What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Universe?

[phantomkirby]

An interesting concept of god has arisen to my attention while debating with someone on a random forum.

Can god defy logic?
(Now if anyone has a better word to replace what I mean by "logic", then please tell me)

Can god defy logic/natural laws of the universe?
Let's just take the Christian god as an example.

Jesus walked on water.
Now of course, the water molecules that make the water would not permit anyone with a bigger density actually "walking on it". Some people might say that this is a contradiction of god/jesus.
Now let's take this scenario and say that it wasn't contradictory and say that god defies logic/the natural laws of the universe.
Now it makes sense. Jesus can walk on water because he does not follow the laws of the universe.

But here's where it gets tricky. What happens when you do not follow the natural/physical laws of the universe? Well, technically you are not part of the universe.
Does that mean Jesus and god are not part of the universe?
Something cannot be in the universe while not being part of the universe.
But then... god defies logic and reasoning and the natural laws of the universe, so he CAN do those things in this scenario.

Scenario 2-
Logistically, god can be omnipotent if he can defy logic.
The famous question "can god create a rock that he cannot lift?" could be answered if god defied logic.
That means he can be omnipotent yet still create a rock he cannot lift.
That sounds illogical, but the thing is is that god could defy logic.

.................................
Now, this is just saying for the judeo-christian god.
So, this type of thinking can say that anything we know as "supernatural" can actually exist/is possible, right?
This is all purely hypothetical, but does this actually mean that there is a slim slim chance of god (even the judeo-christna god) existing?

Now before anyone calls the "unfalsifiable" card, and how this cannot be proven or disproven... the fact of the matter is that there is a chance.

So any intelligent atheists out there (which is the most of you), please take all of this topic seriously and discuss about it. I mostly want to see how you guys would counter-argue this "god defies logic, etc." thing.

 

[Lurking_Logic]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

So, this type of thinking can say that anything we know as "supernatural" can actually exist/is possible, right?
This is all purely hypothetical, but does this actually mean that there is a slim slim chance of god (even the judeo-christna god) existing?

Yes and No
Yes I suppose if this is how you want to define God then really it will be hard to argue against
but is such a God really coherent?
I mean you are using logic to define the illogical
Something outside of Logic

the thing with the walking on water if we found God was real and Jesus did it etc
Then it was never impossible
God cannot do what is logically impossible
If God exists then it was simply that walking on water is not impossible
The variable missing was God

if God can do it then it was never impossible just highly improbable

 

[phantomkirby]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

So, this type of thinking can say that anything we know as "supernatural" can actually exist/is possible, right?
This is all purely hypothetical, but does this actually mean that there is a slim slim chance of god (even the judeo-christna god) existing?

Yes and No
Yes I suppose if this is how you want to define God then really it will be hard to argue against
but is such a God really coherent?
I mean you are using logic to define the illogical
Something outside of Logic

the thing with the walking on water if we found God was real and Jesus did it etc
Then it was never impossible
God cannot do what is logically impossible
If God exists then it was simply that walking on water is not impossible
The variable missing was God

if God can do it then it was never impossible just highly improbable

"coherent- marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts; "a coherent argument""
I know this sort of seems like a really stupid logic, but what I'm going to say is is that this type of "defies logic" god can and cannot be coherent/logical at the same time, just like how I explained "god can both lift and not lift the unliftable rock".

And even if I am using logic to explain god's illogical/defies logic property, it doesn't mean that my concept of god is purely illogical. What I'm trying to say is, is that he can do logical things and illogical things. This type of god. He can go outside the realms of logic and not be bound by the laws of the universe, yet still exist.
I'm getting confused myself... could you please explain more on your part?

And also I agree with you on your last part. If Jesus and all of that stuff was real, then that means it wasn't impossible. Just highly improbable. Which means it IS possible.
Or take it this way. It's impossible for the universe, but not impossible for Jesus and god?

EDIT: (This, and a few other things are reasons as to why I'm an AGNOSTIC atheist and not just an atheist... just saying O_O)

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

Can god defy logic?

No. The thing is, logic is just a tool. It's like the laws of the universe. The universe doesn't actually require those laws ot operate, the laws just describe the way the universe does operate. In the same vein, logic is our way of avoiding contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental. It isn't a property of logic, it's a property of reality. Logical absolutes are absolute. Something cannot be what it is and what it isn't at the same time. For example, a rock can't be not a rock.

