metaphyisical question.
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 4:16:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 3:53:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 3:46:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My taylormade version of the Argument from Physical Minds

P1: Whatever is a mind, is dependent on a brain
P2: Brains are dependent on matter's existence
P3: A mind could not be the cause of matter's existence
P4: God is defined as a mind that caused matter's existence
C: God does not exist

Thought I'd contribute to this thread :)

The Fool: It doesn't follow by necessity that mind is dependent on matter. It is highly likely that to have mind you must have a physical brain. Most of us should think so. But its not a logical deduction. Science doesn't give logical certainty. just really high mostliklies.

I agree 100% (the wording is conclusive, but I agree that no argument is set in stone). The problem for the Theist is that if the Argument from Physical Minds could be wrong, then why not the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds. But God is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, God probably does not exist."

Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell

"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"

The formula for both arguments are the same.

Based on all observation X is dependent on Y, therefore X could not exist without Y. For the Atheist the variable of X is filled with a mind and Y is filled with a brain. For the Theist the variable of X is filled with a beginning and Y is filled with a cause.

If the Theist claims the Argument from Physical Minds is invalid then they have to admit the Kalam Cosmological Argument is invalid, because it's based on the same line of reasoning and has just as much observational support.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 4:32:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 3:57:13 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 3:38:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 3:09:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Super natural and logic are contradictions. supernatural is beyond rules, including logic, so there could never be a logical deduction of it.

I have to respectfully disagree. Metaphysical philosophy.

Nothing can escape the grasps of philosophy, not science, not religion, not anything.

The Fool: I agree completely in the sense that philosophy is simply just reasoning, in itself. However I don't know in what way you are responding to me. Or refuting my claim. In what sense do think of this as a metaphyisical question.

You said that the supernatural is outside of logic. But supernatural = metaphysics and there exists the philosophy of metaphysics.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 4:39:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 4:32:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 3:57:13 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 3:38:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 3:09:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Super natural and logic are contradictions. supernatural is beyond rules, including logic, so there could never be a logical deduction of it.

I have to respectfully disagree. Metaphysical philosophy.

Nothing can escape the grasps of philosophy, not science, not religion, not anything.

The Fool: I agree completely in the sense that philosophy is simply just reasoning, in itself. However I don't know in what way you are responding to me. Or refuting my claim. In what sense do think of this as a metaphyisical question.

You said that the supernatural is outside of logic. But supernatural = metaphysics and there exists the philosophy of metaphysics.

The Fool: Right and many things that are called philosophy are just nonesense. Just calling it philosophy doesn't make it philosophy. Secondly that says nothing about logic, and supernatural not mixing. Logic is a disclipine within philosophy, as is metaphyisics, Logic proves if metaphyisics is sound or not. If an aspect of metaphyisics doesn't make sense logically that it is out. aka philosophical garbage. not the other way around.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 4:44:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You said that the supernatural is outside of logic.

The Fool: exactly and it I still say it.

supernatural = metaphysics

The Fool: This is absolute nonsense!! either you have not idea what metaphysics is or you are using a different definition. One which I have never heard and is very idiocyncradic.
"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
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 4:57:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 4:44:34 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You said that the supernatural is outside of logic.

The Fool: exactly and it I still say it.

supernatural = metaphysics

The Fool: This is absolute nonsense!! either you have not idea what metaphysics is or you are using a different definition. One which I have never heard and is very idiocyncradic.

Granted, they're not precisely equal but metaphysics essentially covers the supernatural.

Also, go to the Wikipedia page for metaphysics. It tries to redirect you to "supernatural" at the top of the page.

Metaphysics
This article is about the branch of philosophy dealing with theories of existence and knowledge. For the work of Aristotle, see Metaphysics (Aristotle). For the definition relating to the supernatural, see Supernatural.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 5:03:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 4:57:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2012 4:44:34 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You said that the supernatural is outside of logic.

The Fool: exactly and it I still say it.

supernatural = metaphysics

The Fool: This is absolute nonsense!! either you have not idea what metaphysics is or you are using a different definition. One which I have never heard and is very idiocyncradic.

Granted, they're not precisely equal but metaphysics essentially covers the supernatural.

Also, go to the Wikipedia page for metaphysics. It tries to redirect you to "supernatural" at the top of the page.

Metaphysics
This article is about the branch of philosophy dealing with theories of existence and knowledge. For the work of Aristotle, see Metaphysics (Aristotle). For the definition relating to the supernatural, see Supernatural.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...



The Fool: lol, I know what metaphyisics is quite well, the supernatural is the type of entity that metaphyiscal would investigate, But that doesn't ental any logic to supernatural connection. Secondly that would be the very refutation again supernatural is that by definition it is super to that which is natural. And logic is apriori natural. Thus supernatural could never be defended by any logical argument, of course if you are refering to the same sense in which I mean logic.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 5:07:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Remember Metaphysics studies the structure of existence. Studies. That doesn not entail that which it studies actaully exist. By the very problem that a logical argument is needed to prove it, but its claims to be beyond logic. Making it impossible to prove. Nor has it ever been thought of in provable terms. These are dihonest theolgins who have been convincing the all ready more likey to take truth on the bases of pure faith in the first place.
"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
4/10/2012 5:13:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 1:14:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)
Who says God is bound by the laws of QM?

