The Definition of God

this is what multiple defs look like
Noun

Singular
tank


Plural
tanks

tank (plural tanks)

1. A container for liquids or gases, typically with a volume of several cubic metres.
2. A armoured fighting vehicle, armed with a gun and moving on caterpillar tracks. For details see the Wikipedia article on "tank".
3. (Australian and Indian English), a reservoir or dam.
4. (American SouthWest English, esp Texas), a large metal container, usually placed near a wind-driven water pump, in an animal pen or field. By extension a small pond for the same purpose.
5. (slang) a very muscular and physically intense person
6. In USA scuba divers' usage, a compressed air or gas cylinder.
7. In online and offline role-playing games, a character designed primarily around damage absorption with offensive power as a close secondary consideration.
8. For uses as a name, see tank in Wikipedia.
 
pjdude1219 said:
not multiple definitions merely one complex one you don't have very good reading comprehension do you?
Click to expand...

Yeah use a different dictionary not wiktionary and you get multiple definitions...for instance:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illogical
l·log·i·cal /ɪˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-loj-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning: an illogical reply.
[Origin: 1580–90; il-2 + logical]

CHECKMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
VitalOne said:
Yeah use a different dictionary not wiktionary and you get multiple definitions...for instance:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illogical
l·log·i·cal /ɪˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-loj-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning: an illogical reply.
[Origin: 1580–90; il-2 + logical]

CHECKMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

true but you never said anything about another dictionary you just said it had multiple defs
so checkmate right back at you
 
Cris said:
Ghost3784,

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.

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.

A random bible quote offers absolutely no support for your claim that a god is a first cause.

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.
Click to expand...

God is a spirit or you might say a universal mind. Existing outside of the physical world means something is not subject to the laws of entropy. The mind of men exists, but not in the physical world. Thoughts, emotions etc. exist but not in the physical world. They are connected to the physical body, however, by the aura energy field. The mind existing outside of the physical world is a designer. The mind of God did not need to be designed therefore. Not being in the physical world, the law of entropy don't apply.
 
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
Click to expand...
That's the point. :bugeye:

No, not logical neccessarily means illogical, and illogical neccessarily means not logical...its the definition
Click to expand...
Nope.

Then your argument is still flawed, but then it means the existence of God is unknown...
Click to expand...
Looks like you lack an ability to understand sillogism....


So if God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning, and silence is not logical nor illogical, then......... it follows that...

God is silence​
 
VitalOne said:
Yes it does...the only difference is that it says "contrary" to logic, and the word contrary is a negation, a negative word, like not, so illogical is not logical
Click to expand...
You are clearly confused. You think that if A is opposite of B then if not A then B. This is binary thinking. Think of a gradient.
 
Ghost3784,

God is a spirit or you might say a universal mind.
Click to expand...
Ok, but that implies a significant level of complexity, correct?

Existing outside of the physical world means something is not subject to the laws of entropy.
Click to expand...
Not relevant, the issue of entropy was not something I raised. Neither does it address your assertion that complexity requires a designer.

The mind of men exists, but not in the physical world.
Click to expand...
Please explain then that when neurosurgeons probe the brain or examine brain damaged patients that they discover a direct correlation between mental abilities (mind and emotions) and the physical brain? The conclusion is inescapable that the mind and emotions are entirely dependent on normal physical brain function.

Thoughts, emotions etc. exist but not in the physical world.
Click to expand...
So if your brain is removed you’d still be able to think and have emotions, right? Clearly your point is nonsense.

They are connected to the physical body, however, by the aura energy field.
Click to expand...
Total fantasy. But still doesn’t address your assertion that complexity requires a designer.

The mind of God did not need to be designed therefore. Not being in the physical world, the law of entropy don't apply.
Click to expand...
Entropy is not an issue here as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant to your claim.

Whether such a designer is in the physical world or not it still represents a significant level of complexity. Your assertion is that anything complex needs a designer. So I repeat who designed the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer, etc?

You should be able to see that your assertion that complexity needs a designer leads to an impossible infinite series requiring an increasingly more complex designer at each stage. Once you accept this then you should also be able to comprehend that at some point complexity must have arisen naturally from simpler components before intelligence could have occurred.
 
You guys are making this more complicated then necessary. Again, you are trying to express something intangible and beyond reason with logic. That is a futile exercise.

Think of silence, for a moment. Just silence your minds. When logic and absurdity ceases, God is all that is going to be left.

God is silence, because silence, though existing, is intangible and beyond reason. :itold:
 
TruthSeeker said:
You are clearly confused. You think that if A is opposite of B then if not A then B. This is binary thinking. Think of a gradient.
Click to expand...

No you are the confused one, even your example used "Most Rimnars..", your example is not analogous, its BY DEFINITION, it has nothing to do with A and B :rolleyes:, it has to with A and A, not A and B

It has to do with a meaning of a word...obviously, there is no A and B only A
 
TruthSeeker said:
Looks like you lack an ability to understand sillogism....

