Hi all

@Theologikos,

Oh, a so called atheist-inquisitor! Welcome!

@HexHammer,

Thank you! I really can't wait to get involved is some great discussion here. :bigsmile:

@Theologikos,

Theologikos;143271 wrote:

Hey everybody, I guess I have to do this to start posting :rolleyes:

I live in the US and I'm from NC. I am 16 and home schooled (as of this year).:brickwall:

I joined this forum mainly to submit philosophical evidence against all deities, so look forward to that post. I'll probably just put it in the Christianity section
:/

If you have any questions about me, ask away.

I'm really interested in philosophy and science, if you want to learn more about me just go to my FB

Josiah S. Paramore | Facebook

Peace :a-ok:

Okay, the post I was referring to is now up:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/religion/abrahamic-religions/christianity/8103-god-disproved.html

I was in a bar once in North Carolina drinking with a guy who had no teeth... His girlfriend had one tooth... Ya; she was a babe!!!

Let me save you a lot of trouble... It is impossible to prove anything about infinites, as God is, and as most of our moral forms are... Sha, they cannot even be defined...

@Fido,

Lol, it's too late for that!

I think an infinite being cannot exist, much less create anything. If I were to try and disprove everyone's God, that would be impossible because it is a matter of definition and wordplay. :/

Anyway, the post was really for my Older brother. (He's a fundie Christian)

@Theologikos,

Theologikos;143842 wrote:

Lol, it's too late for that!

I think an infinite being cannot exist, much less create anything. If I were to try and disprove everyone's God, that would be impossible because it is a matter of definition and wordplay. :/

Anyway, the post was really for my Older brother. (He's a fundie Christian)

Philosophically speaking, if you have your choice between picking up God or a slimey pile of poop... Take the poop... People get all serious about their beliefs, and the fact that they do not stand up to rational inquiry does not mean much to them...If your object is to enrage the bull, then full speed ahead... It's your mess, but the poop is easier to wash off...

@Fido,

That is so true.

@Theologikos,

Theologikos;143873 wrote:

That is so true.

........d'ya think?

@Fido,

Your problem, Theologikos, is that you assume"God" as strictly a sentient being, and claim to note various contradictions with omnipotence in common and physical reasoning. This leads to you believing that polytheism is more probable than monotheism, the former once again being disproved by the paradoxical nature of a single and infinite God.
Is the Abrahamic God that well defined that his existence can be denied with physics? What if God exists solely within an epistemological realm, and thus cannot be reasoned through empirical logic?
The mere concept of an omnipotent deity exceeds the limits of human intellect, and any empirical based dissaprobation is merely a reflection of experience - nothing more, nothing less.

PS. I checked out your facebook, and cannot believe I'm one year older. You look quite mature.

@Theologikos,

Welcome to Philforum!
Regards,
John

@octobrist,

Thank you. I look forward to learning plenty from this site. Smile

---------- Post added 03-26-2010 at 10:56 AM ----------

octobrist;143917 wrote:

Your problem, Theologikos, is that you assume"God" as strictly a sentient being, and claim to note various contradictions with omnipotence in common and physical reasoning. This leads to you believing that polytheism is more probable than monotheism, the former once again being disproved by the paradoxical nature of a single and infinite God.
Is the Abrahamic God that well defined that his existence can be denied with physics? What if God exists solely within an epistemological realm, and thus cannot be reasoned through empirical logic?
The mere concept of an omnipotent deity exceeds the limits of human intellect, and any empirical based dissaprobation is merely a reflection of experience - nothing more, nothing less.

I understand. I took the stance of just disproving an infinite being and a creator, because those were the most common. I know that a pantheistic belief system could not be disproved, but I also see that if a creator is disproved, then I don't know what the purpose of a pantheistic belief system is. Before writing my position, I was reluctant because of the fact that "God" is not concrete and could be specific to each and every person.
Also, if this God is outside of logic as we know it, then in her illogical realm would it also be true that our logic doesn't apply? And anything we feel or describe is useless, and our entire lexicon is rendered obsolete. If so, it would be impossible for us to ever even begin to understand what she has written, much less dictated. Pain = nonexistent, Joy = nonexistent ect. Nothing we know or think we know about anything she says would ever make logical sense. (I really feel like I am making some sort of logical fallacy here :/)
Regardless, I feel that you should read my entire thread and watch at least the last video (If you haven’t already)

