What exactly is ILLOGICAL about God and God's existence?
- Thread starter water
- Start date
Unfortunately this is your misunderstanding of the concept of "infinite".MarcAC said:
It doesn't matter if traits are dependent, mutually exclusive etc - there are still an infinite number - and thus the logic stands.
Ellion
You make a reasonable observation of an apparent hole in the logic - but it is YOUR assessment of the flaw that is inaccurate.
If we use the analogy you do - i.e. with "god" being replaced by "human" for example - then several weaknesses in your analogy arise:
1) we have DIRECT OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of someone's existence after birth - so the analogy to "god" falls down.
2) the analogy is more akin to "believing" - as one does in a religion - PRIOR TO CONCEPTION (i.e. with NO DIRECT OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE) that the child will have those specific traits out of the vast number (not infinite, by the way!). So again your analogy falls down.
However, even this is a weak analogy because certain traits are probabilistic based on the genetics of the parent.
With "god" you are talking about something for which there is no DIRECT OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. I.e. the existence of "god" is as provable as anything external to our Universe.
it falls for you but not for me, but this a subjective evaluation. scientific evidence means little when it has no existential value, recorded observation have little in comparison to direct experience.sarkus said:
it wasnt an analogy it was a replacement of subjects. any way are you saying that there is not an infinite number of possible constructs of human charecteristics? you are saying the number of humans that can be born as unique is finite arent you?
There's nothing much to misunderstand about the term infinite. Can it really be grasped?Sarkus said:
It must matter, brother Sarkus, if your analysis aims to elucidate the probability of a view of God as opposed to a godly trait. You must analyse the relationships between "traits"; that is how probabilties are correctly calculated as far as I know.
However, the objection will seem pointless to you as you argue against the athiests' god [
] - just godly traits - it can, frankly, be anything some atheist wishes to include (where you start from).You simply create a "universal set of godly traits" (anything) and then state that the chances of one (1) trait occuring in one (1) god is zero (0) - meaningless. It says nothing of the existence of the god with such trait.
Such is the case, however, when one is of the stance that there is no evidence to support the existence of God.
No - it doesn't matter.MarcAC said:
There are an infinite number of traits - and there are an infinite number of relationships between the traits.
Someone could believe in any one (or more) of the infinite number of possibilities.
My logic states that to believe in any one, or any finite number of them, is illogical as the probability of them actually existing is ZERO. Not "very close to Zero so as to be effectively Zero" but actually ZERO. (I can supply mathematical proof of this point, if you wish?)
I am saying that to "believe" (i.e. as truth) in a specific god with any specific trait is illogical - as the probability of existence is ZERO.MarcAC said:However, the objection will seem pointless to you as you argue against the athiests' god [
You simply create a "universal set of godly traits" (anything) and then state that the chances of one (1) trait occuring in one (1) god is zero (0) - meaningless. It says nothing of the existence of the god with such trait.
Such is the case, however, when one is of the stance that there is no evidence to support the existence of God.
If you do not "believe" in any specific god, but merely accept that one is a possibility (albeit that as soon as you assign it any trait / concept it will have zero probability due to the logic above) then this is ok.
So the only possibilities that remain are:
(a) a god with ALL traits - which is itself illogical as some specific traits will clearly contradict; and so this leaves...
(b) a "god" without concept, without trait, without anything that can be assigned to it. i.e. it is meaningless as that which is external to this Universe.
To me the ONLY definition of "god" (that is not merely a label for "that which science hasn't answered yet") that has any logic to it is "that which is outside our Universe" - which is a meaningless god.
This entire logic obviously hinges on the assumption that there is no evidence for the existence of god - although theists will usually argue there is.
But if this assumption is accepted then it is illogical to "believe" in god's existence.
Apologies - missed this from above.ellion said:
I'm quite happy to admit that no two humans ever born will be identical in every way - i.e. have 100% identical characteristics.
But there will not be an infinite number of humans born.
The probability of 1 human being born, with any combination (i.e. not a specific combination), is 100%.ellion said:
However, assuming there are an infinite number of characteristics, to "believe" as true, prior to the birth that the human will have a specific combination of characteristics is illogical - as the probability is NIL - assuming there are an infinite combinations.
ellion said:
A god with an unspecified combination of traits etc - is a meaningless concept.
It is meaningless because as soon as you become specific with the combination of traits it means that god has zero probability.
Thus you could say a "god" exists that has an unspecified (i.e. "any") combination of traits etc - but then what is this god? It is surely something that can pass no discernible knowledge to us. Because as soon as you claim it can you have assigned it a specific trait (e.g. the ability to pass knowledge) - and it thus has zero probability of existing.
You will have effectively described anything, everything and nothing, all in one go. You will have reduced "god" to merely a label for "that which does not exist within our Universe" - i.e. that for which we can never have evidence or knowledge.