So if God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning, and silence is not logical nor illogical, then......... it follows that...
God is silence​
Click to expand...
No what you just stated is illogical, "if God cannot be proven or disproven and silence is not logical nor illogical, then it indicates nothing about God's existence"

What you just stated is a non-sequitur logical fallacy, "it does not folow"
 
You obviously missed the entire discussion.... :rolleyes:

Let me spoon feed this to you.... :rolleyes:

1) God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning
- You cannot prove God by means of logical reasoning
- You cannot disprove God by means of logical reasoning

If you cannot prove nor disprove God by means of logical reasoning, it follows that you cannot use logic in order to prove nor disprove God.

If you cannot use logic, then what CAN you use?

If you use illogical reasoning to prove or disprove God, your argument will be meaningless, therefore, it follows that you cannot use illogical reasoning in order to prove or disprove God.

If you cannot use a logical nor an illogical reasoning in order to prove or disprove God, it follows that you must use something which is not logical nor illogical.

2) Silence is not logical nor illogical

Therefore, one must use silence in order to define God.

If one uses silence in order to define God, it follows that the only conclusion possible from silence is silence itself.

If silence is the only conclusion possible for the question of the definition of God, then it follows that the definition of God must be silence.

If the definition of God is silence, then God is silence.



You see... since you cannot use a logical nor an illogical argument, then it follows that you must use silence in order to prove and define God!
 
If you name God or you try to explain God through logical reasoning, you automatically lose track of God.
 
TruthSeeker said:
You obviously missed the entire discussion.... :rolleyes:

Let me spoon feed this to you.... :rolleyes:

1) God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning
- You cannot prove God by means of logical reasoning
- You cannot disprove God by means of logical reasoning

If you cannot prove nor disprove God by means of logical reasoning, it follows that you cannot use logic in order to prove nor disprove God.

If you cannot use logic, then what CAN you use?

If you use illogical reasoning to prove or disprove God, your argument will be meaningless, therefore, it follows that you cannot use illogical reasoning in order to prove or disprove God.

If you cannot use a logical nor an illogical reasoning in order to prove or disprove God, it follows that you must use something which is not logical nor illogical.

2) Silence is not logical nor illogical

Therefore, one must use silence in order to define God.

If one uses silence in order to define God, it follows that the only conclusion possible from silence is silence itself.

If silence is the only conclusion possible for the question of the definition of God, then it follows that the definition of God must be silence.

If the definition of God is silence, then God is silence.



You see... since you cannot use a logical nor an illogical argument, then it follows that you must use silence in order to prove and define God!
Click to expand...
Uhm...your whole argument is illogical...its non-sequitur, the fact that silence is not illogical nor logical has no connection to the existence of God (non-sequitur)

Also God can be proven or disproven, but its unverifiable currently, so thats the reaosn that it cannot be

You can use logical reasoning to refute arguments
 
draqon said:
that is also wrong...as how would you know that God has not been silent all this time and used illusions on us for us to think there is no proof of God at all, when he/it is amongst us all.

You know whats the difference between me and VitalOne? I see God as us...consciousness of universe which includes us all. What does VitalOne see God as? something like a being with an image Christians gave him...the old shepherd of humans?... But than I never asked him/her...
Click to expand...

Yes, but then my argument still stands. IF God IS able to interact with us it is in principle possible to proof his existence through logical reasoning. I am not saying it will ever be done in that case only that it is possible.
 
VitalOne said:
Uhm...your whole argument is illogical...its non-sequitur, the fact that silence is not illogical nor logical has no connection to the existence of God (non-sequitur)

Also God can be proven or disproven, but its unverifiable currently, so thats the reaosn that it cannot be

You can use logical reasoning to refute arguments
Click to expand...
You are obviously not acquainted with logic. You cannot prove a negative, so you cannot disprove God. Besides, you completely missed the whole point of the argument. :rolleyes:



Putting it as simple as possible:

Proof = not logical nor illogical.
Silence = not logical nor illogical
----------------------------
Proof = Silence


Now I not only spoon fed it to you, I also chewed it for you....! :rolleyes:
 
TruthSeeker said:
You are obviously not acquainted with logic. You cannot prove a negative, so you cannot disprove God. Besides, you completely missed the whole point of the argument. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, it is YOU who are not acquainted with logic, you're using logical fallcies to show you know that you're acquainted with logic :rolleyes:

Also you don't have to disprove God you just have to show evidnece of absence and make it unlikely


TruthSeeker said:
Putting it as simple as possible:

Proof = not logical nor illogical.
Silence = not logical nor illogical
----------------------------
Proof = Silence


Now I not only spoon fed it to you, I also chewed it for you....!
Click to expand...
FOR THE LAST F***IN TIME THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY (look it up) WHY THE F*** DO YOU KEEP POSTING IT? You can't say proof = silence based on those things, its illogical...

You can't use a logical fallacy to pretend you know what logic is :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Logical_fallacy

1. All A are C
2. All B are C
3. All A are B

You only proved that YOU ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH LOGIC
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top