There is no God

[EnterTheBowser]

Because X is X regardless of whether X exists. God isn’t greater for existing or not existing; the concept of God remains the same in both cases. It is the universe which determines existence; the universe which changes. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to say that an existent God is greater than a nonexistent one.

For a more obvious parody of the ontological argument:
1-Imagine an island whose properties include being the perfect island, and is on Earth, and is called Alkalua
2-An island that exists is greater/more perfect than one which does not
3-Therefore Alkalua exists
See, I just proved the existence of a perfect island called Alkalua. And that should be enough to show that there’s something wrong with the ontological argument. But even better:

If I want to, I can go about proving that there is a perfect island that is called Balkalua; but there can’t be two perfect islands - obviously a perfect thing is better than all others of its kind. So I have used the ontological argument to prove that there are two best islands. But this is a contradiciton. So something is wrong with the ontological argument.

 

[jimmy]

EnterTheBowser:

Because X is X regardless of whether X exists. God isn’t greater for existing or not existing; the concept of God remains the same in both cases. It is the universe which determines existence; the universe which changes. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to say that an existent God is greater than a nonexistent one.

So it is not a greater good for the greatest good to exist than for it to not exist? That is strange logic there, but it also starts from the assumption that there is no god, therefore it is a biased arguement.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

jimmy:

So it is not a greater good for the greatest good to exist than for it to not exist? That is strange logic there, but it also starts from the assumption that there is no god, therefore it is a biased arguement.

I don’t see how I’ve started from the assumption that there is no God. Additionally, I will repeat: a thing is no greater whether it exists or not, since it is the same thing regardless.

Additionally, if you really want to run with the ontological argument: what do you mean by greatest? What is the criterion by which we measure greatness? If God is the greatest at all things, should I conclude that God is the greatest drunk?

 

[kev7]

EnterTheBowser:

Because X is X regardless of whether X exists. God isn’t greater for existing or not existing; the concept of God remains the same in both cases. It is the universe which determines existence; the universe which changes. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to say that an existent God is greater than a nonexistent one.

For a more obvious parody of the ontological argument:
1-Imagine an island whose properties include being the perfect island, and is on Earth, and is called Alkalua
2-An island that exists is greater/more perfect than one which does not
3-Therefore Alkalua exists
See, I just proved the existence of a perfect island called Alkalua. And that should be enough to show that there’s something wrong with the ontological argument. But even better:

If I want to, I can go about proving that there is a perfect island that is called Balkalua; but there can’t be two perfect islands - obviously a perfect thing is better than all others of its kind. So I have used the ontological argument to prove that there are two best islands. But this is a contradiciton. So something is wrong with the ontological argument.

There is an error in your boolean math.

AlkaluaExists = true
AlkaluaDoesNotExist = true
Alkalue =true

(AlkaluaExists AND AlkaluaDoesNotExist AND Alkalue > Nothing ) = true

You forgot one variable

ProofOfAlkaula=NULL

We can’t assign a value to it because we don’t know the answer.

lets fix your equation.

(AlkaluaExists AND AlkaluaDoesNotExist AND Alkalue > Nothing AND ProofOfAlkaula )

You can’t solve this equation without a value for ProofOfAlkaula
until such time it isn’t false it is “undefined”

you can only conclude that (AlkaluaExists AND AlkaluaDoesNotExist AND Alkalue > Nothing AND ProofOfAlkaula ) is undefined.

The values you always have to work with are
True,False,and NULL

Therefore until you have a value other than NULL for ProofOfAlkaula you can’t assert its value.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

kev7:

There is an error in your boolean math.

AlkaluaExists = true
AlkaluaDoesNotExist = true
Alkalue =true

(AlkaluaExists AND AlkaluaDoesNotExist AND Alkalue > Nothing ) = true

You forgot one variable

ProofOfAlkaula=NULL

We can’t assign a value to it because we don’t know the answer.

lets fix your equation.

(AlkaluaExists AND AlkaluaDoesNotExist AND Alkalue > Nothing AND ProofOfAlkaula )

You can’t solve this equation without a value for ProofOfAlkaula
until such time it isn’t false it is “undefined”

you can only conclude that (AlkaluaExists AND AlkaluaDoesNotExist AND Alkalue > Nothing AND ProofOfAlkaula ) is undefined.

