Outside Logic, Time/Space & Beyond...

[Mythbuster]

Outside Logic/Time/Space & Beyond...

I will show you why it is stupid to believe in god:

credit to PIKACHU

 

[Mythbuster]

pop

 

[ellion]

The universe is a boundless & timeless existence
Space cannot be created & destroyed

you are describing god in that sentence, he is that..... "in which we live and move and have our being."

i appolgise to duendy for any offense caused by the use of the masculine HE to refer to the divine aspect of the universe.

 

[(Q)]

you are describing god in that sentence, he is that..... "in which we live and move and have our being."

Is that your version of god?

 

[ellion]

version? i dont have a version, i just swim with the currents of universal consciousness.

sometimes i find i am drowning.

 

[ellion]

oh! but some people use that "version"

the alpaha and the omega, the first and the last, all that is, all that was and all that is yet to come.

 

[nameless]

Argument 1:
P1. God has no beginning & no end
P2. Nothing has no beginning & no end
C1. God is nothing

Accepting your 'assumptions' for a moment, of which there seem to be many,
I think that it might be more accurate to replace your 'nothing' with 'not a thing' which has different implications and meaning.
As in;
1) God has no beginning or end.
2) Things have a beginning and an end.
3) God is not a thing.

The overwhelming fallacy of your argument are the many assumptions that you make of this 'god' that you do not believe is real, and the mental permutations that you undergo to attempt to validate those assumptions;

God is beyond number (whatever that means)...
God has no beginning & no end...
Perfect is definable in pure math...
that which is outside of logic doesn't exist... (perhaps for YOU!)
The universe is a boundless & timeless existence
Space cannot be created & destroyed

And then 'reach' so hard to make these assumptions into some kind of 'truth'!

Wait a minute, isnt that what the 'true believers' do also?

They make 'their' assumptions and find 'validating evidence' in their 'environment'; a bit of science here, a bit of myth there, a bit of imagination next, shaken (not stirred) together with a NEED TO BELIEVE THAT WHICH THEY BELIEVE.

You attempt to 'define' this god that you say that you do not accept as 'real' in order to refute it.
Is there 'something' to define or not?
Could there be 'something' beyond your ability to 'define', to 'conceptualize'?
If so, why try so hard to deny it?
You are on the same coin as the theists, just another side.