Logical Disproof of God?

[The Atheist]

If one exists, the other can't exist in the same universe.

Uh, no.

First off, you're falling into the trap of ascribing that the laws of physics decide how god behaves, but since he created them, he has the ability to change them at will.

It would be a lot easier to show theists "the light" when they see logical inconsistencies in their most loved being.

Yes it would, but their god's as cunning as an outhouse rat and no argument made from logic works. There is the odd christian who realises that rational analysis says "no god", but I strongly suspect that even most of those ones hold the belief because they want to rather than believe it.

I dunno what the recovery rate from christianity os, but I imagine it's close to alcoholism - once hooked, very hard to let go of. How many atheists are there?

All a logical inconsistency does is show how much cleverer god is than people, because he does stuff we just don't understand.

Clearly.

Most people get that quite fast!

As I said before, a being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain.

Sorry mate, but you've lost here. Give this one up.

If you're suggesting that the "logically possible" thing is getting around the problem, and that to be truly be omnipotent would mean being able to do the logically impossible, then there's no possibility of contradictions. God could make square circles, lift a rock he can't lift, be God and not God at the same time...there's no reason any of it would make sense to us.

Precisely.

The equivalent would be us trying to ask a bacteria why it preferred toast to oranges.

 

[Third Eye Open]

What caused god to create the universe? If he is perfect, he shouldn't want or need anything. What, other than an outside source, would cause a perfect thing to do anything other than continue to be perfect?

 

[slingblade]

From what I understand, he was lonely. So he made us, and then removed himself from us so we'd have to come to know him through faith alone.

This type of behavior goes a long way to explaining god's six failed marriages, and why the kids don't come round no more.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Sorry mate, but you've lost here. Give this one up.

A being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain. It's quite simple.

 

[Nick227]

What caused god to create the universe? If he is perfect, he shouldn't want or need anything. What, other than an outside source, would cause a perfect thing to do anything other than continue to be perfect?

A perfect being lacks the experience of being imperfect. What do you give the God who has everything...the experience of not being God, not having everything. He wouldn't be whole otherwise. Why else do you think Jesus was born at Xmas?!

Nick

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is there any valid logical disproof of the tri omni God? I know that there isn't a logical proof of one, but I want to hear arguments that try to disprove a God logically.

Btw, I'm an atheist.

Repeating what I have posted on this before, there are two lines of evidence against the Biblical god. One is there are many things in the Bible which are so off on the physics, just claiming, "the people writing the Bible were interpreting the magical knowledge and that's why it is wrong" does not suffice.

For example, why claim banning pork had a health benefit, as Bible apologists do, when a sacred rule on hand washing would have been so much more effective? Why would there be no mention of the other people inhabiting the world? It could have provided knowledge that the people living in the area the Bible couldn't have known about and suggested magical knowledge. There are hundreds of examples such as these, there are contradictions, there is just a ton of evidence suggesting no real god influenced the Biblical texts.

The second line of evidence is that all the evidence points to god beliefs as myths. So if you start with no assumption there is or is not a god, and follow the evidence of the origin of god beliefs, the evidence overwhelmingly supports god beliefs as being a human generated myths. This includes lots of evidence there were myths the Biblical texts were based on that preceded those texts.

 

[Third Eye Open]

A perfect being lacks the experience of being imperfect. What do you give the God who has everything...the experience of not being God, not having everything. He wouldn't be whole otherwise. Why else do you think Jesus was born at Xmas?!

Nick

So god wasn't perfect at first, and then became perfect by being imperfect....

I thought Jesus was perfect, and that was the whole point of killing him.

 

[Nick227]

So god wasn't perfect at first, and then became perfect by being imperfect....

I thought Jesus was perfect, and that was the whole point of killing him.

I figure the crucifixion is symbolic. It didn't actually happen to JC. Classical heroes usually go through a phase of deep purgation, or death-rebirth, on their journey to spiritual individuation. Of course, claiming that Jesus died for our sins was a good way to lay a mind**** guilt trip on humanity by the Church.

God, if you take God as Brahman, Shunyata, or the "ground of being", is essentially an unconscious whole. He's perfect, he has all possibilities within himself, but he doesn't have self-knowledge. To develop self-knowledge he needs first to develop self-awareness on a limited scale, as a human being, then create the possibility to transcend mere knowledge of himself as human, to know himself as he really is.

Maybe!

Nick

 

[Robin]

If you're suggesting that the "logically possible" thing is getting around the problem, and that to be truly be omnipotent would mean being able to do the logically impossible, then there's no possibility of contradictions. God could make square circles, lift a rock he can't lift, be God and not God at the same time...there's no reason any of it would make sense to us.

A square circle is easy - it is a regular four sided polygon in plane geometry where all points on the shape are equidistant from a fixed point in the same plane, to the extent that this is logically possible.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Here are a couple that I mentioned in my "Fun With Logic" thread.