The second and third videos, rule out a retributive deity, so I think it illogical for a deity to fairly have a retributive justice system (especially an eternal one) which, according to what I previously wrote, wouldn’t be eternal at all, because eternity is a logical Idea.
Since we created the word omnipotent, wouldn’t that mean that this word is also useless for describing an illogical deity? If she exists out of our realm and we cannot apply logic to her, then she is little more than an idea. I don’t know, maybe I am making a unsubstantiated position by claiming that an illogical being/idea/force/concept cannot begat anything *but* illogic, at least in her realm. :/

octobrist;143918 wrote:

PS. I checked out your facebook, and cannot believe I'm one year older. You look quite mature.

Thanks, you wouldn't believe how much I get that. Surprised

@Theologikos,

Theologikos;143975 wrote:

I understand. I took the stance of just disproving an infinite being and a creator, because those were the most common.

Yep, but unfortunately the spectrum is still ridiculously vast!

Quote:

I know that a pantheistic belief system could not be disproved, but I also see that if a creator is disproved, then I don't know what the purpose of a pantheistic belief system is.

"Purpose" is not the right word. People who adhere to pantheism are primarily not looking for purpose, but to merely interpret surrounding. It's a huge misconception that "God" is a concept utilised to create a meaningful perception, rather, it is simply another way of looking at things.

Quote:

Before writing my position, I was reluctant because of the fact that "God" is not concrete and could be specific to each and every person.

IT IS specific to each person. I have never heard of objective perception!

Quote:

Also, if this God is outside of logic as we know it, then in her illogical realm would it also be true that our logic doesn't apply?

Not neccessarily. If you view God as a wilfull creator, you can perceive logic as His defined laws. We cannot apply our logic to Him, but this doesn't mean that our logic is not relevent to Him.

Quote:

And anything we feel or describe is useless, and our entire lexicon is rendered obsolete.

Be careful here. "Useless" and "obsolete" are very powerful words. Our feelings and descriptions might be regarded by this deity. Naturally, we cannot know, and can therefore only produce concepts with tools at hand - hence Philosophy!

Quote:

If so, it would be impossible for us to ever even begin to understand what she has written, much less dictated.

Yes. This idea has been around for countless centuries.

Quote:

Pain = nonexistent, Joy = nonexistent ect. Nothing we know or think we know about anything she says would ever make logical sense. (I really feel like I am making some sort of logical fallacy here :/)

When discussing the nature of a deity, it is quite hard to present an argument or idea that is logically infallible!

Quote:

Regardless, I feel that you should read my entire thread and watch at least the last video (If you haven't already)

Will watch some of the videos as soon as I can.

Quote:

because eternity is a logical Idea.

Eternity can certainly be linked with logic, as the concept is comprehendable, albeit to a limited extent. The very idea of eternity cannot be entirely understood by our time-constricted minds, and the very nature of time itself has been a much disputed philosophical issue. Is time subjective or objective?

Quote:

Since we created the word omnipotent, wouldn't that mean that this word is also useless for describing an illogical deity?

Are you stating we created the concept, or merely the word? I must know before I can answer this properly.

Quote:

If she exists out of our realm and we cannot apply logic to her, then she is little more than an idea.

Can't you consider virtually everything an idea?

@Fido,

I agree. Philosophicaly poop is more interesting. Think of the storie of the scarabee. I do not agree with people who tell me to do this, do that. Could you please is OK, but tiring as well. I am here to learn, not being the brit or gaul.

Glad U 2 get along fine !

Fideo Theo

Sincerely, PepI AMS

@octobrist,

octobrist;144407 wrote:

Yep, but unfortunately the spectrum is still ridiculously vast!

Well, I understand the whole "god is personal to me" thing, but what is God if she isn't infinite? What is God if she isn't the underlying cause for everything? Where is the line? I mean, I could claim that God is a rock.

octobrist;144407 wrote:

"Purpose" is not the right word. People who adhere to pantheism are primarily not looking for purpose, but to merely interpret surrounding. It's a huge misconception that "God" is a concept utilised to create a meaningful perception, rather, it is simply another way of looking at things.

That is true, I shouldn't have neglected to acknowledge this position.

octobrist;144407 wrote:

IT IS specific to each person. I have never heard of objective perception!