Can god defy logic/natural laws of the universe?

These are two different things. The laws of the universe are, as I stated, our mathematical description of the operational parameters of the universe. Logic is how we arrive at them, along with observation. So, if a deity exists, then there is no reason that it couldn't defy the natural laws of the universe. Indeed, that's kind of built in to the definition (if ever one is actually presented). However; it could not defy logic. It could not be what it is and what it isn't at the same time.

Let's just take the Christian god as an example.

Good choice, because we can demolish that particular conception of god by simple reference to the book of wibble that allegedly describes said entity:

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

Contradictory attributes refute the existence of such a being, because it is insisting that it be what it is and what it isn't at the same time.

Jesus walked on water.
Now of course, the water molecules that make the water would not permit anyone with a bigger density actually "walking on it". Some people might say that this is a contradiction of god/jesus.

Check out the principles of fluid dynamics, and specifically the concept of a 'non-Newtonian fluid'. Water isn't such a fluid, of course, but a deity could make it behave like one fairly easily, I should think. Further, given a small enough mass, surface tension would be sufficient. Not saying it happened, of course, because it almost certainly didn't, but there you go.

Now let's take this scenario and say that it wasn't contradictory and say that god defies logic/the natural laws of the universe.

Again, these are different things. The laws of the universe are not absolute, while logical absolutes are.

Now it makes sense. Jesus can walk on water because he does not follow the laws of the universe.

The problem there is that, once you posit an entity that can defy the operational parameters of the universe, you are positing a universe that can't be predicted.

But here's where it gets tricky. What happens when you do not follow the natural/physical laws of the universe? Well, technically you are not part of the universe.

Non-sequitur. This does not follow. There is nothing to preclude an entity existing in the universe while not being subservient to its operational parameters.

Does that mean Jesus and god are not part of the universe?
Something cannot be in the universe while not being part of the universe.

It's worse than that. The universe is literally 'that which is', which means that whatever exists is a subset of the universe. Note that the way I am applying the word 'universe' is in its rigorous sense, not 'that which arose from the big bang'.

But then... god defies logic and reasoning and the natural laws of the universe, so he CAN do those things in this scenario.

Except that logical absolutes are absolute. See above.

Logistically,

I think you might be using that word incorrectly. Logistics is 'moving things around', loosely speaking.

god can be omnipotent if he can defy logic.

It's a good job he can't, then, because logical absolutes are absolute.

The famous question "can god create a rock that he cannot lift?" could be answered if god defied logic.
That means he can be omnipotent yet still create a rock he cannot lift.
That sounds illogical, but the thing is is that god could defy logic.

Except, of course, that this constitutes a true dichotomy, which means that only one of them can be true. Either he can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or he can lift it. Being able to do both requires that he be something that he is and something that he isn't, all at the same time. Either way, he can't be omnipotent, because there is something he can't do. This doesn't even rest on a requirement to do something illogical. Can he commit suicide? I can, which means that I possess a power that he doesn't. Any power that I possess must be logically possessed by an entity with 'all power', so if I can do something it can't, it can't be omnipotent. The concept of omnipotence is self-refuting, because it's simply absurd.

Now, this is just saying for the judeo-christian god.
So, this type of thinking can say that anything we know as "supernatural" can actually exist/is possible, right?
This is all purely hypothetical, but does this actually mean that there is a slim slim chance of god (even the judeo-christna god) existing?

No, because if it exists, it's part of the universe, therefore natural. The supernatural cannot exist, by definition, because existence is natural, however you slice it.

Now before anyone calls the "unfalsifiable" card, and how this cannot be proven or disproven... the fact of the matter is that there is a chance.

I wasn't even going to address unfalsifiability, which is pretty irrelevant here, because falsifiability is a metric for determining the scientificity of something, while we're only addressing the logical possibility of something which, in this case, is non-existent.

So any intelligent atheists out there (which is the most of you), please take all of this topic seriously and discuss about it. I mostly want to see how you guys would counter-argue this "god defies logic, etc." thing.

Easily done. Logical absolutes are absolute.

 

[lrkun]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

You are assuming that God exists (Christian God).

The subsequent arguments relies heavily on the above.

No matter how reasonable the subsequent arguments are, so long as the first assumption is not proven to be so, it only follows that the succeeding arguments have no ground to stand on.

