disproving God

[Anonymous No.2330422]

One of the fundamental claims you can hear from so-called "educated christians" to back up their Santa is that the reason for evil to exist in our reality is because God made an unique gift for humanity - free will, thus giving us a chance to willfully choose between goodness (heavenz, hugz, and infinite beer) and evilness (hellz, fried human meat, no hugz).
But its is obviously not true, because free will as such does not exist!
An act of free will, as I (and belive, many of you) see it is an act coming from-the-inside. In other words, an ability to produce decision without external stressing factors. This is Pure Free Will. Ofc we might rarely see it in real life, and theoretically most of our actions based by implying given information.
But do we really only imply information, but not completely dependant on it? I'd say no. We are uncapable of "inner actions", uncapable of REAL decisions, we are only reflections of the world around us. Whether it is physical of mental 'activity', you will never make absolutely unpredictable one.If you are scared, your mind acts scared. If you are scared hundred times, it will inevitably change your mind/soul/whatever. If you lock a person somewhere, deny him all sences (vision, hearing, touching etc..), this person would go mad, because this person does not have any "inner" wil inside him. Free will is fake, therefore we have no real choice between heaven and hell. With that summary, we have:
a) Mistaken God - therefore unworthy one
b) Trolling God - therefore funny, but still unworhy one.
Checkmate theists.

[Anonymous No.2330427]

Logical fallacy. Why is God "unworthy" just because He isn't technically perfect?

You'll suck moot's fucking dick. What has he done for you? So God offers you immortality, wisdom, purpose, reason for being, (in theory) but that isn't enough to revere him. But you revere some guy with a fucking malformed chin who bans you because you posted a rick roll. That makes a shit ton of fucking sense.

[Anonymous No.2330432]

>>2330422
Why would you need to disporve imaginary friends? They are fuckin imaginary DURRRRRR.

[Anonymous No.2330433]

Better arguement. Causality.
Causality requires a cause to occur before an event. When the big bang occured the dimension of time came into existence. There was no time 'before' the big bang so there is no 'before' the big bang, meaning that there is no cause for the big bang, the universe truly is the proverbial first cause.

Of course a christian could say that god in his infinite power created the universe after it began. At which point you are allowed to laugh at them and call them retards.

[Anonymous No.2330436]

>>2330427
>believes in god

[Anonymous No.2330439]

I find it funny people think the ability to make a choice independent of external stimuli (ie reality) is the same thing as being in control of your actions.

The whole 'free will' debate is retarded.

[Anonymous No.2330445]

>>2330433
>mfw anon on /sci/ actually knows his shit

[Anonymous No.2330451]

>>2330433
Athiestfag here playing devil's advocate for a second.

You could also say that god exists outside of time and space. You make the mistake here of assuming that god must exist within the universe.

[Anonymous No.2330457]

Oooh, I've got one!

Now, obviously if god exists he is non interventionist. For example, I have asked him several times to demonstrate his existence by conjuring some tasty ice cream in a set spot within a set time frame, thus gaining a believer which according to his holy book is a desirable outcome.

Now with this established, theists have not provided empirical evidence of god's existence. Agnostics at this point will take this and go sit on the fence. However, just because there are two sides to an argument and no proof/disproof either way does not mean a tie.

Let god be a concievable entity, a classification that includes such ideas as keys, houses, atoms, people etc. The set of concievable entities (call it C) is infinite, or at least arbitrarily large.

Within the set of concievable entities is the subset of entities that exist (call it E). This set is definitely finite. (Note I am not taking each key as a seperate element rather discussing the different *classes* of object that exist).

Now, if there is no evidence for the existence of a god then the chance of him existing is equal to a member of C also being a member of E. But since C is infinite, this chance is infinitesimal, with a probability of 0%. In other words, god almost surely does not exist.

Note that the above deduction can be made for ANY fictional device or entity. Real entities do not have the same chance because there is definite evidence that they exist, changing the probability to 1.

[Anonymous No.2330458]

>>2330439
Of course it is. We have about as much "free will" as a very rail road roleplaying game.

I want to say like Mass Effect 2, but that's being nice about it. More like Fable 2. Everything you do is evil, EVERYTHING!!! Enjoy being poor, divorced, and people kicking your dog while they have the audacity to call YOU a bad guy!!!

Also to the poster laughing at me for believing in God. Yes, I believe in God, and I still have the balls to call myself a Satanist and alienate myself from other so called Christians. Because there's no "belief" involved. There is fact. The facts I've accumulated through life and literature outside of The Bible.

To me, God is just a manifestation of thought taking on physical form, and more extreme, on a scale we cannot imagine. God is a being of valor, righteousness, creation, and fury. The same way we are beings of fat, low self esteem, failure, and perversion. Science and religion intertwine to demand life have greater meaning then putting up with ignoramuses and faggots, that there is greater options for me then what Football team I support.