The values you always have to work with are
True,False,and NULL

What in the world are you talking about? What is the “proof of Alkalua”? What do you mean by “Alkalua=true”? I mean no offense but I just don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[jimmy]

EnterTheBowser:

I don’t see how I’ve started from the assumption that there is no God. Additionally, I will repeat: a thing is no greater whether it exists or not, since it is the same thing regardless.

Additionally, if you really want to run with the ontological argument: what do you mean by greatest? What is the criterion by which we measure greatness? If God is the greatest at all things, should I conclude that God is the greatest drunk?

You assumed that the universe decides whether something exists. THat is a presumption that God does not exist.

 

[kev7]

EnterTheBowser:

What in the world are you talking about? What is the “proof of Alkalua”? What do you mean by “Alkalua=true”? I mean no offense but I just don’t know what you’re talking about.

What I mean is that in order to assert anything you must have proof of its value.

The moment you call out for proof you have defined something that must have a value.

In order to solve any equation that you claim requires proof you can not omit it as a variable.

What I am trying to say is that every thought you have has three answers.

True, False, and undefined.

For example if we have two statements.

GodExists=true
GodDoesNotExists=true

Do you not need a thrid varaible called ProofOfGod?

Is that not what you are looking for…

The problem with your logic and the logic of the atheist is that you asume to know the answer to that variable

You guess that the value of ProofOfGod = FALSE

The problem here is that PreoofOfGod is actually = NULL since you don’t and won’t ever have a value for it.

With that said, you have to understand that in order to perform boolean logic as you are trying to do you need values that are defined.

GodExists
AND
GodDoesNotExists
AND
ProofOfGod

How can you claim that the above is FALSE?

Until you have a value for ProofOfGod you can’t assert anything.

You can only have faith in what the value for ProofOfGod is. You can only solve the equation with possible values.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

jimmy:

You assumed that the universe decides whether something exists. THat is a presumption that God does not exist.

I think we may be using the term “universe” in slightly different ways. I did not mean all the space and matter we see around us. I meant something different: everything that exists is in the universe. If God exists, God is in the universe (and if God does not exist, then God is not in the universe). I was using the logician’s “universe,” not the physicists.

 

[jimmy]

EnterTheBowser:

I think we may be using the term “universe” in slightly different ways. I did not mean all the space and matter we see around us. I meant something different: everything that exists is in the universe. If God exists, God is in the universe (and if God does not exist, then God is not in the universe). I was using the logician’s “universe,” not the physicists.

That is where you misunderstand Catholicism. Catholicism says that God is not in the universe absolutely. The universe is a part of time, God is completely outside of time. The universe, even the empty space, is a created thing.

 

[kev7]

EnterTheBowser:

I think we may be using the term “universe” in slightly different ways. I did not mean all the space and matter we see around us. I meant something different: everything that exists is in the universe. If God exists, God is in the universe (and if God does not exist, then God is not in the universe). I was using the logician’s “universe,” not the physicists.

Do you know what a venn diagram is?

do some research on this and then come back here and tell us that the space of all possible things does not exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

When you realize that it does exists, see if you can define its limits.

You can only perform logic on something that you have values for.

I’m telling you that you don’t have a value for Proof of God and for you to claim that it is false is retarded.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

kev7:

What I mean is that in order to assert anything you must have proof of its value.

The moment you call out for proof you have defined something that must have a value.

In order to solve any equation that you claim requires proof you can not omit it as a variable.

What I am trying to say is that every thought you have has three answers.

True, False, and undefined.

For example if we have two statements.

GodExists=true
GodDoesNotExists=true

Do you not need a thrid varaible called ProofOfGod?

Is that not what you are looking for…

The problem with your logic and the logic of the atheist is that you asume to know the answer to that variable

You guess that the value of ProofOfGod = FALSE

The problem here is that PreoofOfGod is actually = NULL since you don’t and won’t ever have a value for it.

With that said, you have to understand that in order to perform boolean logic as you are trying to do you need values that are defined.

GodExists
AND
GodDoesNotExists
AND
ProofOfGod

How can you claim that the above is FALSE?

Until you have a value for ProofOfGod you can’t assert anything.

You can only have faith in what the value for ProofOfGod is. You can only solve the equation with possible values.