-oOo-
I. Suggestions

1. Define chance as you use it in this argument?
2. Change logic with reality.
3. Define the nature of the Christian God
-oOo-

Interesting argument. ^-^

 

[phantomkirby]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

Can god defy logic?

No. The thing is, logic is just a tool. It's like the laws of the universe. The universe doesn't actually require those laws ot operate, the laws just describe the way the universe does operate. In the same vein, logic is our way of avoiding contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental. It isn't a property of logic, it's a property of reality. Logical absolutes are absolute. Something cannot be what it is and what it isn't at the same time. For example, a rock can't be not a rock.

Can god defy logic/natural laws of the universe?

These are two different things. The laws of the universe are, as I stated, our mathematical description of the operational parameters of the universe. Logic is how we arrive at them, along with observation. So, if a deity exists, then there is no reason that it couldn't defy the natural laws of the universe. Indeed, that's kind of built in to the definition (if ever one is actually presented). However; it could not defy logic. It could not be what it is and what it isn't at the same time.

Let's just take the Christian god as an example.

Good choice, because we can demolish that particular conception of god by simple reference to the book of wibble that allegedly describes said entity:

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

Contradictory attributes refute the existence of such a being, because it is insisting that it be what it is and what it isn't at the same time.

Jesus walked on water.
Now of course, the water molecules that make the water would not permit anyone with a bigger density actually "walking on it". Some people might say that this is a contradiction of god/jesus.

Check out the principles of fluid dynamics, and specifically the concept of a 'non-Newtonian fluid'. Water isn't such a fluid, of course, but a deity could make it behave like one fairly easily, I should think. Further, given a small enough mass, surface tension would be sufficient. Not saying it happened, of course, because it almost certainly didn't, but there you go.

Now let's take this scenario and say that it wasn't contradictory and say that god defies logic/the natural laws of the universe.

Again, these are different things. The laws of the universe are not absolute, while logical absolutes are.

Now it makes sense. Jesus can walk on water because he does not follow the laws of the universe.

The problem there is that, once you posit an entity that can defy the operational parameters of the universe, you are positing a universe that can't be predicted.

But here's where it gets tricky. What happens when you do not follow the natural/physical laws of the universe? Well, technically you are not part of the universe.

Non-sequitur. This does not follow. There is nothing to preclude an entity existing in the universe while not being subservient to its operational parameters.

Does that mean Jesus and god are not part of the universe?
Something cannot be in the universe while not being part of the universe.

It's worse than that. The universe is literally 'that which is', which means that whatever exists is a subset of the universe. Note that the way I am applying the word 'universe' is in its rigorous sense, not 'that which arose from the big bang'.

But then... god defies logic and reasoning and the natural laws of the universe, so he CAN do those things in this scenario.

Except that logical absolutes are absolute. See above.

Logistically,

I think you might be using that word incorrectly. Logistics is 'moving things around', loosely speaking.

god can be omnipotent if he can defy logic.

It's a good job he can't, then, because logical absolutes are absolute.

The famous question "can god create a rock that he cannot lift?" could be answered if god defied logic.
That means he can be omnipotent yet still create a rock he cannot lift.
That sounds illogical, but the thing is is that god could defy logic.

Except, of course, that this constitutes a true dichotomy, which means that only one of them can be true. Either he can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or he can lift it. Being able to do both requires that he be something that he is and something that he isn't, all at the same time. Either way, he can't be omnipotent, because there is something he can't do. This doesn't even rest on a requirement to do something illogical. Can he commit suicide? I can, which means that I possess a power that he doesn't. Any power that I possess must be logically possessed by an entity with 'all power', so if I can do something it can't, it can't be omnipotent. The concept of omnipotence is self-refuting, because it's simply absurd.

Now, this is just saying for the judeo-christian god.
So, this type of thinking can say that anything we know as "supernatural" can actually exist/is possible, right?
This is all purely hypothetical, but does this actually mean that there is a slim slim chance of god (even the judeo-christna god) existing?

No, because if it exists, it's part of the universe, therefore natural. The supernatural cannot exist, by definition, because existence is natural, however you slice it.

Now before anyone calls the "unfalsifiable" card, and how this cannot be proven or disproven... the fact of the matter is that there is a chance.

I wasn't even going to address unfalsifiability, which is pretty irrelevant here, because falsifiability is a metric for determining the scientificity of something, while we're only addressing the logical possibility of something which, in this case, is non-existent.