[Anonymous No.2330459]

>>2330451
I usually counter that argument with causality as well.

our existence is a result of causality, as is our awareness of it. If god defies the causality of our universe by participating in it while avoiding its laws, that god destroys at least as much as it creates. we can't have both causality and its lack in the same reality.

though by definition in most descriptive philosophy I've seen, causality is a quality of existence, and thus god lacking causality simply can't be said to exist.

[Anonymous No.2330461]

>>2330433

This.

I just love asking them "If everything needs to be created, who created god?"

If nothing happens before the start of time, the start of time is causeless by definition.

[Anonymous No.2330464]

>>2330433
God = Xeelee = us

[Anonymous No.2330465]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0
apply it to time instead of height

Assuming god is an extra dimensional being. We have

* omnipotence
* always existing
* and most importantly, beyond any hope of comprehension by lesser dimensional beings.

That means claiming definite knowledge of existence or lack thereof to the point of trying to prove someone else wrong just makes you look conceited and/or insecure

People who believe aren't going to stop believing because of some dude on the interbutts and vice versa. Making this entire exercise pointless.

In other words, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY

[Anonymous No.2330467]

>>2330458

Wait, so you don't believe god actually exists?

Because emotions are not supernatural, buddy.

[Anonymous No.2330470]

>>2330439
>He things you can make a choice independent of external stimuli.

[Anonymous No.2330473]

>>2330465

See 2330457

It's also impossible to disprove the invisible pink unicorn. Are we going to give equal time to the church of the invisible pink unicorn?

[Anonymous No.2330475]

>>2330422
Please define free will so that "I have free will" is falsifiable. Otherwise it is not science, but is dogma.

[Anonymous No.2330477]

>>2330470

No I don't. Thats why I was pointing out how stupid the idea was.

[Anonymous No.2330479]

>>2330422
Proving the belief in God is a logically invalid is pretty fucking trivial. Only uneducated fags still believe in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

\thread

[Anonymous No.2330481]

>>2330458
Thirteen-year-old angst detected.

[Anonymous No.2330482]

>>2330475

Free Will being the ability to evaluate your choices and come to a decision that suits your goals.

But I'm a compatibilist and think that the traditional idea of free will 'herp derp souls playing dice' is retarded to the extreme.

[Anonymous No.2330484]

>>2330481

Come on. How many times have we atheists been subjected to ad-homs just like that. Don't stoop to their level.

[Anonymous No.2330488]

[Anonymous No.2330491]

>>2330451

Aha, the old theist special pleading speciality?

I can counter.

If god is outside space and time, he cant interact with us, and whatever he does is irrelevant.

Also see russell's teapot for standard comparison to other unfalsifiable concepts.

[Anonymous No.2330500]

>>2330465
I am an atheist.

First, why should we care? Why talk about it?
1- People tend to be moral, or at least moral enough for society to function, without delusions. We can "thank" evolution by natural selection.
2- Delusional people tend to make false less moral decisions which affect the public because they base their decisions on falsehoods.
3- People who hold delusions, and even pride themselves on having faith, lack critical reasoning. This makes them easy to mislead and dangerous
4- While not all delusional people are incredibly dangerous, when the delusion is shared, they tend to prop up the real crazies by supporting their "faith" instead of calling shenanigans on it.
5- The harm caused by these delusions tends to outweigh the benefits.

Also, why are they delusions? Why are they wrong? Pick any popular theist religion. It contains equal parts truth, falsehood, and pizza. Let's take Christianity. Genesis and Noah's flood are laughably false. The myth of Jesus's birth with the three wise men is a blatant forgery based on the available evidence, in order to shoehorn him into satisfying an earlier prophecy.

That leaves the unknown and unworshiped theist gods, and the deist gods. At best, we have no positive evidence for their existence, so positive belief in any particular one, is also delusion. The key part is that while a god may exist, it is a delusion to think that you know their mind, their intent. That leaves the inconsequent gods, like deist gods. That kind of god hypothesis is unnecessary at best.

[Anonymous No.2330503]

>>2330457

^ samefag here.

Just want to be sure about my logic, did I make a mistake with my assumptions about the size of the set of concievable/existing entities?

[Anonymous No.2330504]

>>2330482
Please give me a definition so that we can falsify its existence, preferably with a hypothetical example as well. Invoke sci-fi if need be.

I have never heard such a definition. As such, it remains firmly outside the realm of science, and inside the realm of dogma.

[Anonymous No.2330512]

>>2330504

Dogma? The ability to make a decision to achieve a goal?

I don't know what you're smoking. The brain makes decisions all the time in case you haven't noticed.

[Anonymous No.2330517]

>>2330473
a probability formula is a pretty dumb argument.

>>2330479
Just looks to me like a fancy way of saying "NO U"

[Anonymous No.2330518]

>>2330512
Yes. The brain makes decisions. Do you want to define decision-making ability as free will? I don't think you do. Otherwise simple pathfinding robots have free will under that definition, as would a computer game AI player.

[Anonymous No.2330526]

>>2330459
>by participating in the universe, god destroys at least as much as it creates
I guess, but nobody ever said god didn't destroy shit

A different (or additional) argument could be such that god, doesn't actually interfere with the universe. Omnipotent and existing outside of time, it 'programmed' everything in at the point of creation (the big bang). Such a god could work it so that 'miraculous' events have a distinct causal chain working back to the beginning of the universe.