And what I mean by "to 'believe' as true" is to emphasise that I mean "believe" in the same way religious people believe in their God - and not to merely mean "hope".
Does this clarify?
having an unspecified combination of traits etc. doesnt alter the meaning of the concept. the concept is that of a god with unspecified traits. whether it has a meaning is meaningless.Sarkus said:
meaning has no purpose here.
how do you arrive at the god subject probabilty 0% and the human subject probability 100%? when as concepts they are the same?
what has this to do with the concept?
again why is the god concept different from the human concept? as soon as you claim the human has any specific characteristic (e.g. a nose on its face) - it thus has zero probability of existing.
the word is a label. the map is not the territory.
No, what did 'belief' or 'hope' have to do with the human being born with specific characteristics?And what I mean by "to 'believe' as true" is to emphasise that I mean "believe" in the same way religious people believe in their God - and not to merely mean "hope".
Does this clarify?
What is the meaning of the concept?ellion said:
How can you describe a meaning to a concept that, as soon as it has a meaning, fails to be what you are trying to describe?
To believe in the existence of something that you can know nothing (traits etc) about is meaningless.
To believe in something without evidence that you assign traits to is, as shown, illogical due to zero probability.
As soon as the human is born there is evidence to support the existence - and this it is 100%.ellion said:
With the god subject there is no evidence - and thus remains at 0%.
See above.ellion said:
It is a matter of evidence.
I was trying to put your 'human' example into better context....ellion said:
Believing in a specific god (i.e. with specific traits out of the infinite possible) is similar (but not equivalent) to believing prior to the birth, that a human will have specific characteristics.
It is not equivalent because there exists evidence of human genetics such that certain traits can be given a greater probability due to the parents (e.g. a nose on its face).
MarcAC said:
Nope - Agnostic Atheist
for me? it has no meaning. what meaning do you give it?
i dont give it meaning. it is better for you to understand how you do it as it seems to be you that is assgning meanings to these concepts.
the concept is simply to understand a logical dilemma why is it you need to endow such a concept a meaning. in the sum A + B = c what meaning does A have?
this is your opinion, some people think there is meaning in such existences. even you, yourself are attributing meanings to the concepts you use when in actaulity no meanings have been delineated.
you havent shown it illogical anymore than you have shown the birth of humans illogical. and as you say we have evidence of human birth so that illogical events can happen, and has done many times.
this evidence is after the event not before the event.
please return to the origianl problem.
Sarkus said:
as mathematical problems how are these two concepts different?
Sarkus said:
why would this answer be true for the top mathematical problem but not the lower mathematical problem?
that sounds like you were trying to give it a meaning that it did not have.
is this about subjective relationships to these concepts because you are bringing in things such as belief, hope and meanings and your personal bias which is altering concepts to suit.
the evidence is after the event and such variables were not presented in the original problems.
We have EVIDENCE that humans DO exist.ellion said:
We also have evidence that humans give birth to humans.
We have EVIDENCE of certain traits that humans DO possess - such as "having a nose" - or "two eyes".
Thus we know that if they exist they must have a trait, albeit an unspecific one.
You are equating the existence of humans - to which we have EVIDENCE - to the existence of god - to which we have NONE.
We KNOW that some genes are passed from parent to child - so we can even assign some traits (such as having a nose, having two eyes etc) a greater probability than others (such as having red hair, or having webbed feet, or a birth-mark etc).
HUMANS ARE NOT A SUBJECT OF WHICH THERE EXISTS ZERO EVIDENCE.
So you can not use "humans" in the same argument as I use "god" and expect the same results.
As soon as there is evidence to support the existence of god then believing in that god will no longer be illogical.
For the same reason as believing a human will have an unspecified trait is not illogical.
Let me put it all another way.
Think of a number between 1 and 100.
Would I BELIEVE as true, as a religious person believes in "god", that you are thinking of 76?
No - because there's only a 1% chance you're right.
Now think of a number between 1 and 10^100.
Would I BELIEVE, as true, that you're thinking of a specific number?
No - because of the remoteness of the chance of being right.
The only thing I could say for certain is that you are thinking of a number between 1 and 10^100 - i.e. unspecified.
Now there exists, an INFINITE number of possible gods.
Why would I believe in ANY specific god (i.e. one that includes the trait of "forgiveness", or "created the universe"?) The chance of being right is NIL.
If someone feels the need to believe then the only logical option is the meaningless "god" that is beyond conception or definition - i.e. to believe in nothing more than "you are thinking of a number between 1 and infinity.
But this is no more meaningful than saying "God exists - because he exists".
"You are thinking of a number between 1 and infinity - because you are thinking of a number between 1 and infinity."
It is meaningless.
Your example, as given by you, was flawed in your analysis - for the reasons I have given above.ellion said:
I was trying to amend your example into something that might help you understand my point better.
It is nothing about subjective relationships but it is about the pure logic.ellion said:
Belief in the unprovable, for which there is no evidence, is illogical.