On the illogical concept that God is an impossibility

[thefountainhed]

Because if he was Insane he would have destroyed his creation ages ago.

This conclusion cannot be reached and therefore the rest are irrelevant. But perhaps you'd like to go through your thought process?

 

[water]

I hate to cross-post, but a similar discussion is going on in another thread ("What makes a holy text holy"), but I would still like to make my point:

The logical reason for the existence of God and holiness in a nutshell:

1. We think in the determinants of time, space and causality (TSC).
2. It has been established that our TSC are limited.
3. Our definitions work by the principle of opposition: from all the phnomena we choose phenomenon A, and this makes all other phenomena to be non-A.
This, for example means, that if we consider something to be limited, there is something else that is non-limited, in this case: unlimited.
------------------------------
There is an unlimited, and this unlimited can be called "God", "holy", etc.

The way we perceive this unlimited is another thing though.

Pros, cons?

 

[§outh§tar]

Therfore a christian God is an impossibility....
How ever if they wish to argue issues of sanity using these holy books then I think they would fail.

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

Is that proof enough from the Bible for you?

 

[thefountainhed]

[cut and paste from response it the crossposted thread]

Rosa:

Well, I might as well plug my own thread where I present not a logical reason that God exists-- it is impossible to prove this existence logically, simply because of exclusivity and non-absolute realizations of the definition itself--instead I show that it is illogical to conclude that the existence of God is impossible.
Here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35124

Now, to address your post and precisely why it is not a proof:
You cannot infer that as we define by creating sets which are within the realms of our understanding-- by defining phenomena in relation with other phenomena-- by creating limited sets, an unlimited set(s) must necessarily exist. By assertion 1, we cannot infer beyond our TSC. Assertion 3 contradicts that. It is impossible to know about the whole because you exist within the whole.
I should probably extend my post with a qualification, since I have used that argument within this subforum before....

Essentially, the argument you put forth rests on the observation-- which can be an absolute, within a given of set experiences or realization-- our conception of the universe. Every phenomena seems to be predicated on the idea that every cause has an effect, therefore, using that framework, we can assert then within our guidlines, the fundamental cause was the work of a God or that the cause itself is God-- it is up to the presenter to show how one fits their definition. The problem of course with such a line of argument is that an absolue-- cause and effect is assumed based on perceptions of the universe. Pragmatically, this is a reasonable conclusionas the set of experiences includes all. I make that assertion because another could just as well define a smaller set in which the supernatural is evident-- this has less value as it relies solely on the experience of one-- but the self cannot be all that is realizable as the knowledge of everything must depend on the knowledge of others.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is no doubt that religious views are in the main determined by the words in the text that they rely on.
Therefore it can be concluded that if one wants to find the definition of their God one only needs to go and look at these texts.

From what I understand most, if not all, texts show considerable contradiction. allowing the reader to form opinions as to the cryptic nature of the truths they are reading.

As posters to the forums have indicated there are great discrepancies in the interpretations of these words. Both the Christian and Islamic make strong references to actions and prophecies that suggest insanity to any reasonable person.

These prophecies are suggested to be inspired by the appropriate God.
There are many events recorded in these books that we know are impossible in nature.

Thus the God's they worship are insane or at least as insane as the worshiper is.

“ Because if he was Insane he would have destroyed his creation ages ago. ”

This conclusion cannot be reached and therefore the rest are irrelevant. But perhaps you'd like to go through your thought process?

If God was as Insane as the texts suggest then reality would have floundered ages ago.

If one thinks of a God as in control of every person, every air molecule, every galaxy, every civilisation whether here on earth or elsewhere, one can conclude that God would have to be ultra sane, and not insane as these texts suggest.

To co-ordinate 6 billion persons actions and decisions, to manage the destiny of the universe would be no mean feate. To suggest that "the sun will rise in the west" and that there is an end to his creation in the first place is to state the belief that God is a "nutter" thus rendering this kind of God impossible. Because an insane God would have destroyed himself years ago.
Such is the nature of insanity.

So as I stated earlier I believe that it is our definition of God that renders him impossible. But in saying this the God they are reaching for is not limited to that definition thus he is a possibility ( but not as we define him to be)

contructed God (a) impossible by definition.

True God ( b) Possible regardless of definition.

