There are no logical arguments against God!

[Light Travelling]

Arguments against God are invariably only arguments against a particular definition of God, or against how a certain religions beliefs logically contradict a particular definition of God.

But if you strip away the various religious beliefs and doctrines that contradict each other. There is no logical argument against God.

 

[comisaru]

There is no logical argument against God.

Right.
The real issue is that there is no logical argument for God.

 

[the preacher]

well put comisaru, when you strip it all away whats left, "Nothing".

 

[Raithere]

Arguments against God are invariably only arguments against a particular definition of God, or against how a certain religions beliefs logically contradict a particular definition of God.

But if you strip away the various religious beliefs and doctrines that contradict each other. There is no logical argument against God.

Sure you can.

Words are symbols that refer to concepts or objects.
Ideas and objects are things that exist.
Without definition the symbol "God" has no meaning.
If the symbol "God" has no meaning it doesn't refer to anything that exists.
Therefore the symbol "God" refers to nothing.
Nothing is non-existence.
Therefore "God" does not exist.

~Raithere

 

[gOn]

There's a general idea that there is some sort of purpose in the Universe. Science tells a story how matter organizes itself from a simple beggining. Why is that, i don't no. Mybe matter designs itself. Or maybe not.
I don't see nothing in science that says that there is no God. On the contrary...

 

[(Q)]

But if you strip away the various religious beliefs and doctrines that contradict each other. There is no logical argument against God.

You just provided a logical argument against the existence of gods. Bravo!

 

[gOn]

Sure you can.

Words are symbols that refer to concepts or objects.
Ideas and objects are things that exist.
Without definition the symbol "God" has no meaning.
If the symbol "God" has no meaning it doesn't refer to anything that exists.
Therefore the symbol "God" refers to nothing.
Nothing is non-existence.
Therefore "God" does not exist.

~Raithere

Lol. Anyway, we all agree with one thing about the idea of God. He's a creator of a nature that reveals something like a general purpose...

 

[Light Travelling]

You just provided a logical argument against the existence of gods. Bravo!

Right.
The real issue is that there is no logical argument for God.

No, because the belief in god is not a logical one, nor does it claim to be a logical one. The argument for god does not use logic.

Those who seek to disprove the existence of god use logic to try and do this. But this logic can only be used against human attempts to define god, not against god itself.

Sure you can.

Words are symbols that refer to concepts or objects.
Ideas and objects are things that exist.
Without definition the symbol "God" has no meaning.
If the symbol "God" has no meaning it doesn't refer to anything that exists.
Therefore the symbol "God" refers to nothing.
Nothing is non-existence.
Therefore "God" does not exist.

~Raithere

These quotes are from Hazrat Inayat Khan, a sufi teacher.

"All things existing have their opposite except god; it is for this reason that god cannot be made intelligible."
"The god who is itelligible to man is made by man - what is beyond intelligence is the reality"

These quotes are from Guru Nank, founder of Sihkism.

"The formless supreme being abides in the realms of eternity" Guru Nanak.
"You are the creator, the lord, the unknowable" Guru Nanak.

These religious thinkers - believers in god, will not try to define god or to make god intelligible to logical thought. From what you say above it would seem like they are trying to disprove god. But they are not, far from it!

So by refusing to define god, are we proving non existence. I think not.

 

[marv]

You can't argue logically for or against a diety any more than you can argue for or against flying saucers. Ultimately, it come down to a question of reasonableness.

It's reasonable to believe in something I can't prove. After all, there's no alternative. If something can't be proven, the only option is belief and faith.

Therefore, the only argument for or against a deity is to argue whether there is a need for a supreme being. Science constantly demonstrates that there are certain, logical consequences to natural actions.

 

[ApatheticUSA]

I personally don't belive in one entity creating everything without ANY proof, except a book written by People...

 

[Cris]

Marv,

It's reasonable to believe in something I can't prove.

No it isn’t since you might be wrong.

After all, there's no alternative. If something can't be proven, the only option is belief and faith.

No that is false, simply withhold belief. There is generally no pressure to make a choice if you are not convinced by either argument. Withholding belief because it is not believable is the fundamental atheist position and is hence fully rational.

Therefore, the only argument for or against a deity is to argue whether there is a need for a supreme being.

Whether you argue for a need or not does not indicate whether a god might exist or not.

 

[Horseman42]

No, because the belief in god is not a logical one, nor does it claim to be a logical one. The argument for god does not use logic.

Do you concede that the argument for god existing is illogical then if not logical?

If we cannot use logic what can we use then?

 

[Cris]

Gon,

There's a general idea that there is some sort of purpose in the Universe.

An idea held by some but not by others. A valid alternative is that there is no purpose.

Science tells a story how matter organizes itself from a simple beggining. Why is that, i don't no.

Try reading abiogenesis theory.

I don't see nothing in science that says that there is no God.

Science doesn’t concern itself with trying to prove that things do not exist – so you should not be surprised.

On the contrary...

And neither has science found anything to support theist claims either – or do you know something different?

 

[Cris]

Horseman,

Do you concede that the argument for god existing is illogical then if not logical?