>we can't have causality and it's lack in the same reality
Causality is a property and rule of the universe. Entities that exist outside of the universe need not share the properties and rules of those within it.

> causality is a quality of existence, and thus god lacking causality simply can't be said to exist.
You just need to adopt a more flexible definition of existence, one that allows for entities operating without the bounds of time.

I do agree with you and like your arguments. I just like taking the opposing side sometimes, and the fact is god can't be logically disproved.

[Anonymous No.2330540]

>>2330518

The human brain uses an algorithm that changes, and furthermore reacts to any sensory stimulus. The AI is doomed to react the same way in a finite state machine.

[Anonymous No.2330543]

>>2330540
>The human brain uses an algorithm that changes, and furthermore reacts to any sensory stimulus. The AI is doomed to react the same way in a finite state machine.
What if the computer AI used an evolutionary algorithm to continually adjust and refine its gameplay?

[Anonymous No.2330548]

>>2330526

can't be logically disproved?

>>2330457

If that's not good enough I guess we're going to have to be agnostic about santa.

[Anonymous No.2330549]

>>2330451
wouldn't change the fact that the universe itself has no cause. No matter what properties you give god if the nature of the universe is as it is nothing can cause the universe.

I've been developing this hypothesis fo three years now the only arguement against it I have found so far is the one I already mentioned and you can't use a logical arguemnet against an illogical one.

[Anonymous No.2330550]

>>2330491
See
>>2330526
Since god created the universe and is omniscient and omnipotent, it simply creates, at the beginning of the universe, a causal chain resulting in it's "interaction" with the universe.

For another version, you can simply say that god exists inside the universe as well as outside of it, but when you put god inside the universe you can tend to run into issues with omniscience.

[Anonymous No.2330551]

>>2330422
So OP, let me sum up. Free will doesn't exist because free will doesn't exist, therefore god doesn't exist.
Is that what you're saying?

[Anonymous No.2330562]

>>2330543

Then it would have free will as far as gameplay is concerned. Depending on the complexity there would be a continuum of freer/restricted wills. The more complex the system of decision, the freer the will.

Obviously human beings operate with sensory information, so we can deal with far more diverse decisions. But I don't see why AI couldn't do that also given more development.

[Anonymous No.2330567]

>>2330550

Learn to set theory. You can't be both in the set and not in the set at the same time.

If A, then not not-A. One of the basic fucking rules of thought.

[Anonymous No.2330572]

>>2330562
So you want to define free will according to its problem solving ability? That seems like not the "intuitive" definition of free will.

[Anonymous No.2330573]

wait, what? free will (relating to knowledge of good/evil) was the original act of rebellion against god (according to genesis)

[Anonymous No.2330580]

>disproving god
>36 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
jesus fucking christ..

[Anonymous No.2330581]

>>2330459
Causality is simply a function of time, the nature of reality changed when the universe came into existence. Time came into existence and causality began to function.

Your arguement is based upon an unsound analyisis of the conditions.

The 'reality' has changed, and not at the same 'time'. The universe 'was' a singularity, before time there were no were's or was's everything was an is, due to a lack of the dimension of time there was no singularity, but a singularity expanded and became the universe.

The instant the singularity came into existed it exploded, for those event are one and the same.

[Anonymous No.2330585]

>>2330549
Sure you can. It's simple and unfalsifiable to define an entity that exists outside of the universe that caused the universe, but has no cause itself (it doesn't need one because it exists outside of time).

Smarter people than you or I have tried for many years in many ways to logically disprove god, and you just plain can't. You can make it very apparent that belief in god is not evidence-based, not needed, and downright illogical, and you can disprove specific versions of god, but since the concept of god is able to be given nearly any attribute, you can't disprove it logically.

I've even seen people just say that god exists outside the rules of logic, and that's a perfectly valid argument, since logically an all-powerful being could defy any rule it wished. But you don't even need to do that.

[Anonymous No.2330587]

>>2330581
>The universe 'was' a singularity, before time there were no were's or was's everything was an is, due to a lack of the dimension of time there was no singularity, but a singularity expanded and became the universe.

>The instant the singularity came into existed it exploded, for those event are one and the same.

This is a misunderstanding of modern big bang theory. There might have existed "stuff" before the big bang. Scientists are not quite sure.

There could be a definite beginning of time, or there could exist .. existence infinitely far into the past.

[Anonymous No.2330590]

>>2330572

Not ability, the complexity of the decision making algorithm. The more variables it has, the more things it takes into account, the more influence is has makes it more unpredictable.

[Anonymous No.2330592]

Everytime I see these threads, I laugh. You sure are desperate to be on the right, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.2330594]

>>2330526
If we change our definitions of god to be 'he is the universe and it's law's' then why not call is the universe? why worship it, by all means be amazed by its beautifully complex simplicity.

No matter what properties you give god the universe has no cause.

