Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

God Easier Explained by Logic

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 5:58:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Many people, and in this context atheists, say that God is "illogical" and that logic says that existence without God makes more sense than existence with Him. I, naturally, want to debunk that weak and illogical argument.

First of all, there is no need to ask, "Which God?" and refer to either Krishna, Zeus, and whatnot. I have made a good case for this, which is simple but informative.

Every religion sees God as the definition of the Creator.

The Creator = God = Allah (Arabic)
The Creator = God = Theos (Greek) = Zeus
The Creator = God = I Am that I Am = YHWH

And ad infinitum. Now, let us take the atheist joke of the Pink Unicorn to the same field of logic.

The Creator = God = The Pink Unicorn

What is the basic criteria for God in all these various religions? Creator. What is the direct result of creator? God. What is the direct result of God? Name that derives from that word in different languages.

In simple terms, God, whatever attribute given, is the Creator. And what does logic say about Him? Let us analyse it.

First off, the entire Universe is, in and itself, a complex system. Although there are uncountable independent objects, they are still dependent on the system itself. For example, two human beings are independent of each other, meaning that they are each of their own, but they both belong to the same system. Both need food etc. to survive. This is the same case for stars, planets, etc.

However, what happens when we look at the logic of God? God Himself is not a system. He is not dependent on any other system either. None of His abilities rely on any other. The case with the Universe is quite opposite here.

Now, which of these sounds more logical? A being being fully independent creating a system, or a system creating itself and making tons of independent objects dependent on the system? This is far more complex than God, even when we talk about the very beginning of the Universe.

Basically, you cannot possibly speak logically and say that God is illogical and define Him as too complex, because the system of the Universe is far more complex and unexplainable.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:07:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Complex is a relative term - something is complex in relation to other concepts. Complex =/= interrelatedness, simplicity =/= seperation. Both are relations to other objects, not properties in and of themselves. As for which is more 'logical' it's the system that is interdependent, as it's the one that's been shown as is. God as 'separate' only exists on the definitional level, and as such is about as useful as my pet invisible pink unicorn grazing on my invisible green clouds.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:13:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:07:58 PM, Puck wrote:
Complex is a relative term - something is complex in relation to other concepts. Complex =/= interrelatedness, simplicity =/= seperation. Both are relations to other objects, not properties in and of themselves. As for which is more 'logical' it's the system that is interdependent, as it's the one that's been shown as is. God as 'separate' only exists on the definitional level, and as such is about as useful as my pet invisible pink unicorn grazing on my invisible green clouds.
No. You are using the observable objects as proof for interdependent logic.

This is invalid. We are talking about logic itself and its explanation for God and the Universe. When we look at the construction, the Universe is more complex and logically, it is not possible for it to be there more than it is possible for God to be there, since God is there without any sort of dependence on any other system which would make Him less likely to exist.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:21:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:13:38 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 6:07:58 PM, Puck wrote:
Complex is a relative term - something is complex in relation to other concepts. Complex =/= interrelatedness, simplicity =/= seperation. Both are relations to other objects, not properties in and of themselves. As for which is more 'logical' it's the system that is interdependent, as it's the one that's been shown as is. God as 'separate' only exists on the definitional level, and as such is about as useful as my pet invisible pink unicorn grazing on my invisible green clouds.

No. You are using the observable objects as proof for interdependent logic.

No. I am using the basis of the concepts you provided.

We are talking about logic itself and its explanation for God and the Universe.

Logic doesn't have an explanation. It's a system or using concepts.

When we look at the construction, the Universe is more complex

Your basis for complexity is the *concept* interrelatedness. That is false i.e. there are instances where complexity in relation to other objects is not defined by interelatedness. It is not correct definitionally, and all it does is invoke circularity into your argument.

and logically, it is not possible for it to be there more than it is possible for God to be there, since God is there without any sort of dependence on any other system

'Logically' isn't coherent here unless you are equivocating with 'It seems to me' or similar. Again, this is simply a definitional aspect - it's not an argument per se. It's like defining Jupiter as red then stating redness is more likely than not redness.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:33:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:21:33 PM, Puck wrote:
No. I am using the basis of the concepts you provided.
When you mention anything that "has been shown," you are talking about something observable.

Logic doesn't have an explanation. It's a system or using concepts.
Logic is self-explanatory, but we do not always see the logic. In this case, we can compare two logical concepts. One of God, other of the Universe. You are talking about complexity being relative, while it would be the same as saying that every single thing is relative. Even if we do say that complexity is relative, then let us compare the complexity of God and the Universe, and find out which is more complex - and that is by comparing them, making complexity more relative.