So any intelligent atheists out there (which is the most of you), please take all of this topic seriously and discuss about it. I mostly want to see how you guys would counter-argue this "god defies logic, etc." thing.

Easily done. Logical absolutes are absolute.

I was confused for a second when I thought of this "god defying logic" god. Thanks

But could you explain more about absolute logic? In one of those league of reason shows, andromedaswake talked about nothing was absolute. Not even scienitific observations, or reality. So what makes logic absolute?

"No, because if it exists, it's part of the universe, therefore natural. The supernatural cannot exist, by definition, because existence is natural, however you slice it."
I'm really sorry if I'm not really "going by the definition of the actual word" here... but when I say supernatural, I mean, can something that is not of this universe exist within the universe and be unpredictable and/or follow another set of laws? Maybe we haven't found it yet?

And about the "unfalsifiable card"...
Maybe they should make a new word for talking about things like this. What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't use the card in which you say "even though you're talking about this hypothetically, it cannot be proven or disproven".

 

[phantomkirby]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

You are assuming that God exists (Christian God).

The subsequent arguments relies heavily on the above.

No matter how reasonable the subsequent arguments are, so long as the first assumption is not proven to be so, it only follows that the succeeding arguments have no ground to stand on.

-oOo-
I. Suggestions

1. Define chance as you use it in this argument?
2. Change logic with reality.
3. Define the nature of the Christian God
-oOo-

Interesting argument. ^-^

Chance as in... since from when I posted the original post, I didn't see anyway to prove or disprove this "god who defies logic, reasoning, & the laws of the universe", I thought that that means that there is a chance?

I think I've already implied about reality by talking about the laws of the universe? Or and I misinterpreting what you're saying? :S

The christian god is (apparently)-
omnipotent
omniscience
omnipresent
omnibenevolent
Topple my original post with these four characteristics. I actually encourage everyone to do so because... well it sort of stumped me to say the least

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

But could you explain more about absolute logic? In one of those league of reason shows, andromedaswake talked about nothing was absolute. Not even scienitific observations, or reality. So what makes logic absolute?

I suspect that AW was talking about something else here. He was probably saying something like 'we cannot state with absolute certainty that all our observations in the future will yield the same results', which is basically a statement of Hume's problem of induction, and goes to why science doesn't deal in proof, only in evidence. However; when talking about logical absolutes, we are talking about something definitional. For example, when we talk about a circle, we can say with absolute certainty that there cannot be a circle that has flat sides. That is an absolute, and will stand up to any test, because the definition of a circle is that it cannot have flat sides.

In logic, we are talking about a similar principle. Logic itself, like circles, only enjoys a platonic existence, which is to say that, like mathematics, the rules are absolute. Logic is, again like mathematics, an axiomatic system, with axioms that are absolute. I doubt that AW would argue with this. Among those absolutes is the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot be what it is and what it is not simultaneously. This is so obvious as to be almost tautological. Something can be more than one thing at once, like your phone that is also a camera, but it can't be a phone and not a phone at the same time.

I'm really sorry if I'm not really "going by the definition of the actual word" here... but when I say supernatural, I mean, can something that is not of this universe exist within the universe and be unpredictable and/or follow another set of laws? Maybe we haven't found it yet?

No, because the universe is all that exists. Therefore, if something exists, it is part of the universe. This isn't a matter of finding something or not, it's definitional.

And about the "unfalsifiable card"...
Maybe they should make a new word for talking about things like this. What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't use the card in which you say "even though you're talking about this hypothetically, it cannot be proven or disproven".

That is what unfalsifiable means, so we have a perfectly servicable word.

It should also be noted that the word 'prove' is entirely out of place here. Science doesn't do 'proof'. Proof is restricted to mathematics (although it can be used as a principle in logic). Proof is an axiomatic construct, and only in a case where you have an axioomatically complete system can proof really apply. Incidentally, the word 'prove' originally meant 'test', hence the phrase 'the exception proves the rule'. This phrase doesn't mean that an exception shows a rule to be true, because that would be ridiculous. Any exception demonstrates that a rule is not a rule, but more of a guideline. When viewed in its original context, the phrase makes perfect sense. Applied in the modern vernacular, it's a complete oxymoron.

Chance as in... since from when I posted the original post, I didn't see anyway to prove or disprove this "god who defies logic, reasoning, & the laws of the universe", I thought that that means that there is a chance?