[Anonymous No.2330595]

>>2330592

Oh look, its the new kid. What, did Osiris make fun of your hair again?

[Anonymous No.2330596]

>>2330549
I don't know what you mean by "cause" the universe.

What exactly is a cause? The best I've been able to approximate is "The relevant / local predecessor state of the universe which materially affected the outcome of the successor state of the universe according to the laws of physics".

As such, to ask about the "cause" of the universe is to beg the question - it rests on the assumption that there is something before the origin of the universe.

[Anonymous No.2330599]

>>2330590
So, the "complexity" of the problem solving algorithm is now the measure of its "free will"?

[Anonymous No.2330601]

>>2330595
Bro, the abrahamic god predates Osiris and most of the gang for quite a bit. It was already spoken tradition before to civilizations settled.

[Anonymous No.2330604]

[Anonymous No.2330607]

>>2330599

Remember I'm not arguing for 'hurrdurr uncaused soul decisions'.

Complex systems produce emergent phenomena. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon; it comes out of a bunch of rules combining to make more than the sum of its parts; like a strategy game producing an infinite array of possible strategic dilemmas out of a small set of rules.

[Anonymous No.2330608]

>>2330567
Umm, that's not what I said. The argument made is that god exists outside the universe, not that he does not exist within it. Just formulate it this way:

Set of shit that's outside the universe:
God
Set of shit that's inside the universe:
God
A bunch of other crap.

They're not mutually exclusive. But good job on the strawman, oh, and I love how you ignored the other argument that I made and linked to, which is actually stronger and not just some random bullshit I put in as another argument, but which I can still back up.

And just in case you forget we're in the "does god exist" question, belief in god is completely illogical, but you can't disprove it logically, or falsify the concept in any way. To try is futile (but I admit, kinda fun)

[Anonymous No.2330613]

>>2330601

Troll harder bro. Judaism is much younger than the caananite religion it evolved from. 2,000 BCE tops. The old kingdom egyptians were around in 4,000 BCE building fucking pyramids.

[Anonymous No.2330614]

>>2330607
This is the best definition of free will which I've ever heard. I think it doesn't capture the actual common understanding of the term, but at least it's actually falsifiable.

It just strikes me that free will is necessarily not determinalistic, but by your definition it can be.

I think I'll stick with the position that "free will" is a meaningless idea, in large part because it's not falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.2330616]

GOD IS NOT MALE
GOD IS NOT ONE

GOD IS CHILD
PULLING FORWARD MOTHER AND FATHER
AS TRINITY

NO CHILD
NO REPRODUCTION

[Anonymous No.2330617]

>>2330608
Which is why we will keep on discussing it until mankind goes extinct.

Actually, that would prove that there is no god: The Extinction of the Human Race.

[Anonymous No.2330619]

As long as I'm doing this.
>>2330548
>can't be logically disproved?
Yeah, that's what I said, what was the question?

[Anonymous No.2330620]

>>2330585
God by his very nature is illogical.

I have no qualms with this as I have said.

The hypothesis is simply a clarification of previously developed theorems, this has by no means been done on my own or compiled on my own, I simply relised that no one has pointed it out directly the effect on causality of the beginning of time, the reason for this was there was no need to, it was assumed obvious to all that before the universe there was no causality, because there is no reason why causality should occur it's just an observed correlation that at the moment hold true as far as we can tell, the positron charge experiments are showing promise.

[Anonymous No.2330629]

>>2330585
Just stating you can not disprove god with a logical arguement doesn't make it so.

It is impossible to defeat an illogical arguement other than pointing out it is illogical, however god isn't only an arguement, he is an entity that is given credit for many things, we can disprove the need for this and thus make god a hollow thing, worship the universe in all its glory and odont blame it on some magical sky daddy

[Anonymous No.2330630]

>>2330620
>God by his very nature is illogical.
This is one of the best and most blatant cop-outs I've ever heard.

1- "There's this thing called god."
2- "<insert plausible counter-argument>"
1- "Sorry. That doesn't work because god doesn't obey logic."
2- "WTF"

[Anonymous No.2330636]

>>2330613
It was spoken tradition whe Gilgamesh was busy conquering the known world. It was not a religion, as you know it, yet. Judaism, however, is fairly recent.

Polish your theology a bit more.

[Anonymous No.2330641]

>>2330614

I tend to conflate 'free will' and consciousness. The interaction of neurons to produce emergent thought seems the best description of it thusfar.

When neuroscience advances, we should see if this is true.

^^ theory of neurodynamics.

[Anonymous No.2330642]

>>2330630
Please define the limits of an almighty bein in your logic.

[Anonymous No.2330644]

>>2330636

wait a second. If it was spoken tradition how do people know what it was? It leaves no evidence.

[Anonymous No.2330646]

>>2330630

I love it when they say god is 'outside logic' because they have admitted that it is illogical and hence impossible. Logical contradictions cannot exist in reality.

[Anonymous No.2330647]

>>2330630
>>2330642

Due to the properties we have assigned god he is illogical, it isn't a cop out its an annoyingly fortunate coincidence for christians.

