I think I've done it: a logical disproof of god!

[ImprobableJoe]

Well let's take a look at what the substance that christians would posit would be:

-impossible to detect via any of our senses (otherwise the absence of evidence argument doesn't work)
-Is within view of everything in the universe, or at least everything on earth (otherwise could not be omniscient)
-Has the ability to influence our universe (this is a given for him to have created it)

My point is that you cannot have all three properties at once. If he is everywhere in the universe and yet we cannot detect him, whatever substance he is made of does not disturb energy and thus cannot interact with matter (or observe it for that matter).

He could also be omnipresent and have the ability to influence our universe, but in that case we would be able to detect him, and since we haven't we can determine that this is not the case.

The only other option is that he is not omnipresent and thus is too far away for us to detect. In this case, he would not be able to influence us specifically because his influence could not exceed the speed of light, and he would not be able to observe us for the same reason.

So, as I said before, whatever substance they come up with for such a god, it cannot be involved in our lives and be undetectable at the same time.

You're pretty well married to your logical fallacies, aren't you? :facepalm: You do realize that we're trying to be helpful here, right?

You haven't exhausted all options, which is why you're wrong here. It could be something that manifests to everyone but you, in ways that are just really really hard for anyone to detect. You can't say for sure, you can't logically rule things out in a universal fashion. Scientists have suggested(not asserted) that there might be other universes, that we cannot in any way detect. If they cannot be detected, and cannot influence our universe, they might as well not exist. There's a big gap between "might as well not exist" and "cannot possibly exist" that you simply can't make a logical leap to. You're just wrong here.

 

[g-off]

Well let's take a look at what the substance that christians would posit would be:

-impossible to detect via any of our senses (otherwise the absence of evidence argument doesn't work)
-Is within view of everything in the universe, or at least everything on earth (otherwise could not be omniscient)
-Has the ability to influence our universe (this is a given for him to have created it)

My point is that you cannot have all three properties at once. If he is everywhere in the universe and yet we cannot detect him, whatever substance he is made of does not disturb energy and thus cannot interact with matter (or observe it for that matter).

He could also be omnipresent and have the ability to influence our universe, but in that case we would be able to detect him, and since we haven't we can determine that this is not the case.

The only other option is that he is not omnipresent and thus is too far away for us to detect. In this case, he would not be able to influence us specifically because his influence could not exceed the speed of light, and he would not be able to observe us for the same reason.

So, as I said before, whatever substance they come up with for such a god, it cannot be involved in our lives and be undetectable at the same time.

You're pretty well married to your logical fallacies, aren't you? :facepalm: You do realize that we're trying to be helpful here, right?

You haven't exhausted all options, which is why you're wrong here. It could be something that manifests to everyone but you, in ways that are just really really hard for anyone to detect. You can't say for sure, you can't logically rule things out in a universal fashion. Scientists have suggested(not asserted) that there might be other universes, that we cannot in any way detect. If they cannot be detected, and cannot influence our universe, they might as well not exist. There's a big gap between "might as well not exist" and "cannot possibly exist" that you simply can't make a logical leap to. You're just wrong here.

Notice I'm not saying cannot possibly exist. I said "is irrelevant" in other words "might as well not exist." Of course, this does prove that god as posited by christians cannot possibly exist, but it shows all gods to be irrelevant.

 

[Netheralian]

My point is that you cannot have all three properties at once. If he is everywhere in the universe and yet we cannot detect him, whatever substance he is made of does not disturb energy and thus cannot interact with matter (or observe it for that matter).

God is supposed to be omnipotent. He doesn't need obey any physical laws of our universe. He can both have all three properties at once as well as none of them. Logic that is consistent with our universe doesn't need apply (and quite obviously isn't applied by any believer in God - but that's irrelevant)

He could also be omnipresent and have the ability to influence our universe, but in that case we would be able to detect him, and since we haven't we can determine that this is not the case.

Why? He could do any number of things, including editing himself out of the data in realtime. He is of course omnipotent.

The only other option is that he is not omnipresent and thus is too far away for us to detect. In this case, he would not be able to influence us specifically because his influence could not exceed the speed of light, and he would not be able to observe us for the same reason.

False Dichotomy.

So, as I said before, whatever substance they come up with for such a god, it cannot be involved in our lives and be undetectable at the same time.

Your just not using your imagination enough by insisting that reality is consistent in all conceivable manifestations...

Of course the issue I have is that whilst I have completely refuted your arguments, I have added a total value of zero to whatever question your are ultimately asking. So lets go back to focussing on what we can know, not what we can't (which is infinite)...

 

[Netheralian]

Notice I'm not saying cannot possibly exist. I said "is irrelevant" in other words "might as well not exist." Of course, this does prove that god as posited by christians cannot possibly exist, but it shows all gods to be irrelevant.

God as posited by Christians was logically disproved by Epicurus (and probably others earlier) 2300 years ago. Ironic that it was before Christianity even existed...

