What exactly is ILLOGICAL about God and God's existence?
- Thread starter water
- Start date
I hate to say it, but it's not much of an argument in favour of evolution, either!DeeCee said:
What is logically impossible about God? God can be defeated by logic. He chooses not to manifest himself in any form whatsoever, precisely because of the possibility of his being put to the test. Thank god (who does God thank?) logical thought wasn't around in Moses' day, because otherwise, it might have gone like this:
Moses: Thank you, God, for these mighty tablets upon which you have engraved Your Commandments (didn't you have a pen and paper handy.... oh, well). While we're here talking, can I ask you, is there anything you cannot do?
God: There is nothing I cannot do, Moses.
Moses: Can you predict the future?
God: I can see all of Creation, both the before and after, to Eternity in both directions.
Moses: Well, don't worry - I'm not going to ask you about what Free Will really means in that case, then! But I've written on this piece of paper an event that will definitely take place or not take place. If you think the event will take place, strike down the tree on the left. If you think the event will not take place, strike down the bush on the right. I'll be waiting....
God: You........... underhand little Mortal.
So God struck down Moses instead.
(The piece of paper had "God will strike down the bush on the right" written upon it).
I agree that it depends on how you define "God".water said:
Let's imagine that you have assigned "God" any trait, personality, concept, purpose etc. At a guess I think this accounts for 100% of all Gods ever come up with. If you disagree with this, please let me know.
Okay - now we must take as accepted that there is no actual scientific evidence for the existence of "God". Again, if you disagree, please post the evidence.
Right - on to the logic....
There are an INFINITE possible "Gods" - i.e. you could define your god with any one (or more) of an infinite number of traits, personalities, concepts, achievements, purposes etc.
For any ONE of them to be correct is thus a simple probability of 1/infinity, which as any mathematician will tell you is ZERO.
It is thus illogical to BELIEVE that such a God, with ZERO PROBABILITY OF BEING TRUE, exists.
IT IS ILLOGICAL.
Now you could argue that "God" is in fact ALL of them - and that what other people define as "god" are merely just facets of the "One True God".
What you are in essence saying is that God is a conceptless, purposeless, traitless, personalityless (etc) "thing" (and I use that word as the only one I can think of to describe something without concept, without purpose, trait, personality etc). As soon as you assign ANY concept, or trait, or personality you are back to being just one in an infinite number of other possibilities - and thus ZERO chance of being right.
So - this "thing" with no concept, purpose etc - what about this definition of "god"? Is it illogical to believe in the existence of this "thing"?
How can one believe in something that you can not assign anything (trait, concept etc) to? It is illogical.
So - there you are - the illogicality of God and God's existence.
Obviously I have not included the definitions of God that are provable - e.g. I could define "God" as being our sun, containing all the characteristics, traits, etc of our sun, and nothing more.
This "God" is therefore just a label for something else.
I used to consider this: God being created by a trinity, but when we look at the trinity we find that there is no creator of the universe (there is nothing here except stars and planets created by God), and the mind (IMO) is simply the result of the soul, so the biggest question in my mind is what created that?
Perhaps with all of God's power he simply willed such things into existence! However this would imply the mind being quite separate to the soul, because there is an element of justice and conscience within it.
[Scientific Reasons to Believe] The veracity of scientific evidence is debated in scientific circles where some claim evidence and others bash the claim - why expect it to be any different elsewhere? Evidence is concrete to those who present it - others are free to accept or reject it as such.Sarkus said:
Here, brother Sarkus, you only argue against some atheistic conception of a god (anything). A theist will only see one view of a god as possible or probable. I am certain many traits included in your infinite set don't belong with each other.
Probabilities concerning gods can't be treated so simply with any robust conclusion. There are dependent traits, independent traits, mutually exclusive traits and complementary traits - we first have to analyse and work out which is which so as to avoid incorrectly calculating any probability.
sarkus i cant help but point out the gaping hole in your logical reasoning.
some words highlighted have been substituted to illustrate.
some words highlighted have been substituted to illustrate.
i dont know. maybe you where making a joke that i didnt get, or something.Sarkus said:
most words are labels.