I assume by proof you mean a conclusion proceeding from established axioms - a logical entailment. Such things - entailments - do not have truth values. “A entails B” is not a statement that is true or false in the Boolean sense. The problem is that it is not a well-formed formula, as they say. “A entails B” is not a statement within a Boolean algebra; it is a statement about a Boolean algebra.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

jimmy:

That is where you misunderstand Catholicism. Catholicism says that God is not in the universe absolutely. The universe is a part of time, God is completely outside of time. The universe, even the empty space, is a created thing.

Like I said, I’m using the logician’s universe, not the physicist’s. God might indeed be in some way outside the physicist’s universe, but he is not “outside” of the logician’s.

kev7:

EnterTheBowser:

I think we may be using the term “universe” in slightly different ways. I did not mean all the space and matter we see around us. I meant something different: everything that exists is in the universe. If God exists, God is in the universe (and if God does not exist, then God is not in the universe). I was using the logician’s “universe,” not the physicists.

Do you know what a venn diagram is?

do some research on this and then come back here and tell us that the space of all possible things does not exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

When you realize that it does exists, see if you can define its limits.

You can only perform logic on something that you have values for.

Again, I must ask: what are you talking about?

 

[kev7]

EnterTheBowser:

I assume by proof you mean a conclusion proceeding from established axioms - a logical entailment. Such things - entailments - do not have truth values. “A entails B” is not a statement that is true or false in the Boolean sense. The problem is that it is not a well-formed formula, as they say. “A entails B” is not a statement within a Boolean algebra; it is a statement about a Boolean algebra.

I’m not saying that “A entails B”

I’m saying that
All As are Bs
No Cs are Bs
Therefore No Cs are As.

Therefore No As are Cs.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

kev7:

I’m not saying that “A entails B”

I’m saying that
All As are Bs
No Cs are Bs
Therefore No Cs are As.

Therefore No As are Cs.

And how is that related to the “ProofOfGod”?

 

[Kristina_P]

EnterTheBowser:

Sounds good to me.

I’m not sure how either definition supports your conclusions. Furthermore, when it comes to what science is, I’d take the word of a philosopher (namely Karl Popper) over the editors of the dictionary. Falsifiability is generally considered to be the criterion for deciding whether a hypothesis is scientific or not.

Your first paragraph seems like an unsupported assertion. What are the reasons for believing that Catholics’ personal experiences are the result of a God reaching out to them and the religious experiences of others are a result of their reaching out to God?

Regarding the second paragraph, the validity of Christian principles - such as the existence of God (and hence salvation, etc) - is what is up for debate.

Your final paragraph is, in a sense, my question: why do you accept the experiences of Catholics and not the experiences of Hindus as evidence? Now, regardless of this particular complication, it is a bad argument that takes the following form: “Many people believe X. Therefore belief in X is reasonable.” As Galileo said: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” His statement applies to more than just science: we ought to appeal to arguments to support our position, not the number of people who believe as we do. In addition to this, I am doubtful of an argument that runs as follows:
-Many people have had personal experience of God
-Therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists
As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - in particular if this phenomenon can be explained through “natural” means, such as psychology.

I’m just using “personal experience” to summarize a wide variety of phenomenon. I think it works fairly well as a generalization.

Anyways, so your argument for the existence of the Christian God is, more or less (?):
-Myself and others have had personal experiences of the Christian God
-Historical events support the existence of the Christian God
-Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the Christian God exists

And thank you for being gracious as well. It’s very nice to be able to discuss these things in a friendly atmosphere.

Essentially, yes, I’d say that’s my argument. It’s not fancy or anything, and I’m sure there are others out there with a better argument, but it works to convince me that my faith in God is not unreasonable.

 

[kev7]

EnterTheBowser:

And how is that related to the “ProofOfGod”?

Thankfully I am a student of logic.

Let me try to explain

A. Is a possibility that god exists.
B. Is a possibility that god does not exist.
C. The truth (proof of that god exists or does not exists)

A is the same as B (because they are both values of question C)
C is not the same as B (a truth and a possibility is not the same)
Therefore No Cs are As.
Therefore No As are Cs.

I’m trying to make the point that you can’t consider A or B with out knowing what the value for C is.