There is a chance that a deity exists, but there is absolutely no chance that this deity is the christian god, or any of the Abrahamic formulations. That particular fuckwit cannot exist, for reasons already stated.

The christian god is (apparently)-
omnipotent
omniscience

Well, apart from the fact that the first is self-refuting (read up), these two characteristics are mutually exclusive. Can god do something that he didn't know he'd do? If not, he isn't omnipotent. If he can, then he isn't omniscient.

omnipresent

This is less problematic, although it should be noted that anything that is 'everywhere' should have been spotted by now. That's not a strong argument, especially given what we postulate to exist that we haven't actually detected, but it serves well enough for the moment.

omnibenevolent

Well, this one is usually dealt with by invocation of the so-called 'problem of evil'. I have little truck with that, not least because I am of the opinion that 'evil' is entirely without utility as a concept, and is indeed detrimental to proper thought. I've never come across a definition of evil that wasn't predicated on the existence and whim of some species of celestial peeping-tom, and no definition that was actually coherent in any way. However; any entity postulated to care for us and to be omnibenevolent at the same time, is refuted once again by the law of non-contradiction. The simple fact that nature is 'red in tooth and claw' demolishes claims to the existence of such an entity.

Topple my original post with these four characteristics. I actually encourage everyone to do so because... well it sort of stumped me to say the least

I did.

 

[phantomkirby]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

I suspect that AW was talking about something else here. He was probably saying something like 'we cannot state with absolute certainty that all our observations in the future will yield the same results', which is basically a statement of Hume's problem of induction, and goes to why science doesn't deal in proof, only in evidence. However; when talking about logical absolutes, we are talking about something definitional. For example, when we talk about a circle, we can say with absolute certainty that there cannot be a circle that has flat sides. That is an absolute, and will stand up to any test, because the definition of a circle is that it cannot have flat sides.

In logic, we are talking about a similar principle. Logic itself, like circles, only enjoys a platonic existence, which is to say that, like mathematics, the rules are absolute. Logic is, again like mathematics, an axiomatic system, with axioms that are absolute. I doubt that AW would argue with this. Among those absolutes is the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot be what it is and what it is not simultaneously. This is so obvious as to be almost tautological. Something can be more than one thing at once, like your phone that is also a camera, but it can't be a phone and not a phone at the same time.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying about what andromedaswake was talking about. I misinterpreted what he said in that video. Thanks for clarifying about the "logic defying god".

No, because the universe is all that exists. Therefore, if something exists, it is part of the universe. This isn't a matter of finding something or not, it's definitional.

I'm probably going to be cliche by proposing this idea, but what about the multiverse theory? String theory?

That is what unfalsifiable means, so we have a perfectly servicable word.

It should also be noted that the word 'prove' is entirely out of place here. Science doesn't do 'proof'. Proof is restricted to mathematics (although it can be used as a principle in logic). Proof is an axiomatic construct, and only in a case where you have an axioomatically complete system can proof really apply. Incidentally, the word 'prove' originally meant 'test', hence the phrase 'the exception proves the rule'. This phrase doesn't mean that an exception shows a rule to be true, because that would be ridiculous. Any exception demonstrates that a rule is not a rule, but more of a guideline. When viewed in its original context, the phrase makes perfect sense. Applied in the modern vernacular, it's a complete oxymoron.

Let me insert "evidence" in replacement then.

There is a chance that a deity exists, but there is absolutely no chance that this deity is the christian god, or any of the Abrahamic formulations. That particular fuckwit cannot exist, for reasons already stated.

Which is why I encouraged that guy to topple the Christian god :roll: Though I appreciate that you did.

And the christian god was just an example, even though people know that the christian god doesn't exist. I was trying to say a "god" in general. As you already said, a deity.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

I'm probably going to be cliche by proposing this idea, but what about the multiverse theory? String theory?

Well, there are several problems here.

The first is that word 'multiverse'. You see that word used in popular science books for two reasons. The first is that cosmologists aren't used to having their words equivocated. The second is that people already think they know what the word 'universe' means, so they required a word that was distinct. In reality, the vernacular usage of the word 'universe' is woefully non-rigorous, and it stems from the history of what we know.