Your basis for complexity is the *concept* interrelatedness. That is false i.e. there are instances where complexity in relation to other objects is not defined by interelatedness. It is not correct definitionally, and all it does is invoke circularity into your argument.
No. When have I singled out the Universe? The Universe as a whole may in and itself not be complex if we say that complexity is relative. However, if we use the concept of God, then comparing the complexity of the two is easier and there is no circularity in my argument. All I do is to compare the complexity of the two compared to each other.

'Logically' isn't coherent here unless you are equivocating with 'It seems to me' or similar. Again, this is simply a definitional aspect - it's not an argument per se. It's like defining Jupiter as red then stating redness is more likely than not redness.
Are you playing the game of definitions?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:47:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:33:28 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 6:21:33 PM, Puck wrote:
No. I am using the basis of the concepts you provided.
When you mention anything that "has been shown," you are talking about something observable.

Yes. That's only related to what's more feasible, since the basis of your argument is purely definitional i.e. it has no basis aside from what attribute you are attempting to apply to it. That's unrelated to the actual concept itself however of 'interrelatedness' which is simply an adjunct to the point itself.

Logic doesn't have an explanation. It's a system or using concepts.
Logic is self-explanatory, but we do not always see the logic.

You are equivocating the term logic with common sense or some such nonsense.

In this case, we can compare two logical concepts. One of God, other of the Universe. You are talking about complexity being relative, while it would be the same as saying that every single thing is relative.

Not in the same context no. For something to be complex, requires the evaluative step of more complex than X. That's not the same as saying the universe exists, A is A, the Law of Identity. Which is all that interrelatedness implies.

Even if we do say that complexity is relative, then let us compare the complexity of God and the Universe, and find out which is more complex - and that is by comparing them, making complexity more relative.

You don't make complexity more relative. It is a relative evaluation of two or more things already. Defining god as not complex ergo god is not complex is simply begging the question.


Your basis for complexity is the *concept* interrelatedness. That is false i.e. there are instances where complexity in relation to other objects is not defined by interelatedness. It is not correct definitionally, and all it does is invoke circularity into your argument.

No. When have I singled out the Universe?

Your argument.

The Universe as a whole may in and itself not be complex if we say that complexity is relative. However, if we use the concept of God, then comparing the complexity of the two is easier and there is no circularity in my argument.

That does nothing to remove the circularity at all. You are still defining god as X to state the conclusion that God is X.

All I do is to compare the complexity of the two compared to each other.

And once again, that comparison was interrelatedness. All you can conclude from that is that your definition is circular. I define god as unrelated, therefore compared to the Universe, God is unrelated.


'Logically' isn't coherent here unless you are equivocating with 'It seems to me' or similar. Again, this is simply a definitional aspect - it's not an argument per se. It's like defining Jupiter as red then stating redness is more likely than not redness.

Are you playing the game of definitions?

Logic deals with concepts. The basis of concepts are definitions. Short of you equivocating horribly on what logic is i.e. some colloquial form of this is what I think should be right, then yes, when we deal with logic, we are dealing with definitions and your argument is purely a definitional one.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 7:04:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 6:47:11 PM, Puck wrote:
Yes. That's only related to what's more feasible, since the basis of your argument is purely definitional i.e. it has no basis aside from what attribute you are attempting to apply to it. That's unrelated to the actual concept itself however of 'interrelatedness' which is simply an adjunct to the point itself.
You do know that my argument is a counter-argument, and that the definitions are not ones I came up with? What I did was to attack the argument that God is more complex than the Universe and therefore does not exist. The definitions are not made of my words.

You are equivocating the term logic with common sense or some such nonsense.
Not true. Logic is everything that is how it is. Understanding of logic is a different thing.

Not in the same context no. For something to be complex, requires the evaluative step of more complex than X. That's not the same as saying the universe exists, A is A, the Law of Identity. Which is all that interrelatedness implies.
When you come up with two concepts - A and B - and compare their complexity which are already defined - then the case is valid.

You don't make complexity more relative. It is a relative evaluation of two or more things already. Defining god as not complex ergo god is not complex is simply begging the question.
Creator, God, not a system. Universe, a very broad system. Compare the complexity for yourself - define it however you want.

Your argument.
No, what I did was to put it alongside God.

That does nothing to remove the circularity at all. You are still defining god as X to state the conclusion that God is X.
This does not make sense.