============================
These next three arguments are original arguments I've created:

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
Problem is, you are saying here that God created Himself.
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent/infinite. 
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom) 
P4: God pervades all things. (P2) 
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4) 
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5) 
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

Argument from Satan

P1: God is omnibenevolent.
P2: God is non-contingent. (He is necessarily and independently existent.)
P3: Satan is contingent on God. (Satan can't be non-contingent because that would make him a God, but monotheist doctrine says there can only be one God.)
P4: Satan is evil.
P5: If Satan is contingent on God, then God is responsible for the evil committed by Satan. [P3, P4]
Satan is free to choose to be evil and he does.
P6: Gods omnibenevolence is inconsistent with being responsible for evil. (Evil is compatible with God, but he can't be the cause of it.)
God is not required to be benevolent at all times and in all situations.
C: God and Satan cannot simultaneously exist. [P1, P4, P5, P6]

Argument from Omnipresence and Non-Visibility

P1: If God exists, God is omnipresent.
P2: There exists photons of light visible to the eye.
P3: If God exists, God is present in visible light photons.
P4: If God is present in visible light, then he is visible to us. (If God is absent from our sight, he isn't present everywhere.)
God can be "present" in a photon and not visible to us.
P5: God is not visible to us.
C: God does not exist.

Nice try though.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 5:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Logic is the method used to determine truth. Truth applies to everything natural and supernatural. If the supernatural is real then it's a true statement that the supernatural exists.

Logic is not a set of rules for reality. Reality is what it is. Logic ensures that we are able and properly determining what is truth.

If logic can be thrown out the window when discussing the supernatural, then everyone could just say "the supernatural exists, it just does!" because they can throw logic out the window. But no! You can't just claim that, logic is here to tell us that we can't just claim the supernatural exists and it becomes truth, there has to be a sufficient reason for claiming the supernatural exists.

Can you make true statements about a supernatural God? Yes.
Can you make false statements about a supernatural God? Yes.

Then logic applies.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 5:35:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 5:13:46 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/10/2012 1:14:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)
Who says God is bound by the laws of QM?

That is not what the argument suggests. The argument is saying that if God existed, he would have these effects on the natural world. The natural world is not being affected in a way that it would if God existed.

============================
These next three arguments are original arguments I've created:

Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence).
Problem is, you are saying here that God created Himself.

False. Remove "(whole of existence)" and the argument still works.

P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent/infinite. 
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom) 
P4: God pervades all things. (P2) 
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4) 
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5) 
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

Argument from Satan

P1: God is omnibenevolent.
P2: God is non-contingent. (He is necessarily and independently existent.)
P3: Satan is contingent on God. (Satan can't be non-contingent because that would make him a God, but monotheist doctrine says there can only be one God.)
P4: Satan is evil.
P5: If Satan is contingent on God, then God is responsible for the evil committed by Satan. [P3, P4]
Satan is free to choose to be evil and he does.

So Satan is not evil?

P6: Gods omnibenevolence is inconsistent with being responsible for evil. (Evil is compatible with God, but he can't be the cause of it.)
God is not required to be benevolent at all times and in all situations.

The exception being that the evil leads to a greater good. But creating Satan isn't an evil that leads to a greater good. Satan lures people away from good and down a path to eternal torment from which no greater good can come out of it.

C: God and Satan cannot simultaneously exist. [P1, P4, P5, P6]

Argument from Omnipresence and Non-Visibility

P1: If God exists, God is omnipresent.
P2: There exists photons of light visible to the eye.
P3: If God exists, God is present in visible light photons.
P4: If God is present in visible light, then he is visible to us. (If God is absent from our sight, he isn't present everywhere.)
God can be "present" in a photon and not visible to us.

Read again:

If God is absent from our realm of sight, he isn't present everywhere.

P5: God is not visible to us.
C: God does not exist.

Nice try though.

You failed. Arguments still stand.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 5:58:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 5:15:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Logic is the method used to determine truth.

The Fool: yes its our only method of proof.

Truth applies to everything natural and supernatural.

The Fool: The supernatural need to be proven to exist. You are begging the question on the existence to supernatural entities. yet logic is natural. Its not supernatural thus there is not way to justify its applications to supernatural.

The Fool:If logic is our method of proof then the supernatural can't ever be proven. It coud only be faith based. If you say yes then I need only say okay prove that logic is supernatural!!...<(8D)

The Fool: this is an invalid inference again. I admit I can't tell if you are not just completly joking here.

If the supernatural is real then it's a true statement that the supernatural exists.

