God is impossible.. Long read but good!!

[2Parties]

Does the human mind have the capability to define God?

If the answer is yes does that mean you can "prove" or "disprove" god? Nope.

If the answer is no than obviously you can not "prove" or "disprove" god.

 

[amrchaos]

Does the human mind have the capability to define God?

If the answer is yes does that mean you can "prove" or "disprove" god? Nope.

If the answer is no than obviously you can not "prove" or "disprove" god.

Again--the arrguement is not a proof of God or disproof of God.

The arguement is that Religion is BS if you assume that "God is Omnipotent" and "God wants man to know his will"


This is not an arguement against God existance!! It is an argument against religion that makes the claim of the Abrahmic God!!

 

[tigerbob]

Does the human mind have the capability to define God?

If the answer is yes does that mean you can "prove" or "disprove" god? Nope.

If the answer is no than obviously you can not "prove" or "disprove" god.

Surely people are going to disagree on the definition(?)

 

[2Parties]

Does the human mind have the capability to define God?

If the answer is yes does that mean you can "prove" or "disprove" god? Nope.

If the answer is no than obviously you can not "prove" or "disprove" god.

Again--the arrguement is not a proof of God or disproof of God.

The arguement is that Religion is BS if you assume that "God is Omnipotent" and "God wants man to know his will"


This is not an arguement against God existance!! It is an argument against religion that makes the claim of the Abrahmic God!!

The entire argument posted in the OP is a series of strawmen, poorly sourced arguments, assumptions, and numerous opinions backed by nothing more than human "faith".

Just because my opinion on what I define God may be wrong or contradictory does not disprove that God exists, only that I am an idiot.

 

[2Parties]

Does the human mind have the capability to define God?

If the answer is yes does that mean you can "prove" or "disprove" god? Nope.

If the answer is no than obviously you can not "prove" or "disprove" god.

Surely people are going to disagree on the definition(?)

Exactly.

 

[amrchaos]

I am well aware that when one talks of faith, they abandon logic.

 

[2Parties]

I am also well aware that when someone claims to be fully logical much of what their logic is based on is nothing more than faith.

 

[amrchaos]

I am also well aware that when someone claims to be fully logical much of what their logic is based on is nothing more than faith.

No--there is a difference between faith and logical Assumptions.

An Assumpiton can be false. Thus the need to examine it.

To examine faith is to challenge faith. Thus the need for some to abandon logic.

 

[2Parties]

Faith and assumptions can be true. Faith and assumptions can be false.

Some assumptions are based on logical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from logical conclusions they have.

Some assumptions are based on illogical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from illogical conclusions they have.

 

[amrchaos]

Faith and assumptions can be true. Faith and assumptions can be false.

Some assumptions are based on logical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from logical conclusions they have.

Some assumptions are based on illogical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from illogical conclusions they have.

Yes--but the assumptions based on illogical conclusions are thrown out.

For Faith, logic is thrown out to save it!!

 

[2Parties]

Assumptions based on illogical conclusions are thrown out by who and according to who? I see atheists, Christians, Muslims, politicians, preachers, scientists, and numerous people who are considered "leaders" make numerous assumptions based on no logic whatsoever.

I see many different people have faith in an idea, God, or just a series of events unfolding and this faith, while it may not make perfect logical sense based on human understanding (but what can 100% really?) it is based on some logical conclusion.

Logic is not necessarily thrown out to save "faith", and it can be thrown out to save an "assumption". I see it every single day when I turn on the news.

 

[amrchaos]

Assumptions based on illogical conclusions are thrown out by who and according to who? I see atheists, Christians, Muslims, politicians, preachers, scientists, and numerous people who are considered "leaders" make numerous assumptions based on no logic whatsoever.

I see many different people have faith in an idea, God, or just a series of events unfolding and this faith, while it may not make perfect logical sense based on human understanding (but what can 100% really?) it is based on some logical conclusion.

Logic is not necessarily thrown out to save "faith", and it can be thrown out to save an "assumption". I see it every single day when I turn on the news.