When the word was first applied, it was thought that what we could see was all that there was, and that the universe in fact comprised only of our own galaxy, which constitutes the vast majority of what can be seen with the naked eye. Hubble and others changed all that, by demonstrating that there were galaxies beyond our own, and that the universe was a good deal larger than previously thought. Finally, when the big bang theory was formulated, it was seen as a beginning to the universe, but in reality, that is not established. Ultimately, whatever preceded the big bang is part of the universe. There are several 'multiverse' hypotheses, but in reality all they are doing is equivocating with regard to the word 'universe. I personally eschew such terms, because they have an inherent mysticism where none is warranted. Whatever preceded the big bang, and whatever lies outside our cosmic expansion, including other cosmic expansions, constitute parts of the universe, and that's all there is to it. It's what the word means.

Let me insert "evidence" in replacement then.

Well, that puts us on a firmer footing:

1. Evidence in support of a deity = 0
2. Evidence that no deity is necessary to explain observations = all of it.

In that light, the god hypothesis is of no utility, and can be discarded. Further, it fails the test of parsimony, because what we are now faced with is the following:

1. A universe in which natural principles are responsible for all observed phenomena.
2. A universe in which natural principles plus a(n unobserved) deity are responsible for all observed phenomena.

Note that this is the proper application of Occam's Razor, because it determines between two models. We know that natural principles are responsible for all currently observed phenomena, so positing a deity constitutes an unnecessary multiplication of entities, which is precisely what Occam's Razor was formulated to address.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

God cannot do what is logically impossible

I maintain that he can, though I'm aware that is a rather unpopular stance to take.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

If God defies logic, reason, and the laws of the universe, then there is no point in discussing him, because there not only is not but can never be evidence for his existence. There is not and can never be a reason to believe.

 

[HooahW2475]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

I would contend that the very nature of a tripartate deity already does defy our understanding of naturalistic laws and as such either such a deity must exist outside of our perception or must not exist at all. If God exists then he does so outside of our realm of comprehension and as such can never be known, understood, or interacted with in any way which would grant us a reliable understanding of his nature. If God does not exist then there is no point in pursuing evidence of him anyway. Either way the pursuit of knowledge of such a deity and/or the worship of one seems to be an exercise in futility.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

If God defies logic, reason, and the laws of the universe, then there is no point in discussing him, because there not only is not but can never be evidence for his existence. There is not and can never be a reason to believe.

I see no justification for this. He can defy logic, but that doesn't mean he *must* defy logic. We wouldn't be able to comprehend him, but that doesn't mean he can't reveal that he does exist.

I would contend that the very nature of a tripartate deity already does defy our understanding of naturalistic laws and as such either such a deity must exist outside of our perception or must not exist at all. If God exists then he does so outside of our realm of comprehension and as such can never be known, understood, or interacted with in any way which would grant us a reliable understanding of his nature. If God does not exist then there is no point in pursuing evidence of him anyway. Either way the pursuit of knowledge of such a deity and/or the worship of one seems to be an exercise in futility.

Uh... again, I don't agree. See above.

 

[HooahW2475]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

Here's my reasoning and why I say such. For an intervening being to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent then by that nature alone such a being defies our understanding of naturalistic laws. Such a being is in direct opposition to every prevailing scientific and mathematical understanding of our universe and as such would already currently exist outside of our realm of comprehension and logic.

However, in order to ascertain knowledge of something it must be within our realm of comprehension and we must be able to make logical deductions regarding it. A tripartate deity does not fit with that and as such can never be comprehended. Because of that I have concluded, personally, that whether or not such a deity exists isn't even a question worth asking. Even if we could definitively say that, yes, such a deity exists there is no way that we could understand that deity. If we cannot understand this deity then what is the point in a faith dedicated to it? We don't know what it wants, what it is or is not capable of, what it's plans are, or if it even cares.

These things are outside of our realm of understanding and defy logic and deductive reasoning principles.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

If God defies logic, reason, and the laws of the universe, then there is no point in discussing him, because there not only is not but can never be evidence for his existence. There is not and can never be a reason to believe.

I see no justification for this. He can defy logic, but that doesn't mean he *must* defy logic.

You are correct. I was in error.

 

[Don-Sama]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

then why even bother the fuck getting to know something you can't.. and doesn't it kinda make the whole bible or any holy book useless to begin with?