The Fool: Exactly IF and ONLY IF HUGE IF So go ahead and justify that the supernatural exist, and then we could apply logic to it.

Logic is not a set of rules for reality.

The Fool: logic must a set of rules for reality or it couldn't give Prove now could it.

Reality is what it is.

The Fool: agreed, as logic is as well.

Logic ensures that we are able and properly determining what is truth.

The Fool: Yes agreed but it must be set of rules of reality to prove reality.

If logic can be thrown out the window when discussing the supernatural, then everyone could just say "the supernatural exists, it just does!" because they can throw logic out the window.

The Fool: That is Precisely the claim I am making, is that supernatural doesn make anysense.

But no! You can't just claim that, logic is here to tell us that we can't just claim the supernatural exists and it becomes truth, there has to be a sufficient reason for claiming the supernatural exists.

The Fool: You could claim you mother was and alien, but can you prove it. I

Can you make true statements about a supernatural God? Yes.

The Fool: YOu are begging the question. you need to prove that there is such things being natural logic. I am saying no you can' t make true statements. Because supernatural is beyond natural logic so you could never prove it rationally.

Can you make false statements about a supernatural God? Yes.

The Fool: I am claiming that they are all false.

Then logic applies.

The Fool: again there is nothing logical about this inference what so ever.


.
.
.
"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
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 6:13:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The QP one is interesting, but careful about what "observation means."

For instance, we say Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle occurs when we "observe" the position or velocity of an atom.

It doesn't mean that just looking at the particle with your eyes makes it impossible to tell where it is and where it's going.

Instead, "observation" is when scientists try to MEASURE velocity/position by using beams of light or other sources of energy.

What is revelatory about Heisenburg is that it shows scientists cannot interact with their tested materials without effecting what results they can achieve.

However, just staring at Young's Double Slit won't do anything.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:56:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 1:14:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Modified Argument from the Universe

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence). 
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent/infinite. 
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom) 
P4: God pervades all things. (P2) 
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4) 
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5) 
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

Argument from Satan

P1: God is omnibenevolent.
P2: God is non-contingent. (He is necessarily and independently existent.)
P3: Satan is contingent on God. (Satan can't be non-contingent because that would make him a God, but monotheist doctrine says there can only be one God.)
P4: Satan is evil.
P5: If Satan is contingent on God, then God is responsible for the evil committed by Satan. [P3, P4]
P6: Gods omnibenevolence is inconsistent with being responsible for evil. (Evil is compatible with God, but he can't be the cause of it.)
C: God and Satan cannot simultaneously exist. [P1, P4, P5, P6]


Argument from Omnipresence and Non-Visibility

P1: If God exists, God is omnipresent.
P2: There exists photons of light visible to the eye.
P3: If God exists, God is present in visible light photons.
P4: If God is present in visible light, then he is visible to us. (If God is absent from our sight, he isn't present everywhere.)
P5: God is not visible to us.
C: God does not exist.


I'm not extremely well-versed in quantum mechanics, so I can't refute your first argument. Although I have friends who have degrees in quantum mechanics, so I could possibly run it by them.

As for your second argument:

Your P2 begs the question. There is no reason why, if a God exists, He must be omnipresent. Especially if He created the universe, it is more likely that He exists outside the universe. God created the universe and time, and so are not bound by them.

Your P5 is also flawed. If God is omnipresent, that doesn't mean that the universe is a part of Him, just that He can exist in all parts of the universe at the same time. Consider Henry Ford. Henry Ford builds a car. Now, he decides to take the car out for a spin, so he gets in the car. He now exists inside the car, but the car is not a part of him. In the same way, God can create the universe and be omnipresent in the universe, but the universe is not God, nor is it a part of God, so your argument falls apart. It is not a sound argument.

Additionally, even if it were sound it would only refute one specific branch of Theism, pantheism. Christianity and other forms of Theism do not teach that God is "in" everything, and that everything is God.

Your argument from Satan is just a modified Problem of Evil argument.

God is no more responsible for Satan's evil than He is for our evil. Angels (and Satan is a fallen angel) have free will, just as we do. Satan chose to rebel, and after being cast out of Heaven decided to tempt Adam and Eve into sinning.

Also, even if it were true, it wouldn't disprove the existence of God, it would just disprove the existence of a benevolent God. An evil God could still exist. However, as I do believe God is a benevolent God, I see no contradiction in the exist of God and Satan. If angels and humans were not given free will, I would see this as a great evil than giving us free will and asking us to do good with the risk of us doing evil. If we did not have free will, then love would be empty (would you rather be loved by someone if they were forced to love you, or if they chose to love you?).

Again, your argument is unsound.

And your last argument is, again, unsound. Christians don't believe that God exists "in" everything. It is no more correct to say that God exists in light photon than it is to say that God exists in trees and concrete. Additionally, something does not have to be visible to us to exist. Atoms are not visible to us and yet they exist. Again, this argument is unsound.