80 replies to this topic

[Crush3r]

Quote

It's so improbable that just about any other explanation is more likely, by His very definition, He would be the most improbable thing possible. I'd sooner beleive that the Soviet Union was not communist, that we live on the sun, that there really were aleins at Roswell, and that anime cartoons were real.

And a better source of answers would be GUT.

Quote

Practically, by definition, if something exists, it's existence is logical, as nothing can be illogical.

Huh? Explain, but it doesn't sound right to me.

EDIT: Typos and emphasis

What's to explain? Oh well, I'll try to clarify it. Something that is illogical, cannot exist because the event/events that lead to it's existence follow a logical path; if it does however exist , we have to revise our theories so its existence can be logical. And that part was more of an introduction so that people don't start commenting that God/gods can exist outside the realm of what is logical, in order to reinforce the rest of my argument.

And the SU was not communist, all communist parties have declared that no society has ever achieved communism yet, but neither was it even socialist (except in the economic sector).

[Dr. Strangelove]

To assume that God is illogical requires that you already know the answer.

[Golan]

 Crush3r, on 28 Aug 2007, 13:34, said:

Practically, by definition, if something exists, it's existence is logical, as nothing can be illogical. If something exists and appears illogical, then our theories have to be revised a little. But it is only logical that anything that exists obeys the laws of Physics, that mold in such a way that everything that exists is logical. However, divinity is supposed to be superior to the laws of Physics and that would mean it didn't exist. And if it does exist, it obeys the laws of Physics, and looses it's divine status. So it either doesn't exist, or it isn't divine, it's just a normal being.

Transcendence is very different from unexistence. Neither can we claim to know all laws of nature, nor can we claim our logic to be flawless (as we ourselfs are not) [this is aimed at the specific "something illogical may not exist" part of your argumentation], and there is no way for us to deny that there might be more to existence as what is accessible to us.

 The Outsider, on 28 Aug 2007, 14:32, said:

 Golan, on 28 Aug 2007, 9:49, said:

That won´t convince many people. After all, trusting in mere improbability is believe as well. It also doesn´t get rid of one of the main reasons for believe - answers, as vague and far-fetched as some of them may be.

"Hey, your god does probably not exist! Renounce him!" Yeah, I can see many people falling for that trick...

MERE IMPROBABILITY?

It's so improbable that just about any other explanation is more likely, by His very definition, He would be the most improbable thing possible. I'd sooner beleive that the Soviet Union was not communist, that we live on the sun, that there really were aleins at Roswell, and that anime cartoons were real.

And a better source of answers would be GUT.

As you like all caps: I`M AGNOSTIC! GOT IT? Just because I think to understand a certain point of view doesn´t mean that I do share it.

Yes, mere improbability. Because in the end, that´s all you have. All you can say is that it´s unlikely that a God exists (it´s a slightly different story when talking about a specific religious one, but they tend to be quite flexible as well) which is by no way a reliable point when seeing what vast knowledge of existence is still unknown to humanity.
Also, isn´t it somewhat unlikely that anything exists without a god? (Note: The first one to answer this question with a big-bang reference will feature as the leading part in next Live Execution.)

I´d have suggested brainzzz, but both have proven to be inadequate for giving indisputable answers. On a totally unrelated side note, they are also probably the source for religious answers.

[Aethercell]

@ captain kirov

people who are christian understand that there is a coptic church, an anglican church, a roman catholic church, and greek and eastern orthodox churches. people who are not christian and group all christians into one lump either do so because they don't care or they are making a point about all different sects. I know there are exceptions, but you know what i mean.

[Crush3r]

 Golan, on 28 Aug 2007, 23:04, said:

Transcendence is very different from unexistence. Neither can we claim to know all laws of nature, nor can we claim our logic to be flawless (as we ourselfs are not) [this is aimed at the specific "something illogical may not exist" part of your argumentation], and there is no way for us to deny that there might be more to existence as what is accessible to us.

[.....]
Also, isn´t it somewhat unlikely that anything exists without a god? (Note: The first one to answer this question with a big-bang reference will feature as the leading part in next Live Execution.)

1. That's why I said that if something is illogical according to our current theories, then they must be revised so that that thing is logical. And that „more to existence” is still a part of existence (or everything if you want), and thus logical.

2. That is the what created it question. On that note I can ask what created god. Another entity? Then what created that...and so on. Also it is to my belief that the actual apparition of the world is a totally random thing.

[Golan]

1. That "more of existence" would be enough to fit in god, though.

2. Dunno. Pretty sure to never ever find an answer. Which is, by the way, exactly my point.