1)Assumptions based on illogical conclusions are thrown out by who and according to who? Based on logic. You do not need to be of any religious belief to recognize an illogical statement.

Also, An assumption in which logic is thrown out to save it is called a lie.

An tenet of Faith that has neither pro or Con argument to support it does not require logic to be thrown out. A faith or assumption that fits this discription is considered unverifiable. Yes, there are articles of faith that unverifiable. But not all of them.

 

[Modbert]

Just going to leave this here:

 

[Diuretic]

Logic - from Aristotle - has long been used to try and prove the existence of God. You all know the arguments from design, some of which are quite intricate and I must say, a bit beyond me. Anselm, Acquinas and that really neat one Kalam.

In the end they prove nothing except that Aristotle came up with a clever way of helping us think.

Now putting that aside. I've often wondered about something.

Humans are animals. To be sure we are very high level functioning animals but nonetheless animals we are.

As far as I know we are the only species on Earth that shows behaviour that can be identified as worshipping a supernatural being.

Worshippers believe many things but a couple are (a) that there is a supernatural being and (b) that supernatural being created everything we know.

None of us can - at this stage - know if either (a) or (b) or both are factually true. But being the clever little buggers we are, many, many thousands of years ago when we began to develop into homo sapiens and to have a sense of awareness of self and our surrounds. Why is that? I think it might be because our brains allowed us to. We had developed the cerebral cortex that allows us to imagine and to wonder and to ask questions and try and find answers to those questions.

We could look around and wonder at our surrounds. We could wonder how this all came about. And we could look for answers.

So, my questions. Are we capable of believing in God because our brains allow us to do so, or do we have brains capable of believing because God wanted it to be so?

Having the capacity to believe doesn't presuppose the existence of the object of that belief. That's seen in the way that religious belief has developed in humans from our animist ancestors to the highly sophisticated theologies today. All previous beliefs were wrong, apparently. Current belief is correct, apparently.

Religion is a method of explanation, but as a method of explanation it leaves a bit to be desired because it requires (generally) an acceptance of unprovable propositions. To believe that God exists you must believe that God exists.

I appreciate that I've over-simplified this and that theology (Christian) is much more complex and the arguments from design and First Cause re only the tip of the iceberg. But they are all just word games and mind experiments. Nothing is proven. For a believer proof isn't required. The sceptic demands proof and will accept nothing but conclusive proof. It's never been provided and it may never be provided.

Other animals, as has been pointed out by others, are generally not capable of the higher mental order functions that homo sapiens possess. Other animals sense danger but they probably have no sense of mortality. Humans, cursed with intelligence are also cursed with self-awareness. And having self-awareness means we also understand that our self-awareness, our consciousness, will one day end. We will cease to exist as self-aware entities.

I see a sort of evolutionary process at work, ironically enough, in our species' ability to worship a supernatural being who many believe created our universe and everything in it. It balances out that terrible self-awareness that we have. It is a comfort. It's entirely possible that humans are not only capable of belief in the supernatural because of our advanced brains but also that it is necessary to believe in the supernatural to remain relatively stable. Imagine if we all sat around without being able to imagine a creator and an afterlife, can you see how depressed we all would be? How nihilistic we would be? I mean, we'd be sitting around wondering what was the point of existing. But for some of us that is the point. Existing is what we do. Then we cease to exist. Not much we can do about it, may as well get on with existing.

Believers have their comforts. Non-believers have to find solace in other ways. Getting to grips with the result of our self-awareness is what being a functioning human being is about, I think.

A what a pompous and self-important ramble this is. I feel like doing something else that separates us from the other animals.

And that's

 

[Si modo]

Faith and assumptions can be true. Faith and assumptions can be false.

Some assumptions are based on logical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from logical conclusions they have.

Some assumptions are based on illogical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from illogical conclusions they have.

Yes--but the assumptions based on illogical conclusions are thrown out.

For Faith, logic is thrown out to save it!!