Since we don’t understand the nature of the universe then there is no value for C.
And since A and B are derived from C we can’t possibly have a value for either.

In other words it is wrong to claim that God does not exists.

We can only say that C is NULL. We can only admit that we do not have an understanding of the truth.

This is why I think it is foolish to say, “There is no God”. It isn’t logical because the truth is unknown.

Basic logic proves this statement to be invalid because C is not defined. A null value is not the same as the value False. In other words the question “Does god exist?” is a trinary variable.

It is either
True, False, or undefined.

The problem with atheism is that it omits C and forgets that something can be undefined. That just isn’t logical

This is why we can only have Faith that C is True. We can only show faith in Jesus who tells us that God exists.

.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Kristina P.:

Essentially, yes, I’d say that’s my argument. It’s not fancy or anything, and I’m sure there are others out there with a better argument, but it works to convince me that my faith in God is not unreasonable.

I’ve made my views on personal experience known, and I am no Bible scholar, so I won’t have much to offer in a debate about history. My own response is one I can be fairly sure any theist will reject, because frankly, it makes me look like a stubborn atheist denying the evidence that’s staring me in the face. Anyways, here it goes:

Let’s admit that these historical events really did happen - that Jesus healed people, rose from the dead, what have you. I contend that this is not good evidence for a supernatural God. It comes down to a question of parsimony: these events can be adequately explained without any appeal to the supernatural, in terms of the physical laws of the universe. The hypothesis that aliens did it - that there’s some powerful alien race using us as a sociological experiement - requires fewer assumptions about the universe than does the God hypothesis. I’m going to quote someone from IIDB (my usual haunt), who I feel explained the issue quite well.
PoodleLov(name removed by moderator)essimist:

Whatever the case may be, it’s those inherent properties, why they are such and not completely other, why the entire possible range of conceivable arrangements of stuff is not allowed by our “equations”, that still needs explaining.

Much depends on what you mean by “explanation”. At some level, any explanation actually increases the complexity over a simple enumeration of the facts. In other words, at some point, the only explanation that actually simplifies things is to say “that’s just the way it is.”

There are two obvious stopping points when constructing explanations. The first is when any further explanation would be more complex than an enumeration of the facts. The second is when you cannot distinguish between competing explanations on the basis of evidence. Unsurprisingly, both of those criteria lead us to “stop” the explanation process at, “The laws of physics and the initial physical conditions of the universe just exist.”

This is an enumeration of the facts (the fact that the laws of physics exist, and the fact that the initial conditions of the universe exist); any “explanation” for these facts will be both more complex than a simple enumeration, and indistinguishable from an enumeration on the evidence.

For instance, if we were to try to “explain” the existence of the laws of physics and the initial conditions by positing an omnipotent God, we would have to have one extra assumption:

Simplest Enumeration:
SP1: The laws of physics exist
SP2: The initial conditions of the universe exist

Theism:
TP1: An omnipotent God exists
TP2: God decided to create these particular laws of physics
TP3: God decided to create these particular initial conditions

Naturalism just stops at the Simplest Enumeration.

It’s easy to see that Theism contains 1 extra premise than the Simplest Enumeration. It’s a little harder to see that TP2 and TP3 do not follow logically from TP1. But it is the case that an omnipotent God could create any sort of universe it wished; omnipotence analytically entails that the God is not constrained to one physics. So to specify the facts in evidence, we must introduce as a premise that the God chose to instantiate those facts.

Furthermore, there’s simply no way to distinguish between any alternative to Theism on the facts, since any fact either is entailed by the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe, or must be included in the Simplest Enumeration; if included in SE, it must also be specified as the choice of a God.

If there were a simpler formulation than Simplest Enumeration as specified above, then that simpler formulation would be the Simplest Enumeration, and, again, any theistic “explanation” would include the choice of the premises of the SE, as well as the assertion of an entity to do the choosing.

iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2851651#post2851651

Because the alien hypothesis fits with the simpler enumeration, it is a better explanatory hypothesis than the God one, which requires the more complex set of assumptions.

That being said, I can take my stubborn atheist hat off, and return to classic argument. I’ve got a simple question: why does a loving God allow something like pancreatic cancer? I’m not really asking about suffering in general, nor am I asking about sin. I just want to know why a loving God does not do something about pancreatic cancer, specifically.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

kev7:

Thankfully I am a student of logic.