 

[borrofburi]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

Here's my reasoning and why I say such. For an intervening being to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent then by that nature alone such a being defies our understanding of naturalistic laws. Such a being is in direct opposition to every prevailing scientific and mathematical understanding of our universe and as such would already currently exist outside of our realm of comprehension and logic.
...
These things are outside of our realm of understanding and defy logic and deductive reasoning principles.

By definition god must be outside of our current understanding, but that does NOT equate to "by definition outside of our comprehension". At one time relativity was outside humanity's understanding *and* comprehension, but that is no longer true on either account.

 

[phantomkirby]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

Well, there are several problems here.

The first is that word 'multiverse'. You see that word used in popular science books for two reasons. The first is that cosmologists aren't used to having their words equivocated. The second is that people already think they know what the word 'universe' means, so they required a word that was distinct. In reality, the vernacular usage of the word 'universe' is woefully non-rigorous, and it stems from the history of what we know.

When the word was first applied, it was thought that what we could see was all that there was, and that the universe in fact comprised only of our own galaxy, which constitutes the vast majority of what can be seen with the naked eye. Hubble and others changed all that, by demonstrating that there were galaxies beyond our own, and that the universe was a good deal larger than previously thought. Finally, when the big bang theory was formulated, it was seen as a beginning to the universe, but in reality, that is not established. Ultimately, whatever preceded the big bang is part of the universe. There are several 'multiverse' hypotheses, but in reality all they are doing is equivocating with regard to the word 'universe. I personally eschew such terms, because they have an inherent mysticism where none is warranted. Whatever preceded the big bang, and whatever lies outside our cosmic expansion, including other cosmic expansions, constitute parts of the universe, and that's all there is to it. It's what the word means.

Ok so in the "multiverse" theory, our "universe" or sub-universe has a defined set of laws. Other sub-universes have other physical laws. What happens when god is in this other sub-universe, or what happens when god is in the space between these sub-universes and made our universe? He is not bound by our physical laws then, which means he could possibly create our universe right?

And if so, if he created our universe that way, can he be affected by our universe? Can be go inside our universe?

Also I have another question yet again about the logic part of god. If he is bound by logic, then he isn't omnipotent right? But isn't the "rock that he can't lift" intristically possible? Isn't the definition of omnipotence is a deity that can do all that is logically possible? So the rock that he can't lift isn't a good argument right?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: What if God defies Logic, Reasoning & the Laws of Univer

Ok so in the "multiverse" theory, our "universe" or sub-universe has a defined set of laws.

A slight case of cart before horse there. Laws are simply our mathematical description of the operational parameters of the universe.

Other sub-universes have other physical laws.

Not remotely established. There is no good reason to suppose that the physical constants in other cosmic expansions is any different than the constants we experience in this one. It's useful to speculate in some respects, because 'what if' thought experiments yield useful answers that pertain to our cosmic expansion. However; to actually assert that the physical constants are, or indeed could be, any different than we experience is running too far, with no justification whatsoever. There is no evidence that even the values of the constants we experience could be any different.

What happens when god is in this other sub-universe, or what happens when god is in the space between these sub-universes and made our universe? He is not bound by our physical laws then, which means he could possibly create our universe right? And if so, if he created our universe that way, can he be affected by our universe? Can be go inside our universe?

You're still completely missing the point. There is no 'between universes'. There is one universe. Count them. If your preposterous magic man exists, he is a product of the universe, which completely demolishes any conception of a creator of the universe. On this view, there can be no god.

Now, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that there is some entity outside our cosmic expansion that had some sort of causal relationship, but the idea has absolutely no merit from a scientific standpoint, and is therefore irrelevant. As it happens, I doubt that such an entity is even remotely viable, let alone actually extant.

Also I have another question yet again about the logic part of god. If he is bound by logic, then he isn't omnipotent right? But isn't the "rock that he can't lift" intristically possible? Isn't the definition of omnipotence is a deity that can do all that is logically possible? So the rock that he can't lift isn't a good argument right?

If there is a limit of any kind to this entity's power, then it isn't omnipotent. That's precisely why omnipotence is self-refuting. In any event, I can build a pile of bricks that I can't lift, so there is no logical barrier to doing so. Indeed, given access to the right technology, I could create a rock that I couldn't lift. This is a trivial action, so again there is no logical barrier to doing so. So what you are actually doing is attempting to redefine 'omnipotence' to mean 'a lot of power', at which point, where do you draw the line between a lot of power and true omnipotence?