[Anonymous No.2330648]

>>2330642
>Please define the limits of an almighty bein in your logic.

I don't have to. I'm an atheist. I think such a thing doesn't exist for the reasons stated here: >>2330500

I will continue to ridicule you and your preposterous claim that you know something exists which by your own admittance does not obey the laws of logic and reason.

[Anonymous No.2330650]

>>2330646
the next sentence is true.
the first sentence is a lie.

[Anonymous No.2330651]

>>2330647
You understand the position you're making right? It's called unfalsifiable. It's entirely irrefutable in any way. Such things are generally considered indicators of a completely bullshit argument.

[Anonymous No.2330652]

>>2330642

Limits of an almighty being: cannot exist.

[Anonymous No.2330655]

>>2330617
Actually it wouldn't. A deistic god wouldn't give a shit, so you could just go that way.

If you want to go theistic, plenty (most) religions have some sort of 'end times' or something else where the species becomes extinct anyway. Just chalk the prophecies up to metaphors of what actually happened and there you go.

[Anonymous No.2330658]

>>2330650

self referential paradoxes don't exist except as a set of symbols representing a hypothetical scenario.

[Anonymous No.2330664]

>>2330650
Are you trying to make some claim by making a logical paradox via English construction? Really?

We're talking about existence and questions of empirical fact, not of mental masturbation of the abstract.

[Anonymous No.2330666]

>>2330648
>Unable to come up with an actual answer.

Being an atheist does not automatically make you smarter or logical.

[Anonymous No.2330671]

>>2330666

I'd say not believing in an admitted illogical idea makes the atheist more logical than the theist by definition.

[Anonymous No.2330672]

>>2330666
>Being an atheist does not automatically make you smarter or logical.
Indeed. It merely makes me right on this point based on the evidence and reason.

[Anonymous No.2330674]

>>2330587
it's clearly you that read a science book or two and has taken the (at best) A level reasoning from it. A singularity is the point at which the curvature of space time is infinite, even if the space time had finite curvature and then folded there would still be a gap where there was no time thus disjointing both sets of time from each other even though they are one and the same, meaning causality could not pass from one to the other, meaning the 'first' universe could not affect the 'second'.

I am speaking in heavily simplified terms on this board so that people can understand the arguement, this arguement will only be useful if it's understandable by the man off the street.

[Anonymous No.2330676]

>>2330672
That's just the point: You have no evidence beyond your own ideas.

Unless you are able to travel through time, you will stay that way. But that would make you a god, now wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.2330677]

To the folks hating on the "god is illogical" thing:
1. Sure it's the easy way out, but it's technically true, you can just define god as outside of logic and there you go. I brought it up because it's the easy way out of any logical argument against god.

2. You don't need to use it, as I brought up before, you can maintain the existence of god completely within the limits of logic. It's a bit more difficult then just saying "well god can disobey logic," but it's easy to formulate an existent god who also follows the rules of logic. You can't prove it or find the faintest scrap of evidence that's worth a damn, but you can conceive of it.

Even if you were to make the rule that god must follow the rules of logic, you can't disprove god. Most people just don't go that route because they're lazy (or dumb).

[Anonymous No.2330680]

>>2330664
You only said that a logical contradiction could not exist in this reality

[Anonymous No.2330683]

>>2330677

But if god is 'outside logic' then how can he be defined in the first place if definitions are part of logic?

[Anonymous No.2330684]

>>2330680
As I have said else-thread
1- If you claim to know the intent and mind of an illogical being, then you are obviously deluded.
2- Any argument you make necessarily uses logic, but if that argument argues for an illogical result using logic, then your argument lacks all value. It's entirely uncompelling to use logic to prove the existence of an illogical thing.

[Anonymous No.2330687]

Having a taco and eating it aren't necessarily the same thing.
Just because you can't act without external stimuli doesn't mean that you can't act in more than one ways based on a stimuli.

[Anonymous No.2330690]

>>2330680

protip: things 'exist' in 'reality'. Things are either real and existing or not real and not existing.

You can't have a non existent thing that is real or vice versa.

[Anonymous No.2330691]

>>2330687
What? I don't get your point.

[Anonymous No.2330695]

ITT: Athiest trolls trolling athiests

[Anonymous No.2330698]

sure is a lot of samefag in here

[Anonymous No.2330701]

Woke up, fell out of bed,
Dragged a comb across my head
Found my way downstairs and drank a cup,
And looking up I noticed OP was a fag.
Check the box, report the thread
Use sage (I'm not brain-dead)

[Anonymous No.2330705]

>>2330695
Some atheists , for some reason, just must be on the right at all times, like religious zealots.

When you think about it, you will notice that both are equally retarded.

[Anonymous No.2330706]

>>2330705

[Anonymous No.2330710]

>>2330683
Definitions are a part of logic, but they're also part of a lot of other things. Definitions exist across multiple sets of things, so to speak.

Furthermore or alternatively, you can make statements within logic to this effect:
1. There exists a thing or things which do not follow the rules of logic.
2. This thing, one of them, or all of them, is called god.