Well, I mean in terms of religion. I know people deviate, but holy books are supposed to be the underlying foundation for most people's beliefs. (I know there is room for interpretation)

octobrist;144407 wrote:

Not neccessarily. If you view God as a wilfull creator, you can perceive logic as His defined laws. We cannot apply our logic to Him, but this doesn't mean that our logic is not relevent to Him.

But, what do you mean by "this doesn't mean that our logic is not relevant to Him"
If we can perceive our logic as his defined laws, I don't understand why he'd make his own laws contradict his infiniteness in our realm. :/ But then again, maybe I am not supposed to understand. .._........._
...........................................................................\(0o)/
Relevant how? I understand that he can use our logic in our realm (he would've had to, to initiate the universe), but our logic can't apply in his realm. If it did, (time, ect) his realm, by our logic couldn't exist.

octobrist;144407 wrote:

Be careful here. "Useless" and "obsolete" are very powerful words. Our feelings and descriptions might be regarded by this deity. Naturally, we cannot know, and can therefore only produce concepts with tools at hand - hence Philosophy!

Also true. But what I was getting at was, if we are going to supposedly enter this realm, we wouldn't be able to describe it. I know he can understand them, but we won't be ourselves if we ever go to this alternate ream. Things like Joy won't exist.

octobrist;144407 wrote:

Yes. This idea has been around for countless centuries.

You learn something new every day!

octobrist;144407 wrote:

Eternity can certainly be linked with logic, as the concept is comprehendable, albeit to a limited extent. The very idea of eternity cannot be entirely understood by our time-constricted minds, and the very nature of time itself has been a much disputed philosophical issue. Is time subjective or objective?

Well time depends on circumstance. If I were traveling near the speed of light, time would be considerably slowed. But to an observer or a still person, time would be moving slowly. I could leave that person (think young) for a mere minute and come back to a 60 year old man. Although time can be warped, and relative, it still goes on. Though I don't think time is subjective. It is a concrete concept and opinion doesn't corrupt its certitude.

octobrist;144407 wrote:

Are you stating we created the concept, or merely the word? I must know before I can answer this properly.

Well, we created the word to explain the concept. Omnipotence is a human concept that obviously can't logically exist. So the concept was also created by us. (along with many other logical fallacies)

octobrist;144407 wrote:

Can't you consider virtually everything an idea?

My materialistic side wants to say no, but my philosophical side is screaming yes. I am merely ambivalent right now. :brickwall:

I hope that you would allow me to quote a post to someone else about this same topic. (It may not be entirely relevant)

"It is a good point, but there is a glaring flaw. If that deity cannot be disproved with the concepts of our realm, (time ect.) then nothing from our lexicon could be used to even explain that deity.[Which still stands] If I couldn't disprove that her realm needed to be created and that she couldn't have been the cause, then nothing in her realm is logical. No logic can be applied and the only thing she can begat in her realm would be completely inconceivable and illogical itself. So, what's wrong with that? All that means is that we just can't understand her, right? Well, the thing is, we can't even use the term illogic to describe her realm. That creates quite a quagmire. She can't be illogical and she can't be logical, at the same time! Because we can't use those terms. So now try it with the terms existence and nonexistence.

Now, I know you are thinking "Strawman!" But I was merely covering the popular position that "god's ways are not our ways" and that our logic can't be used on her.

But, the other option is that this deity is logical . . . (what ever else follows doesn't matter) Time does not permit a logical and infinite being."

@Theologikos,

Octobrist: Can't you consider virtually everything an idea???

Theolog: My materialistic side wants to say no, but my philosophical side is screaming yes...

Theo; everything is a form... It is not possible to classify the world, to know anything about it except through the medium of forms... This does not mean there is not some underlying matter reflected in our forms; but very often there is not... We can list many, and perhaps infinitely the number of forms we have for which there is no coresponding material reality... No one pound of God has ever been weighed, or an ounce of justice... What is weighed is the needs of human kind...We have the words to talk about justice, for one example, but we talk about justice because we find in justice a human, moral need...

All forms are forms of relationship... We relate to each other through our forms, we recognize each other through our forms and realize ourselves through our forms... So forms/ideas far exceed material objects, which we would not recognize as distinct were it not for the ideas already in our minds when we encounter them... It is knowing what the objects of the material world are that sets them apart... If we see a man on a horse we see two beings... The Incas having never seen a horse saw each together, an amalgram...

Philosophy Forum

Hi all

Quick Links

My Account

able2know