Of course it is. By definition, faith are beliefs which are ideas we hold for something which has no proof.

It always cracks me up when self-described atheists try to use the logic argument against the existence of a deity and here is why: Atheists claim there is no deity, none. There is no proof that a deity exists, but there is also no proof that a deity does not exist. An atheist's claim that a deity does not exist is just as much a belief (an idea held for which there is no proof) as a believer's. Thus, it is just as illogical as the claim that a believer's belief in a deity is.

Therefore, the logic argument is ironic to me. It's funny.

 

[amrchaos]

Faith and assumptions can be true. Faith and assumptions can be false.

Some assumptions are based on logical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from logical conclusions they have.

Some assumptions are based on illogical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from illogical conclusions they have.

Yes--but the assumptions based on illogical conclusions are thrown out.

For Faith, logic is thrown out to save it!!

Of course it is. By definition, faith are beliefs which are ideas we hold for something which has no proof.

It always cracks me up when self-described atheists try to use the logic argument against the existence of a deity and here is why: Atheists claim there is no deity, none. There is no proof that a deity exists, but there is also no proof that a deity does not exist. An atheist's claim that a deity does not exist is just as much a belief (an idea held for which there is no proof) as a believer's. Thus, it is just as illogical as the claim that a believer's belief in a deity is.

Therefore, the logic argument is ironic to me. It's funny.

First Si--

the arguement I made was not for or against a God, but against the purpose of the Religion given the definition of a God that Defies logic.

That is a significant difference than "Proving god exists or not" which is what you are suggesting.

The God could exist. Just that the religion that purposes it is unnecessary or bogus. I was pointing out that an arguement using the Abrahamic God to show that God is an impossibility is a waste of time. The question of an Abramic God based on the religious claims leads to absurdities because the justification of the religion is absurd. There is no way to make a case for or against the GOD using the religions claims. Thus the question of a Abrahamic God existance becomes unverifiable. There is no measurement nor claim that can justify or deny it.

 

[Si modo]

Yes--but the assumptions based on illogical conclusions are thrown out.

For Faith, logic is thrown out to save it!!

Of course it is. By definition, faith are beliefs which are ideas we hold for something which has no proof.

It always cracks me up when self-described atheists try to use the logic argument against the existence of a deity and here is why: Atheists claim there is no deity, none. There is no proof that a deity exists, but there is also no proof that a deity does not exist. An atheist's claim that a deity does not exist is just as much a belief (an idea held for which there is no proof) as a believer's. Thus, it is just as illogical as the claim that a believer's belief in a deity is.

Therefore, the logic argument is ironic to me. It's funny.

First Si--

the arguement I made was not for or against a God, but against the purpose of the Religion given the definition of a God that Defies logic.

That is a significant difference than "Proving god exists or not" which is what you are suggesting.

The God could exist. Just that the religion that purposes it is unnecessary or bogus. I was pointing out that an arguement using the Abrahamic God to show that God is an impossibility is a waste of time. The question of an Abramic God based on the religious claims leads to absurdities because the justification of the religion is absurd. There is no way to make a case for or against the GOD using the religions claims. Thus the question of a Abrahamic God existance becomes unverifiable. There is no measurement nor claim that can justify or deny it.

Actually, you said, "For Faith, logic is thrown out to save it!!"

You said nothing about religion in that to qualify it in any manner.

Anyway, atheists who use logic as an argument that a deity does not exist, make me laugh because there is no logic in that argument, as I said.

 

[MajikMyst]

Faith and assumptions can be true. Faith and assumptions can be false.

Some assumptions are based on logical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from logical conclusions they have.

Some assumptions are based on illogical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from illogical conclusions they have.

Yes--but the assumptions based on illogical conclusions are thrown out.

For Faith, logic is thrown out to save it!!

Of course it is. By definition, faith are beliefs which are ideas we hold for something which has no proof.