These two statements are completely within the realm of logic.
Even more fun:

1. There exists a set of things which follow logical laws.
2. Sets have opposite sets (if you have a set of A there must exist a set of not-A)
3. Therefore a set of things which do not follow logical laws must exist.

If you feel like it, you can throw god in that set, which you just established the existence of.

Protip: The set of all things which do not follow logical laws is null.
Proertip: There is no way to prove the protip.

But that's all boring, imo, it's much more fun when I claim that there can(not does, can) exist a god which follows perfectly the laws of logic, and cannot be logically disproved. I usually have fun defending that one. I'm an atheist, but arguing with christians is just so dull. It's much more fun (and difficult) taking the opposite side. That's just me though.

[Anonymous No.2330712]

>>2330706
Still fucking stupid. Neither of you are willing to learn, or consider that your side might wrong.

So what's the point?

[Anonymous No.2330713]

>>2330710
>1. There exists a set of things which follow logical laws.
>2. Sets have opposite sets (if you have a set of A there must exist a set of not-A)
>3. Therefore a set of things which do not follow logical laws must exist.

No.

Example:
Z = the set of integers
S = { x : x in Z, ( - x) * ( - x) = x * x }
The compliment of S (with regards to Z) is the empty set.

Thank you, come again.

[Anonymous No.2330714]

>>2330712
I am always ready to consider when I might be wrong, as long as it doesn't contradict the available evidence.

Also, you underestimate the effectiveness of such threads. See Dawkin's Converts Corner (or whatever) on his webpage for a list of people which changed their mind through similar help.

[Anonymous No.2330715]

>>2330705
I've said all along I'm an atheist playing devil's advocate. I'm not a troll, I just like a good debate. If people are mad then that sucks, I'd much rather have a reasoned and interesting debate with non-mad people.

>>2330695
>mfw you are dumb.

[Anonymous No.2330716]

>>2330714
>Dawkins

No. The man is a disgrace.

[Anonymous No.2330718]

>>2330716
That's like, just your opinion man.

I think he's a great guy. Intelligent, usually correct, polite.

[Anonymous No.2330721]

>>2330691

Hrm, ok, the point I'm making is that we are using words with non-finite meaning as if they had finite meaning.

For what it's worth, look at it another way - let's say you make a robot with AI, and the robot can only act on the logic you gave it.

If I ask the question, "what did you will the robot to do?", this question is distinct from "what is the robot's will in response to ____?", and neither truly constitutes complete freedom on either party.
This, however, is not the point, but if it explains what you asked sufficiently then I would rather stop here.

[Anonymous No.2330726]

>>2330721
>let's say you make a robot with AI, and the robot can only act on the logic you gave it.
I don't understand this. This seems to imply that a human is something more than a rather complex organic machine which operates under the same principles as a computer game AI player, albeit much more complex.

I think that there is no difference besides complexity, and I agree that it's emergent behavior.

[Anonymous No.2330729]

>>2330718
And you are another one of his sycophants.

I have read his books. His arguments are sketchy, and his attacks on religion, as a whole, are opinionated at best.

[Anonymous No.2330731]

>>2330712

Dude if I see a miracle under experimental conditions I'll convert.

Still waiting.

[Anonymous No.2330732]

>>2330729
You know, he is more than simply a walking atheist. He singlehandedly changed and directed the course of modern biology with his book The Selfish Gene.

I agree that the arguments in The God Delusion are not the best, but he has other books too, such as the aforementioned The Selfish Gene, and my personal favorite The Greatest Show On Earth.

I much prefer to hear his atheist views when he speaks.

[Anonymous No.2330733]

>>2330713
I admit: I don't know formal set theory, nor do I know the notations. I just know the extreme basics and like using the word and some of the terms in an attempt to express what I'm trying to say in different terms. It was probably a mistake to break that stuff out on /sci/ lol.

Are you trying to say that the compliment of a set doesn't necessarily exist? I'd appreciate a bit of further explanation on a concept that I like and generally interests me but that I haven't really been able to study.

For the argument I was making then: please see the first set of statements.

[Anonymous No.2330736]

>>2330729

So his attacks aren't 'illogical' or 'flawed' but 'opinionated'?

That the best you can come up with?

[Anonymous No.2330737]

>>2330733
I reread your post, and we might be agreeing.

All I was trying to say is that the compliment of the set of things which are logical and which exist might be the empty set. That's all.

[Anonymous No.2330743]

>>2330732

I think Hitchens is a better speaker for atheism, but Dawkins is very good at countering creationist claptrap.

I think he gets a bad rap because he's described so often as a 'militant atheist', so people who have never heard him can call him an asshole.

[Anonymous No.2330752]

>>2330731
I agree with this guy.

Hell, I'd even accept some high-school science project level experiment, as long as it's not contradicted by better ones.

[Anonymous No.2330755]

>>2330729
Not the guy you're conversing with, but simply because someone doesn't have the prerequisite irrational hatred for the guy, doesn't mean that they idolize him in any way.