Let me try to explain

A. Is a possibility that god exists.
B. Is a possibility that god does not exist.
C. The truth (proof of that god exists or does not exists)

A is the same as B (because they are both values of question C)
C is not the same as B (a truth and a possibility is not the same)
Therefore No Cs are As.
Therefore No As are Cs.
Therefore No Cs are As.

I’m trying to make the point that you can’t consider A or B with out knowing what the value for C is.

The above statement is false. Let’s take a look at a case other than God. Do I need to know whether there actually is an apple on top of the Empire State Building to determine whether it is possible for there to be an apple there? No. It is possible for an apple to be there regardless of whether or not there is actually an apple there.

A is not the same as B - see below - and neither of them are values of C, whatever it is that C is.

Since we don’t understand the nature of the universe then there is no value for C.
And since A and B are derived from C we can’t possibly have a value for either.

In other words it is wrong to claim that God does not exists.

We can only say that C is NULL. We can only admit that we do not have an understanding of the truth.

This is why I think it is foolish to say, “There is no God”. It isn’t logical because the truth is unknown.

Basic logic proves this statement to be invalid because C is not defined. A null value is not the same as the value False. In other words the question “Does god exist?” is a trinary variable.

It is either
True, False, or undefined.

The problem with atheism is that it omits C and forgets that something can be undefined. That just isn’t logical.

As I recall, this bit about logic started with the ontological argument; can you tie your statements into some attack on my rebutall of that argument? Furthermore, I don’t think what you mean by C is something that can be turned into a well-formed formula. The first two can, however. Let’s just say that x has the property G iff x is God (G(x) <–> x is god), and we also have to use modal logic. It’s fairly clear what the sentences are:
(possible)(there exists an x) G(x)
(possible)(for every x) ~G(x)
I don’t know how to phrase C; can you give it a try?

 

[Kristina_P]

EnterTheBowser:

I’ve made my views on personal experience known, and I am no Bible scholar, so I won’t have much to offer in a debate about history. My own response is one I can be fairly sure any theist will reject, because frankly, it makes me look like a stubborn atheist denying the evidence that’s staring me in the face. Anyways, here it goes:

Let’s admit that these historical events really did happen - that Jesus healed people, rose from the dead, what have you. I contend that this is not good evidence for a supernatural God. It comes down to a question of parsimony: these events can be adequately explained without any appeal to the supernatural, in terms of the physical laws of the universe. The hypothesis that aliens did it - that there’s some powerful alien race using us as a sociological experiement - requires fewer assumptions about the universe than does the God hypothesis. I’m going to quote someone from IIDB (my usual haunt), who I feel explained the issue quite well.

iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2851651#post2851651

Because the alien hypothesis fits with the simpler enumeration, it is a better explanatory hypothesis than the God one, which requires the more complex set of assumptions.

That being said, I can take my stubborn atheist hat off, and return to classic argument. I’ve got a simple question: why does a loving God allow something like pancreatic cancer? I’m not really asking about suffering in general, nor am I asking about sin. I just want to know why a loving God does not do something about pancreatic cancer, specifically.

Hrm… I have to say that’s not a question I’ve ever seen before. I have no idea why God allows pancreatic cancer specifically, although I assume it fits into the overall question of why he allows suffering in general. Do you think that, assuming a loving God with a reason for allowing suffering, there’s a valid reason for Him to “do something” about pancreatic cancer specifically?

Also, it reminds me of an anti-evolutionist debate tactic, requiring the evolutionist to give a detailed evolutionary history of some random animal. Like that evolutionist, the fact that I lack available specific information doesn’t change the nature of the general argument.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Kristina P.:

Hrm… I have to say that’s not a question I’ve ever seen before. I have no idea why God allows pancreatic cancer specifically, although I assume it fits into the overall question of why he allows suffering in general. Do you think that, assuming a loving God with a reason for allowing suffering, there’s a valid reason for Him to “do something” about pancreatic cancer specifically?

Also, it reminds me of an anti-evolutionist debate tactic, requiring the evolutionist to give a detailed evolutionary history of some random animal. Like that evolutionist, the fact that I lack available specific information doesn’t change the nature of the general argument.

In that case, why does a loving God allow the extreme suffering we see in the world around us?