 

[water]

Fountainhed,

Well, I might as well plug my own thread where I present not a logical reason that God exists-- it is impossible to prove this existence logically, simply because of exclusivity and non-absolute realizations of the definition itself--instead I show that it is illogical to conclude that the existence of God is impossible.

Shouldn't it work both ways? To prove that it is
1. illogical to conclude that the existence of God is impossible, and
2. logical to conclude that the existence of God is possible?

Yes, I guess assertion 1 is more likely to be proven. Already the pink elephant argument works for it.

You cannot infer that as we define by creating sets which are within the realms of our understanding-- by defining phenomena in relation with other phenomena-- by creating limited sets, an unlimited set(s) must necessarily exist. By assertion 1, we cannot infer beyond our TSC.

That's the rub: How come that we are AWARE of our TSC?? And how come that we, following the princples of our TSC come to see that our own TSC does not provide us with a First and Last TSC?

Assertion 1.: "We think in the determinants of time, space and causality (TSC)." It is true, we cannot infer beyond our TSC, and whatever we may say about something that is supposedly not our TSC -- we will say this still within the determinants of TSC, we're fundamentally trapped in this loop of our TSC.

But are we then to say that we define our TSC out of itself? That this TSC exists without any reference to something that is not TSC? Wouldn't that be saying that "red is red because it is red"?

Assertion 3 contradicts that. It is impossible to know about the whole because you exist within the whole.

Maybe there was a misunderstanding. What do you mean by "impossible to know about the whole"? Making claims about the whole that it is for example "endless", "allpowerful" -- whatever religions say?
I didn't mean that. Whatever we say about the whole is still said from the POV of our TSC, which are limited. Therefore such claims are TSC's interpretation of the whole -- and therefore by definition can be wrong or misplaced.
But does that also mean that we cannot have some kind abstract about the whole? A whole with no characteristics ascribed?
Is it possible that we think of a thing without giving it any characteristics? Is it logically to say that there IS something, but we cannot say anything about it?
But I guess already saying that "it IS" is still thinking in the determinants of TSC.

Der Schleier der Maja gets really thick here ...

 

[thefountainhed]

Q. Quack:

There is no doubt that religious views are in the main determined by the words in the text that they rely on.
Therefore it can be concluded that if one wants to find the definition of their God one only needs to go and look at these texts.[/quoted]
Granted, I wasn't relying on any one definition of God in my analysis, but it shouldn't matter..

From what I understand most, if not all, texts show considerable contradiction. allowing the reader to form opinions as to the cryptic nature of the truths they are reading.

As posters to the forums have indicated there are great discrepancies in the interpretations of these words. Both the Christian and Islamic make strong references to actions and prophecies that suggest insanity to any reasonable person.

These prophecies are suggested to be inspired by the appropriate God.
There are many events recorded in these books that we know are impossible in nature.

Thus the God's they worship are insane or at least as insane as the worshiper is.

Clearly, upon re-reading the above for yourself, you can conclude that the logic is highly flawed. How can one logically conclude the (insane, according to you) behaviour of the followers of a deity directly implies that deity insane?

If God was as Insane as the texts suggest then reality would have floundered ages ago.

LOL. This conclusion cannot be reached.

If one thinks of a God as in control of every person, every air molecule, every galaxy, every civilisation whether here on earth or elsewhere, one can conclude that God would have to be ultra sane, and not insane as these texts suggest.

No, one would not have to conclude from even that assumption, that god is sane or insane. The only conclusion allowable is the statement itself, were one to of course accept its validity.

To co-ordinate 6 billion persons actions and decisions, to manage the destiny of the universe would be no mean feate. To suggest that "the sun will rise in the west" and that there is an end to his creation in the first place is to state the belief that God is a "nutter" thus rendering this kind of God impossible. Because an insane God would have destroyed himself years ago.
Such is the nature of insanity.

This makes absolutely no sense. If you accept that this being is all-powerful, then how can you conclude that actions that seem to you to be gargantuan are nothing but the simple lifting of a pebble from the floor?

So as I stated earlier I believe that it is our definition of God that renders him impossible. But in saying this the God they are reaching for is not limited to that definition thus he is a possibility ( but not as we define him to be)

One, I did not present any definition of God because it is irrelevant really. All definitions should be directly applicable to this debate. No definition of God can render him impossible. It can be realized and therefore, it is defined.