I find the man neither objectionable nor that deserving of renown (at least in regards to his criticism of religion and on the concept of a divine being with homocentric goals), but the very fact that there's such a negative backlash to a single man doing what is roughly a far more polite and restrained version of what countless theistic organisations do on a daily basis, shows that there's a problem surrounding the debate.

[Anonymous No.2330759]

>>2330736
>RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL THUS RELIGION MUST DIE!
I have summed up Dawkin's ideas. While I agree with him that religion should not be mixed in politics or education, his portrayal of religion is twisted. Atheism will not usher humanity into a golden age of reason and understanding. This is just plain naive.

[Anonymous No.2330765]

>>2330752
>>2330731
Well, I'm sort of with these guys. With sufficient evidence, I would admit that some sort of god thing exists. However, I would not "convert", as that implies I would worship it. If it turned out to be the god of the bible, I would do my best to destroy it as the evil which it is.

[Anonymous No.2330766]

>>2330759
>RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL THUS RELIGION MUST DIE!
He never said this. I know that he had a tv thing with this as its name, but that was forced on him by the producer.

You obviously haven't actually bothered to read his work or hear him out.

[Anonymous No.2330767]

>>2330737
Oh, yeah we're totally agreeing. My point was that just that you can establish the existence of that set, and that you could not fully establish the fact that it's empty.

All evidence (or well, lack of really) points to the idea that there's nothing in it, but you can't prove it, was my point. If any of those statements are incorrect, please correct me. As I already stated, it's not my area of expertize, I just like using it from time to time because I like it.

[Anonymous No.2330769]

>>2330767
I'll repeat what I said here: >>2330684
>1- If you claim to know the intent and mind of an illogical being, then you are obviously deluded.
>2- Any argument you make necessarily uses logic, but if that argument argues for an illogical result using logic, then your argument lacks all value. It's entirely uncompelling to use logic to prove the existence of an illogical thing.

[Anonymous No.2330774]

>>2330759
Dude, seriously?

A good chunk of all his literature regarding the relevant subject is fucking rife with repeated pushes for the fact that this view is raw bullshit, and that you should in no way take this as his view or as your own.

[Anonymous No.2330777]

>>2330765
Yeah, I wouldn't fall to my knees, but I'd accept that it existed, just as I accept the existence of everything else for which there is concrete evidence.

Also, you can get to a god of the bible that's not completely evil and twisted if you interpret it very carefully in a very specific way. It's really freaking hard, but that's what apologists are for.

[Anonymous No.2330778]

>>2330759
A more accurate phrasing is:

Modern commonly practiced religion does more harm than good. Also: it's false, and truth has some inherent value, and so does spreading the truth.

[Anonymous No.2330780]

>>2330759

No one claimed religion was the source of all evil.

That kind of moronic demonization is the province of theists.

[Anonymous No.2330783]

cancer cancer cancer

[Anonymous No.2330784]

>>2330777

seeing as how the monotheistic god is a gestalt of caananite polytheistic gods, why not just eliminate yahweh worship and go for asherah or el shaddai?

[Anonymous No.2330786]

>>2330777
Old Testament needs one metric ton of background information, archeology, and even ancient arameic language knowledge to understand it well, especially on the whole genocide, rape laws and slavery bits. New Testament is far easier to understand.

[Anonymous No.2330788]

>>2330726

Well, then, we don't disagree, we only use different terminology, as fundamentally, emergent behavior corresponds to what I would see as free will.

That said, robots and humans are very different. One is made by humans merging ideas together and the other is made by humans merging genitalia together.
In the example, our capacity for will (distinction between the two?) wasn't truly important, as a robot could have built a robot and answered the questions, but then, it would've been less personal for you.

The point I was trying to make initially is that it's very hard to agree on things when people are talking about very loaded subjects without rigid grammar and definitions. Event then, there can be disagreement about use (and people tend not to accept the premises given), but at least we wouldn't get people saying HERP DERP NO FREE WILL and responding HERP DERP GOD SAYS FREE WILL YES, when realistically they mean HERP DERP YOU USED A WORD I DONT LIKE and they respond HERP DERP YOU MADE ME BUTTHURT BY SAYING I CANT USE THE WORD FREE WILL

[Anonymous No.2330790]

don't we all love cancer

[Anonymous No.2330791]

Just skimmed trough the thread and ready to input more.

Lets brake down what you call a "God". Everyone has their own view of it but as soon as you start talking what you think it is or what something describes it as the error shows itself.
Aslong as it just "God" and nothing else its unprovable, as soon as you add anything to the mix it becomes a easily breakable mess of grabage.
as an example, omnipotent. To truly be omnipotent one could do anything. So he could create a sword that cuts everything and a rock thats unbrakable. Being omnipotent he surely could do one of them but both becomes an illogical paradox thats not that easily swept under the carpect but due to being omnipotent it should be possible. My conclusion ominpotens can not exist.
Now try it with other godlike attributes.

[Anonymous No.2330796]

>>2330788
I don't "believe in free will". I believe that "free will" is a meaningless term as commonly used.