It always cracks me up when self-described atheists try to use the logic argument against the existence of a deity and here is why: Atheists claim there is no deity, none. There is no proof that a deity exists, but there is also no proof that a deity does not exist. An atheist's claim that a deity does not exist is just as much a belief (an idea held for which there is no proof) as a believer's. Thus, it is just as illogical as the claim that a believer's belief in a deity is.

Therefore, the logic argument is ironic to me. It's funny.

Actually your logic is somewhat flawed.. 'There is NO proof that god does NOT exist..' That is the double negative and in itself is a flawed and moot point.. Nobody should demand that someone prove something doesn't exist.. It doesn't exist by default until proven it does exist.. Any lack of evidence supporting the existence in turn proves the non existence.. The fact that man kind can't prove god does exist, proves that he doesn't exist..

The OP wasn't so much about god as it was about the Chrsitian definition of god.. It was to point out that their very definition makes god impossible.. God is perfect and all knowing and all seeing.. Since god created us and only perfection can come from perfection, god is not perfect as we are sinners.. Free will was the mistake.. All knowing?? Where did god learn all this and was there a time when he didn't know something?? If he knows how the great universal experiement is gonig to end then why do it in the first place and create the universe?? What did he god do before he created the universe?? Why did he create it in the first place? Did he wake up with a wild hair up his ass and decide to create all this and watch us toil around for thousands of years? In the chrsitian sense.. God is impossible..

 

[amrchaos]

Of course it is. By definition, faith are beliefs which are ideas we hold for something which has no proof.

It always cracks me up when self-described atheists try to use the logic argument against the existence of a deity and here is why: Atheists claim there is no deity, none. There is no proof that a deity exists, but there is also no proof that a deity does not exist. An atheist's claim that a deity does not exist is just as much a belief (an idea held for which there is no proof) as a believer's. Thus, it is just as illogical as the claim that a believer's belief in a deity is.

Therefore, the logic argument is ironic to me. It's funny.

First Si--

the arguement I made was not for or against a God, but against the purpose of the Religion given the definition of a God that Defies logic.

That is a significant difference than "Proving god exists or not" which is what you are suggesting.

The God could exist. Just that the religion that purposes it is unnecessary or bogus. I was pointing out that an arguement using the Abrahamic God to show that God is an impossibility is a waste of time. The question of an Abramic God based on the religious claims leads to absurdities because the justification of the religion is absurd. There is no way to make a case for or against the GOD using the religions claims. Thus the question of a Abrahamic God existance becomes unverifiable. There is no measurement nor claim that can justify or deny it.

Actually, you said, "For Faith, logic is thrown out to save it!!"

You said nothing about religion in that to qualify it in any manner.

Anyway, atheists who use logic as an argument that a deity does not exist, make me laugh because there is no logic in that argument, as I said.

Well, if you believe in a God that defies logic, then that is up to you Si.

The only problem with this is that the Faith, in order to justify itself, has to throw out logic to save itself. Maybe I am confusing Faith and Religion. OH WAIT--FAITH IS RELIGION, there is no need to quallify it!

 

[Diuretic]

Faith and assumptions can be true. Faith and assumptions can be false.

Some assumptions are based on logical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from logical conclusions they have.

Some assumptions are based on illogical conclusions one draws, and some people's faith comes from illogical conclusions they have.

Yes--but the assumptions based on illogical conclusions are thrown out.

For Faith, logic is thrown out to save it!!

Of course it is. By definition, faith are beliefs which are ideas we hold for something which has no proof.

It always cracks me up when self-described atheists try to use the logic argument against the existence of a deity and here is why: Atheists claim there is no deity, none. There is no proof that a deity exists, but there is also no proof that a deity does not exist. An atheist's claim that a deity does not exist is just as much a belief (an idea held for which there is no proof) as a believer's. Thus, it is just as illogical as the claim that a believer's belief in a deity is.

Therefore, the logic argument is ironic to me. It's funny.

It's as funny as using logic, a mental exercise, to prove God exists. The fact is that we don't know, can't prove and are left simply to believe or disbelieve or accept that we can't know.