Aren’t the two terms identical? I.e. “illogical” and “not logical”, or is that not what you meant.

If we cannot use logic what can we use then?

There are only two choices, logic, or illogic.

 

[Raithere]

No, because the belief in god is not a logical one, nor does it claim to be a logical one.

In which case belief in god is irrational. Nothing strange there, people have all sorts of irrational beliefs (astrology, good luck charms, magic, etc.). But many people claim that their belief in a god is indeed rational.

These religious thinkers - believers in god, will not try to define god or to make god intelligible to logical thought. From what you say above it would seem like they are trying to disprove god. But they are not, far from it!

I was responding to the topic's assertion, which was that you cannot logically disprove the existence of an undefined word, which is rather silly because it refutes itself. When you're talking about nothing, you're talking about nothing.

So by refusing to define god, are we proving non existence. I think not.

There is a difference between stating that god is ineffable and refusing to define a term that you are trying to prove or disprove by way of logical argument. Light Travelling is playing an intellectual slight of hand in an attempt to asset that you cannot disprove god, by refusing to define what god is. This doesn't work. This is significantly different than the Sufi belief that God cannot be expressed in words or logic but only through experience. The Sufi belief is an intelligible statement, LT's is not.

~Raithere

 

[Joeman]

No, because the belief in god is not a logical one, nor does it claim to be a logical one. The argument for god does not use logic.

Those who seek to disprove the existence of god use logic to try and do this. But this logic can only be used against human attempts to define god, not against god itself..

Light Travelling, I am going to use your argument above to support my belief.

No, because the belief in great giant unicorn is not a logical one, nor does it claim to be a logical one. The argument for great giant unicorn does not use logic.

Those who seek to disprove the existence of great giant unicorn use logic to try and do this. But this logic can only be used against human attempts to define great giant unicorn, not against great giant unicorn itself.

If you believe in your first statement, you have to believe in the modified statement as well. Without reason, how do you know your statement is true and my modified statement of yours is false? There are documented myths about the existence of both.

I await your reply.

 

[Light Travelling]

Light Travelling, I am going to use your argument above to support my belief.

"No, because the belief in great giant unicorn is not a logical one, nor does it claim to be a logical one. The argument for great giant unicorn does not use logic.

Those who seek to disprove the existence of great giant unicorn use logic to try and do this. But this logic can only be used against human attempts to define great giant unicorn, not against great giant unicorn itself. "

If you believe in your first statement, you have to believe in the modified statement as well. Without reason, how do you know your statement is true and my modified statement of yours is false? There are documented myths about the existence of both.

I await your reply.

You assert that I HAVE to believe in the modified version, this is false I do not HAVE to, though I may CHOOSE to. If what you say is true, then as soon as anyone believes in anything unproven (no matter how small) they then HAVE to believe in god - not so is it - what do you believe the weather will be like tomorrow?.

Many say that God is a concept made by man. But remember also that Logic IS a concept made by man. Does all of nature conform to logic?

Some say it is like it is because god says. Some say it is like it is because logic says. Whats the difference.

I say you may accept existenece of god or not, as you choose - but you cannot use logic to disprove its existence.

If you BELIEVE in your first statement ............................. how do you KNOW your statement is true and my modified statement of yours is false?.

Ahh, but if I were to know then it wouldn't be belief now would it. Your question is logically inconsistent.

 

[Light Travelling]

There is a difference between stating that god is ineffable and refusing to define a term that you are trying to prove or disprove by way of logical argument.
~Raithere

But this is not correct I am not trying to prove god by logical argument, I am simple saying you cannot disprove god by logical argument, as many try to do.

Why, because if god is anything it is uknowable and uniteligible to the human logical mind. But this does not prove nonexistence.

EDIT -
Logic is a function of one part of mind. We come to know or experience god through other parts of self. The logic part of mind cannot come to know or experience god, it cannot be used to disprove someting it does not know or understand.

 

[Light Travelling]

Raithere,

You see the fact we do not define something does not mean it does not exist. By not being able / or willing to define something does not remove it from existence.

Unless of course you assert that it is only by ourselves forming a concept and a definition of something in our minds that brings it to existence in the first place. i.e. a tree only exists because we are able to form a concept of it and define it. In which case god is a as real as a tree if we form a concept and define it.

So you can see that non definition does not necessarily mean (as you stated earlier) that we are talking about nothing.

The main problem with your earlier argument is this line;
"Therefore the symbol "God" refers to nothing."

This line is false as 'nothing' is a well defined concept. The term god is not refering to the concept 'nothing', if it were the term god would be defined. We are talking about god undefined. This then renders the rest of your argument invalid.

 

[Horseman42]

Aren’t the two terms identical? I.e. “illogical” and “not logical”, or is that not what you meant.

Yes this not logical can mean the same as illogical.

There are only two choices, logic, or illogical.

Yes this is true as well. If we are to dump logic in the garbage as Light traveling wants us to do then we have no choice but to be illogical. Hence there's no point in continuing a discussion if he wants to be illogical.