 

[Nogre]

To make it simple, it's circular, going like this: When scientists explain the world, they interpret all evidence through physical mechanisms. So all theories are explained through physical mechanisms. And because all theories are purely based on physical mechanims, the non-physical doesn't exist. Scientists assume that the non-physical doesn't exist at the very beginning.

Please explain why your argument isn't circular in the way I've described it above. And no one here is going to defend the Christian god. Most of us agree that every god posited by religions doesn't exist. We simply don't think that you've proven that no god can exist (or is completely irrelevant if one does).

 

[borrofburi]

simply observing things disturbs their wavelengths.

This is an incorrect understanding of what "observe" means in quantum mechanics.

the point is that any interaction with matter leaves evidence. Either god exists and does interact with matter but hasn't done it here yet, or he exists and cannot interact with matter. Or he doesn't exist at all. None of these allow him to have created us.

Uh, first, it is an assumption that any interaction with matter leaves evidence. Second, you make a great leap from "it leaves evidence" to "it leaves evidence we could detect".

-impossible to detect via any of our senses (otherwise the absence of evidence argument doesn't work)
-Is within view of everything in the universe, or at least everything on earth (otherwise could not be omniscient)
-Has the ability to influence our universe (this is a given for him to have created it)

My point is that you cannot have all three properties at once. If he is everywhere in the universe and yet we cannot detect him, whatever substance he is made of does not disturb energy and thus cannot interact with matter (or observe it for that matter).

First, your first criteria is incorrect: it doesn't have to be impossible to detect, we just have to not yet be able to detect it (I mean, by similar logic x-rays didn't exist 500 years ago because we couldn't detect them yet) i.e. impossible for us to detect is a far cry from impossible to detect.

Second, Mr. Sphere in flatland had all three qualities; I suggest you read that book, it will help you with thinking about higher dimensions. But the primary point I want to make here is that he doesn't have to be omnipresent, just existing in a higher dimension with some good technology and understanding of humans and he would fit all 3 of your "impossible" qualities.

He could also be omnipresent and have the ability to influence our universe, but in that case we would be able to detect him, and since we haven't we can determine that this is not the case.

I see no justification for your claim that "we would be able to detect him", but I suppose I'm repeating myself now.

 

[g-off]

My point is that you cannot have all three properties at once. If he is everywhere in the universe and yet we cannot detect him, whatever substance he is made of does not disturb energy and thus cannot interact with matter (or observe it for that matter).

God is supposed to be omnipotent. He doesn't need obey any physical laws of our universe. He can both have all three properties at once as well as none of them. Logic that is consistent with our universe doesn't need apply (and quite obviously isn't applied by any believer in God - but that's irrelevant)

He could also be omnipresent and have the ability to influence our universe, but in that case we would be able to detect him, and since we haven't we can determine that this is not the case.

Why? He could do any number of things, including editing himself out of the data in realtime. He is of course omnipotent.

The only other option is that he is not omnipresent and thus is too far away for us to detect. In this case, he would not be able to influence us specifically because his influence could not exceed the speed of light, and he would not be able to observe us for the same reason.

False Dichotomy.

So, as I said before, whatever substance they come up with for such a god, it cannot be involved in our lives and be undetectable at the same time.

Your just not using your imagination enough by insisting that reality is consistent in all conceivable manifestations...

Of course the issue I have is that whilst I have completely refuted your arguments, I have added a total value of zero to whatever question your are ultimately asking. So lets go back to focussing on what we can know, not what we can't (which is infinite)...

but all of your answers come back to unexplained omnipotence. In other words, magic. Magic is not allowed in reasoned arguments.

 

[borrofburi]

but all of your answers come back to unexplained omnipotence. In other words, magic. Magic is not allowed in reasoned arguments.

You're the one who came here claiming to have logically disproved magic...

 

[g-off]

but all of your answers come back to unexplained omnipotence. In other words, magic. Magic is not allowed in reasoned arguments.

You're the one who came here claiming to have logically disproved magic...

just proven that the immaterial is irrelevant. Just saying he can do anything without qualification is stupid. Can he do the logically impossible (IE microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?) if that's not the case, then he cannot do everything conceivable, now can he? Omnipotence is self-contradictory and impossible, so don't even try to use it in an argument, even a hypothetical one.

 

[Netheralian]

just proven that the immaterial is irrelevant. Just saying he can do anything without qualification is stupid. Can he do the logically impossible (IE microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?) if that's not the case, then he cannot do everything conceivable, now can he? Omnipotence is self-contradictory and impossible, so don't even try to use it in an argument, even a hypothetical one.

Who are you trying to convince? A bunch of Atheists that don't believe in God to begin with, or a bunch of Christians that have no grasp of reality anyway? Why do you think that they will follow your rules?

 

[borrofburi]

You're the one who came here claiming to have logically disproved magic...

just proven that the immaterial is irrelevant. Just saying he can do anything without qualification is stupid. Can he do the logically impossible (IE microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?) if that's not the case, then he cannot do everything conceivable, now can he? Omnipotence is self-contradictory and impossible, so don't even try to use it in an argument, even a hypothetical one.