God = not a system = complex (let us apply that for the sake of argument)

Universe = a system = extremely complex

Now, the term "complexity" can easily be defined here as we describe the two above. God, one being, not a system. Universe, uncountable beings and objects, a broad system. We can already see the complexity here and there is no need for more definitions.

And once again, that comparison was interrelatedness. All you can conclude from that is that your definition is circular. I define god as unrelated, therefore compared to the Universe, God is unrelated.
Who was this thread aimed at? The answer is found in the first post.

Logic deals with concepts. The basis of concepts are definitions. Short of you equivocating horribly on what logic is i.e. some colloquial form of this is what I think should be right, then yes, when we deal with logic, we are dealing with definitions and your argument is purely a definitional one.
So, attacking an already defined one means that the counter-argument, although defined in the same way, is invalid? No, it is not. The concepts stand clear.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 8:25:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 7:04:43 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 6:47:11 PM, Puck wrote:
Yes. That's only related to what's more feasible, since the basis of your argument is purely definitional i.e. it has no basis aside from what attribute you are attempting to apply to it. That's unrelated to the actual concept itself however of 'interrelatedness' which is simply an adjunct to the point itself.

You do know that my argument is a counter-argument, and that the definitions are not ones I came up with? What I did was to attack the argument that God is more complex than the Universe and therefore does not exist. The definitions are not made of my words.

1. Strawman on the typical argument. 2. It doesn't matter whose definition it is, you are applying it on a sole circular basis.

You are equivocating the term logic with common sense or some such nonsense.
Not true. Logic is everything that is how it is. Understanding of logic is a different thing.

Um no. Logic is a system of dealing with concepts. Existence is all that is. Existence =/= logic.


Not in the same context no. For something to be complex, requires the evaluative step of more complex than X. That's not the same as saying the universe exists, A is A, the Law of Identity. Which is all that interrelatedness implies.

When you come up with two concepts - A and B - and compare their complexity which are already defined - then the case is valid.

Your concept was interrelatedness. You defined complexity as that. You did not compare two concepts, you applied the one concept and compared two entities with it. Again, your definition of complexity as interrelatedness is flawed as already outlined, again, simply defining one concept as non complex, and comparing it on that basis to assert that it is non complex is circular.

You don't make complexity more relative. It is a relative evaluation of two or more things already. Defining god as not complex ergo god is not complex is simply begging the question.

Creator, God, not a system. Universe, a very broad system. Compare the complexity for yourself - define it however you want.

Again your argument is circular. I define god as non complex, compared to the universe I define as complex, god is therefore not complex. You are not asserting anything here that does not resort back to itself.

Your argument.
No, what I did was to put it alongside God.

... Your argument was that compared to the Universe, god was not complex. That makes you focsuing on the universe. Unless you are applying the same argument to all possibilities? The chair is more complex than God?

That does nothing to remove the circularity at all. You are still defining god as X to state the conclusion that God is X.
This does not make sense.

Then stop doing it. :P

God = not a system = complex (let us apply that for the sake of argument)

The 'sake' is what you are defending i.e. granting your premises is pointless as it is what you are attempting to prove by the whole exercise.

Universe = a system = extremely complex
Now, the term "complexity" can easily be defined here as we describe the two above. God, one being, not a system.

Again, your definitions are suspect. You call the universe more complex because it is a system, to assert the notion that god is not complex. However that relies on your definition which your comparison seeks to prove i.e. circular. In addition, the definotion itself is flawed as you don't address the why aspect i.e. why is 'system' the correct defining aspect of complexity when as already noted, complexity is a relational term that does not require systems to be judged as complex.

Universe, uncountable beings and objects, a broad system. We can already see the complexity here and there is no need for more definitions.

If by complex you mean numerous, then your definitional comparison is void. I can say 1 universe vs. 1 God and be comparably complex. If you are talking components of God then you are talking out your proverbial, as the substance of god is generally thought to be immaterial i.e. they don't compare at all. It leaves you with non physical is less complex than physical which simply opens up a metaphysical black hole you have yet to fill.

And once again, that comparison was interrelatedness. All you can conclude from that is that your definition is circular. I define god as unrelated, therefore compared to the Universe, God is unrelated.
Who was this thread aimed at? The answer is found in the first post.

That doesn't stop your argument being circular.