Ontological Argument:

1) An omnipotent God could overcome any conceivable obstacle.
2) Non-existence is the greatest conceivable obstacle.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

Cosmological Argument:

1) Everything that exists has a cause.
2) God is exempt from the rule because he doesn't have a cause.
3) This implies that God is not accommodated by the set of all existent things.
4) Therefore God does not exist.

Some apologists have tried to get around #1 by changing it to "That which begins to exist" but it doesn't really alter the meaning, since it's easy enough to prove that, according to their own logic, God began to exist as well. Never mind that "begins to exist" is kind of, well, meaningless.

 

[The Atheist]

What caused god to create the universe? If he is perfect, he shouldn't want or need anything. What, other than an outside source, would cause a perfect thing to do anything other than continue to be perfect?

Boredom?

Who can resist poking a stick in an ants' nest? First, you need the ant nest...

A being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain. It's quite simple.

Repeating a prior mistake doesn't make it any less a mistake.

Repeating what I have posted on this before, there are two lines of evidence against the Biblical god.

Just as well that wasn't the question then.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Seems to me that boredom would imply that something is lacking.

Maybe we should define 'perfect'...

 

[linusrichard]

Uh, no.

First off, you're falling into the trap of ascribing that the laws of physics decide how god behaves, but since he created them, he has the ability to change them at will.

It's not really physics - it's just logic. If an Immovable Object exists, then no Force exists that can move it. A Force that could move all Objects could move an Immovable Object. So, if an Immovable Object exists, a Force that can move all objects can't exist. Nothing to do with physics. Just like a Splark that can quonk every Deent can't exist in the same universe as a Deent that can't be quonked by any Splark.

But even accepting for the sake of argument that I'm ascribing laws of physics to God - can God create an Unstoppable Force and an Immovable Object in the same universe without changing the laws of physics as we know them? Well, okay, that's something God can't do.

If you're suggesting that the "logically possible" thing is getting around the problem, and that to be truly be omnipotent would mean being able to do the logically impossible, then there's no possibility of contradictions. God could make square circles, lift a rock he can't lift, be God and not God at the same time...there's no reason any of it would make sense to us.

I'm not saying that to be truly omnipotent would mean being able to do the logically impossible. I'm saying that if you consider omnipotence as being able to do anything, including the logically impossible, then no one or nothing can be omnipotent. And if someone insists that God is omnipotent in that sense, then I am a Dawkins 7 with respect to that God. But if you consider omnipotence as being able to do anything to the extent it is logically possible, then you can't disprove God that way.

Not even God can make a square circle - see Robin's excellent comment above. Not even God can lift a rock God can't lift. Not even God can be God and not God at the same time Actually, I don't feel comfortable saying this last one for some reason.

 

[bobhope2112]

How can you prove you have free will?

I don't know of any way to do that.

How do you know, say, that it is not "God" pulling the strings and making it seem as though you are moving?

I don't know that it isn't God, or some entirely deterministic natural process for that matter.

Do you suppose that there is some little being somewhere inside of your head called bobhope2112 who is deciding stuff?

No, I don't suppose that.

Are you rebutting some sort of positive statement that you suspect I've made?

 

[arthwollipot]

I wonder if there have been any religions which allowed God to live as a human, and experience overcoming fear and hardship. Anyone heard of such beliefs?

Most of them, actually.

From Odin's Rune-Song, in the Elder Eddas:

140. I know that I hung, on a wind-rocked tree, nine whole nights,
with a spear wounded, and to Odin offered, myself to myself; on that
tree, of which no one knows from what root it springs.
141. Bread no one gave me, nor a horn of drink, downward I peered,
to runes applied myself, wailing learnt them, then fell down thence.
142. Potent songs nine from the famed son I learned of Bolthorn,
Bestla's sire, and a draught obtained of the precious mead, drawn from
Odhraerir.
143. Then I began to bear fruit, and to know many things, to grow
and well thrive: word by word I sought out words, fact by fact I
sought out facts.

This is merely one example. The idea of deities suffering, and having human qualities in general, pervades most belief systems.

 

[slingblade]

A being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain. It's quite simple.

So am I, then. Could you explain that, and in more than just a couple of terse sentences? None of the definitions I checked included "the ability to suffer pain." What do you mean by your statement, and what is the proof of it?

 

[arthwollipot]

I think that the idea is that a being cannot be described as virtuous if it doesn't suffer pain, but that suffering pain is not the only thing that makes a being virtuous.

An animal cannot be a chicken unless it has feathers, but not all feathered animals are chickens.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Repeating a prior mistake doesn't make it any less a mistake.

This is not a mistake.

It's a well known argument from Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. Given your name, I thought you'd at least be familiar with it.

 

[The Atheist]

This is not a mistake.

It's a well known argument from Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. Given your name, I thought you'd at least be familiar with it.

Doesn't really bother me who said it or when; plenty of people repeat others' mistakes. To be honest, I've never heard of those two - I tend not to read atheist literature. Can't see the point.

(Appeal to [presumed] authority doesn't wash with me, either.)

 

[arthwollipot]

To be honest, I've never heard of those two

Can't say that I have, either.