First, you have not proven it is irrelevant. Second, your original post basically claims magic as irrelevant and then you use it to claim a disproof of god (you might as well just claim god is irrelevant and then use that to "disprove" god). And third, not once have I had to claim omnipotence (or indeed even magic) to posit beings that satisfy your various rules (that you claim can not all be satisfied at once). [although I think perhaps at this point we should define magic, for any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to be magic to us]

And of course Netheralian makes a good point, why on earth do you think christians/theists/religious-people/spiritual-people, etc. are going to play by your rules?

And finally, please stop alluding to the idea that absence of evidence is proof of absence, it's not. While I will certainly agree that it is evidence of absence, that is in no way "logical disproof of god", and is more accurately described by "good reason not to believe in god" for it is neither a purely logical argument (because evidence is an appeal to reality) nor a proof/disproof (because it can never be 100% certain). [also if that's all you're going for, then I can sum up the entire argument in a single sentence: "where's the evidence?" or "I will not believe until you provide me with convincing evidence"]

 

[ImprobableJoe]

g-off,

You don't seem to understand that we're not creationists, and most of us aren't theists either. We agree with your ideas in general, but unlike creationists we won't just accept weak arguments because we agree with the conclusions. If you can't convince us, who are heavily weighted towards agreeing with you, then your arguments surely won't stand up to creationist attacks.

 

[g-off]

okay, I concede that perhaps the argument is not as sound as I thought it was HOWEVER

If string theory holds true, then it will be sound. Because string theory entails that space and time are composed of the same substance as matter and energy, we can reason that anything not made of that substance (the immaterial) exists in a completely different set of dimensions that are totally incompatible with our own. All this argument needs to be conclusive is for string theory to be proven.

 

[borrofburi]

okay, I concede that perhaps the argument is not as sound as I thought it was HOWEVER

If string theory holds true, then it will be sound. Because string theory entails that space and time are composed of the same substance as matter and energy, we can reason that anything not made of that substance (the immaterial) exists in a completely different set of dimensions that are totally incompatible with our own. All this argument needs to be conclusive is for string theory to be proven.

No, because, again, you must necessarily assume complete and perfect knowledge for any argument from evidence to be a proof of absence. Or, in short, posteriori knowledge can never "disprove" anything.

 

[g-off]

okay, I concede that perhaps the argument is not as sound as I thought it was HOWEVER

If string theory holds true, then it will be sound. Because string theory entails that space and time are composed of the same substance as matter and energy, we can reason that anything not made of that substance (the immaterial) exists in a completely different set of dimensions that are totally incompatible with our own. All this argument needs to be conclusive is for string theory to be proven.

No, because, again, you must necessarily assume complete and perfect knowledge for any argument from evidence to be a proof of absence. Or, in short, posteriori knowledge can never "disprove" anything.

It doesn't disprove it. it simply would prove that god could not interact with our universe if he were made of a different substance from matter. unless of course there is some way for something that doesn't even experience time or have any volume or mass to interact with and comprehend our universe.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It doesn't disprove it. it simply would prove that god could not interact with our universe if he were made of a different substance from matter. unless of course there is some way for something that doesn't even experience time or have any volume or mass to interact with and comprehend our universe.

...which there could be. No, it doesn't make any sense, but it is still true. You can't ever get to the point that you can disprove something that is supposed to be able to twist natural laws to suit its needs.

 

[nemesiss]

before you waste alot more time proving a negative, id advise you to watch this video...



you shouldn't make arguments why he can't exist, you should make extremely clear arguments how christians can proof god.

for example:

show me your god, so i may know him. bring him forth!
if he doesnt want to show him, explain how we can force himself to show himself.
if he doesnt want to come to us, we need to go to him
if he doesn't want us near him, well hunt him down.
if he runs, we track him down!

 

[g-off]

It doesn't disprove it. it simply would prove that god could not interact with our universe if he were made of a different substance from matter. unless of course there is some way for something that doesn't even experience time or have any volume or mass to interact with and comprehend our universe.

...which there could be. No, it doesn't make any sense, but it is still true. You can't ever get to the point that you can disprove something that is supposed to be able to twist natural laws to suit its needs.

so what you're saying is that this argument won't fly as long as people are willing to believe something that flys in the face of all evidence and logical sense?

God fucking damnit I hate the religious mindset.

 

[Netheralian]

so what you're saying is that this argument won't fly as long as people are willing to believe something that flys in the face of all evidence and logical sense?

And your surprised because...?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

so what you're saying is that this argument won't fly as long as people are willing to believe something that flys in the face of all evidence and logical sense?

God fucking damnit I hate the religious mindset.

Not JUST that, but that's a big part of it. It also won't fly too far as long as the person listening to you is willing to admit that they, and you, don't know everything.

Yeah, I know it is frustrating. Better you get over it now, so you can turn all that energy you have towards a more useful line of attack... like mockery.