>as a robot could have built a robot and answered the questions, but then, it would've been less personal for you.
If a robot could build another robot which passed the Turing test, and possessed the will to do so, then I would probably consider it sentient and worthy of rights as any other human.

[Anonymous No.2330798]

have some more cancer

[Anonymous No.2330799]

>>2330796

I'd probably extend the test to a large period of time to see if it isnt just a finite state machine. A year or so of cohabitation should do it.

[Anonymous No.2330800]

and for good measure some more

[Anonymous No.2330802]

>>2330769
I'm not the dude you've been talking to, but 1) uncompelling and stupid as it is, it's still possible to formulate (not prove) the existence of an illogical thing logically. I did it a few posts back and it was entirely boring.

More importantly though, if you've been reading my posts in this thread, you'll see me repeatedly make the (correct) claim you can make an argument for god without resorting to playing the illogical card, and formulate the existence of a god the operates completely within the rules of logic. It's a bit harder, but entirely more fun. The problems come when you think you can prove, provide evidence for, or even make a semi-reasonable logical argument in favor of it's actual existence. You can totally conceive of it though.

[Anonymous No.2330804]

>>2330791
This has been explored with the previous "God is unconstrained by mortal logic"-bit, which is pretty much just an evolved case of "God works in mysterious ways"-shoulder shrugging.

Besides, most standard interpretations of a deity can be empirically disregarded, at least in their classic forms, as most of them have clear physical abilities and personalities attributed to them which would make reality a far less "stable" place if they were actually present.

The raw concept of a god-like entity, the whole "Sentient (pre)Big Bang" mess, is a whole 'nother matter entirely.

[Anonymous No.2330808]

>>2330800
I clean corpses. Nothing you can show me can even make me raise my eyebrow

[Anonymous No.2330809]

>>2330800
>>2330798
>>2330790
>>2330783

If you really think it's cancer, then fucking hide or ignore the thread and stop bumping it, you retard. And if you actually read it, there's actually (surprisingly) some non-cancer going on in here, so fuck off.

[Anonymous No.2330810]

>>2330802
Where did you attempt a logical proof of the existence of an illogical thing? I missed that.

[Anonymous No.2330813]

>>2330799
But I think that humans are finite state machines. Well, nondeterminalistic finite state machines due to quantum effects and such.

[Anonymous No.2330815]

>>2330804
In my oppinion it does not matter whether we call it big-bang or god aslong as people dont treat it any different from the context it bears. In this case just the start and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.2330818]

>>2330809
science has NOTHING to do with non-sensical belief systems so...
GTFO this board forever for not reading the rules

[Anonymous No.2330820]

>>2330796

Aha! But that is the point - you don't call it free will, but you have a term for it that is in essence what I *do* call free will.
Certainly, in discussions of God, the idea behind free will is useless, but the term itself is actually very useful in contemporary discussion.
A better term may be "personal will", but that implies a lot of things that may not fit situations, plus, such a phrase is just not used in our culture.

For the second point, yes, but as I said, the will of the robot is not what seperates it from a human, the material makeup of it is.
There are humans without a semblance of personality, and there will be robots with such a semblance of personality, that doesn't make them biologically organic.

[Anonymous No.2330823]

>>2330815
That's the problem, though.

The arguments that are put forth for accepting the concept of a god is almost always in regards to the vague god-concept, the sentient big bang, which is seemingly backed by logic and current science (or at the very least the holes in it), but the actual execution of faith is almost always in regards to the homocentric "God" which produces miracles and whatnot.

[Anonymous No.2330824]

>>2330818
Technically, it does, because science can disprove a lot of the popular nonsensical belief systems.

It is still against the rules of the board though.

[Anonymous No.2330828]

>>2330810
I never attempted a logical proof of an illogical thing, and I never said I did. I specifically said that I formulated the possibility of illogical things, but did not prove it. That would be silly, because you can't prove illogical things with logic. What you can do is use logic to show that such things are possible. I did so here:
>>2330710
Once you get to the possibility of an illogical thing, it's easy to say that it exists and then give lots of illogical reasons for it. As I said there's no proving it, there's no providing evidence for it, and there are no solid arguments for it. The only thing you can do is get to the possibility, and it's entirely uninteresting to do so.

The best you can do (which I did) is say that non-logical things are possible. You can't make any further logical arguments.

[Anonymous No.2330831]

>>2330828
i'm-ok-with-this.jpg

[Anonymous No.2330844]

>>2330818
It may have started out as such, and there are some elements in there, but personally I'm discussing logic and what you can and cannot do with it. That is related to science and math and not science vs. religion. So yes, there's cancer in the thread. But there's also an interesting discussion. Report the thread if you like, as it was in fact created in violation of the rules, I'm just point out that something interesting (and narrowly within th bounds of the rules) came up. More importantly, I'm pointing out that you're bumping a thread you don't like instead of just hiding it, and yelling cancer does nothing to actually remove it. Go ahead, report the thread, I already did. But now I'm having an interesting discussion in it, so whatever. Just hide it bro.