The Definition of God

Gost7584,

Logical reasoning:
Click to expand...
Hmm, we’ll see.

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
Click to expand...
OK. So by the exact same reasoning we must conclude that God who must be vastly more complex since he was able to create the complexity of DNA, must have been created. This must be true since by your reasoning ordered complexity cannot come into being by chance and that it must have been the result of an intelligent designer.

In which case please tell us who created God?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
Click to expand...
Hmm, invisible things being clearly seen! Kinda sounds like an oxymoron?

being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Click to expand...
Wonderful image, almost a rival for the Lord of the Rings stories.
 
Cris said:
Gost7584,

Hmm, we’ll see.

OK. So by the exact same reasoning we must conclude that God who must be vastly more complex since he was able to create the complexity of DNA, must have been created. This must be true since by your reasoning ordered complexity cannot come into being by chance and that it must have been the result of an intelligent designer.

In which case please tell us who created God?

Hmm, invisible things being clearly seen! Kinda sounds like an oxymoron?

Wonderful image, almost a rival for the Lord of the Rings stories.
Click to expand...

What you are tying to say is a logical fallacy. Think about this:

Nothing cannot create anything. Since there is something in existence it is reasonable to conclude that nothing never existed.
There never was nothing. It never existed.
Nothing cannot exist. To say that nothing exists is a contradictory in terms and descriptions. --if it exists it must be something. Nothing therefore cannot exist. Nothing never existed. There always was something.

The creator of something, simply always was.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

A designer was needed to design the something into extremely complex forms, like DNA molecules, for example. Random chance is not design. The designer always was.---God is His name.
 
Ghost3784,

What you are tying to say is a logical fallacy. Think about this:

Nothing cannot create anything. Since there is something in existence it is reasonable to conclude that nothing never existed.
There never was nothing. It never existed.
Nothing cannot exist. To say that nothing exists is a contradictory in terms and descriptions. --if it exists it must be something. Nothing therefore cannot exist. Nothing never existed. There always was something.
Click to expand...
Put more simply – if there was a time when nothing existed then would not have been anything to start everything. Hence something must have always existed.

I have used this reasoning many times and I am glad you understand it.

The creator of something, simply always was.
Click to expand...
And equally valid would be the statement that the universe has always existed and we know the universe exists and nothing to indicate a god can exist. We also know from physics that it appears nothing can be created or destroyed indicating that the universe has always existed.

If you want to argue that complexity MUST have an intelligent designer then you cannot arbitrarily apply that claim to the universe and not apply it to something even more complex like a god. If you insist that complexity must be designed then you are forced to accept that God must have been designed. That also leads us to ponder the issues of the designer of the designer of the designer, etc, etc.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Click to expand...
A random bible quote offers absolutely no support for your claim that a god is a first cause.

A designer was needed to design the something into extremely complex forms, like DNA molecules, for example. Random chance is not design. The designer always was.---God is His name.
Click to expand...
And how did something even more complex like God arise, by random chance? But cellular biology and chemistry doesn’t suggest that anything complex arises by random chance.

Go back to your science classes and examine your studies on molecular compounds for example. And look at the periodic table again. You should be able to understand how elements form into more complex forms naturally by their attractive and repulsive forces. Complexity simply doesn’t occur by random chance but is inevitable.

Is God complex? If you answer yes then you are forced to conclude from your own reasoning that he must have been designed since nothing complex can arise by random chance.
 
Cris said:
TS,

Since the assumption implies that since logic cannot be used then the only alternative is that illogic or irrationality must be used. The only reasonable response is to respond with an equally irrational choice.

I choose both sides concurrently, which is impossible and appropriately irrational and suits the idiocy of the op.
Click to expand...
Again, if it is not logical, is it necessarily illogical?
 
Something which is illogical is necessarily not logical, but something not logical is not necessarily illogical.​
 
Yes. It is a fallacy to assume that something not logical is necessarily illogical.

Here's an example of a similar fallacy:

"In the strictest sense, a logical fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a nonexistent principle:

Most Rimnars are Jornars.
Most Jornars are Dimnars.
Therefore, most Rimnars are Dimnars. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
 
TruthSeeker said:
Yes. It is a fallacy to assume that something not logical is necessarily illogical.

Here's an example of a similar fallacy:

"In the strictest sense, a logical fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a nonexistent principle:

Most Rimnars are Jornars.
Most Jornars are Dimnars.
Therefore, most Rimnars are Dimnars. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Click to expand...
NO its not...can you give an example of something not logical that isn't illogical?
 
TruthSeeker said:
silence​
Click to expand...
So you can't give an example...

The definition of illogical is not logical, its not a fallacy to assume that everything not logical is illogical becuase thats what the word illogical means...its like saying its a fallacy to believe that something inaccurate is not accurate...
 
VitalOne said:
So you can't give an example...
Click to expand...
No. That was the example. Silence is not logical nor illogical.

The definition of illogical is not logical, its not a fallacy to assume that everything not logical is illogical becuase thats what the word illogical means...
Click to expand...
No. Illogical means that it is necessarily not logical. But not logical is not necessarily illogical. As I said, silence is neither.


So if God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning, and silence is not logical nor illogical, then.........
 
TruthSeeker said:
No. That was the example. Silence is not logical nor illogical.
Click to expand...
Silence isn't an argument...it cannot be logical nor illogical, nor not logical and logical nor illogical and logical

Now if you said something like "silence existing" then it would be different

TruthSeeker said:
No. Illogical means that it is necessarily not logical. But not logical is not necessarily illogical. As I said, silence is neither.
Click to expand...
No, not logical neccessarily means illogical, and illogical neccessarily means not logical...its the definition

TruthSeeker said:
So if God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning, and silence is not logical nor illogical, then.........
Click to expand...
Then your argument is still flawed, but then it means the existence of God is unknown...
 
VitalOne said:
Silence isn't an argument...it cannot be logical nor illogical, nor not logical and logical nor illogical and logical

Now if you said something like "silence existing" then it would be different


No, not logical neccessarily means illogical, and illogical neccessarily means not logical...its the definition


Then your argument is still flawed, but then it means the existence of God is unknown...
Click to expand...

your wrong dude give it up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top