Logic deals with concepts. The basis of concepts are definitions. Short of you equivocating horribly on what logic is i.e. some colloquial form of this is what I think should be right, then yes, when we deal with logic, we are dealing with definitions and your argument is purely a definitional one.
So, attacking an already defined one means that the counter-argument, although defined in the same way, is invalid? No, it is not. The concepts stand clear.

No, when you have a concept that you define as X, it is validly challenged under the system of concepts called logic. You definition is flawed. Your argument is circular.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 6:49:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sorry Mirza but this argument reinforces my atheism!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 9:44:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 5:58:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
Many people, and in this context atheists, say that God is "illogical" and that logic says that existence without God makes more sense than existence with Him. I, naturally, want to debunk that weak and illogical argument.

We shall see about which argument is illogical...

First of all, there is no need to ask, "Which God?" and refer to either Krishna, Zeus, and whatnot. I have made a good case for this, which is simple but informative.

Every religion sees God as the definition of the Creator.

Ok - here is the first unwarranted leap. In the face of the mountain of scientific evidence that describes the natural processes the led to the universe as we know it now, believers make this unwarranted jump to assume that all things natural were created.

The notion that what exists must have been created is completely illogical. There is a degree of functional complexity and precision we expect to see from things that are created - it is how we differentiate them from naturally occurring things. And before you go down the road claiming that the universe is so precisely tinkered to produce life on this one planet... just remember that the argument from probability works AGAINST you.

The Creator = God = Allah (Arabic)
The Creator = God = Theos (Greek) = Zeus
The Creator = God = I Am that I Am = YHWH

And ad infinitum. Now, let us take the atheist joke of the Pink Unicorn to the same field of logic.

The Creator = God = The Pink Unicorn

Well this is kind of a misuse of the Pink Unicorn thought experiment, but I'll run with it...

What is the basic criteria for God in all these various religions? Creator. What is the direct result of creator? God. What is the direct result of God? Name that derives from that word in different languages.

In simple terms, God, whatever attribute given, is the Creator. And what does logic say about Him? Let us analyse it.

Ok - here we are.

First off, the entire Universe is, in and itself, a complex system. Although there are uncountable independent objects, they are still dependent on the system itself.

What system? There is no SYSTEM that controls the universe. It's a closed system in the sense that it has a finite amount of matter and energy, but there is no underlying system in the sense that computers have an operating system. There's nobody holding the reins, because there ARE NO reins.

For example, two human beings are independent of each other, meaning that they are each of their own, but they both belong to the same system. Both need food etc. to survive. This is the same case for stars, planets, etc.

Ok, yes, but as above, only in the matter/energy sense.

However, what happens when we look at the logic of God? God Himself is not a system. He is not dependent on any other system either. None of His abilities rely on any other. The case with the Universe is quite opposite here.

Sure they do... how would an omnipotent being create something if he did not rely on his omniscient powers of imagination to figure out what to create? I'm confused by this reliance on systemology, because it really has no bearing on the logic of whether or not God actually exists.

Now, which of these sounds more logical? A being being fully independent creating a system, or a system creating itself and making tons of independent objects dependent on the system? This is far more complex than God, even when we talk about the very beginning of the Universe.

This is a conflation of terms and ideas. The universe did not "create itself." The most logical answer for where that matter and energy came from is that it has simply always existed. Our inability with current science to look backward past the time of the Big Bang is one of the reasons cultural mythologies like Genesis remain in our minds today.

Basically, you cannot possibly speak logically and say that God is illogical and define Him as too complex, because the system of the Universe is far more complex and unexplainable.

The universe is not unexplainABLE - it is simply unexplained as yet. We simply lack the scientific tools to provide explanations for all phenomenon. The notion that we will run into a brick wall of knowledge and find God lurking on the other side is simply a backwards way of looking a the world. Consider that in 1901, Wilbur Wright said to his brother that man will not fly for a thousand years. Few minor advances in science and they were off the ground 998 years ahead of schedule.

Now, let's have a little chat about the logic of God...

The proposition "God exists" can be taken one of two ways. First, it is an epistemic claim about the world around us. Second, it is a philosophical claim about something we do not have access to.

On the first case, if God is something that exists in the world around us and we have access to that which is God, then all claims about him may be ignored because there is no evidence for his existence. It is thus more logical to be agnostic than to believe.

On the second, if God is something we do not have access to, then since all claims about God are contradictory (different religions), the only point of agreement would be that God is a creator. But since there is no physical evidence for this, we are stuck recognizing God as a conceptual claim, not a substantive one. In other words, it is more logical to believe God is a mythological being with utility explaining our origins.