God can't think or create anything.

[Farnhamia]

Then god is literally impossible.

No, because it is G-d. Your mind simply cannot comprehend.

Yeah, I love that excuse. "Oh, you wouldn't understand."

[Four-sided Triangles]

Only gibberish according to logic.

And dead people are only dead according to biology.

"Truth," "falsehood," "consistency," "sense," and "nonsense" are all DEFINED in terms of logic. Coming up with a new definition of "truth" which doesn't have to obey laws of logic is like redefining "unicorn" to mean "spaghetti" and then claiming that you proved the existence of unicorns by cooking up a plate of pasta. Other than semantic games like that, truth is necessarily logically consistent or else IT'S NOT TRUTH.

Sure, you can invent a new definition for "sense" in which "God created logic." makes "sense." However, it doesn't make sense according to the definition that we all use all the time. Relabeling concepts proves nothing that isn't trivial to begin with.

[Robert Magoo]

So, because you're limited in these ways, God must be too? How embarrassing...

[Genivaria]

Only gibberish according to logic.

My Brain exploded.

I have to go clean it up now.

Don't stain the carpet. I hear getting brain out is a bitch.

[Arkania 5]

My Brain exploded.

I have to go clean it up now.

What are you going to trust, God or logic? I think God is a lot more powerful, judging from history.

I think Logic has a lot of small victories around the world.

But meh.

[Four-sided Triangles]

No, because it is G-d. Your mind simply cannot comprehend.

What a perfect non-answer!

I love how no one has even tried to show how my argument fails. No one has tried to show how my scenario ISN'T a contradiction. No one has tried to show how a god existing outside of time and space can coherently perform actions. Usually, they at least attempt to make explanations for how an apparent contradiction in the bible isn't really a contradiction. Here, they aren't even trying.

Instead it's "Well, if logic says my god isn't possible, then fuck logic, even though it's the basis for absolutely every kind of truth and sense possible, and the denial of logic is a complete non-starter by definition."

It's like you've given up completely.

[Four-sided Triangles]

So, because you're limited in these ways, God must be too? How embarrassing...

What are you even talking about?

[Connopolis]

Good argument, except if it's God, it can really do whatever the fuck it wants, logic and physical laws be damned.

Then god is literally impossible. A god which can "fuck logic" is a god which, by definition, isn't even a concept and therefore cannot function as a subject or a predicate. It thus couldn't "exist" in any meaningful sense. Guaranteed.

Using logic and physics to disprove religion? I'm not sure how those subjects are even applicable to the situation, given that God is literally described as the essence of everything. If you can supply me with surefire evidence that God doesn't exist - I'd probably still disregard it - however, then you're at liberty to dismiss His existence; as of now, I'm unconvinced by your argument, which despite its facade, is basically stating what all other atheistic arguments do - that God's existence is a logical fallacy, and a physical impossibility.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

It created logic by most definitions.

That doesn't make any sense. Logic is not contingent. It doesn't have any physical or even metaphysical contingencies, and is entirely supported by tautology. It is self-referential and thus self-supporting. You can't "create" it. Saying "God created logic." is literally nothing but gibberish.

It's not really supposed to make sense. By definition if a god did exist, he would be totally outside our pathetically frail intellects ability to even begin to conceive what that might be like. We heave no reference, analogues, or even a priori reasoning that would suffice in explaining what being a non-contingent being means. Therefore, any discussion about the nature and existence is so totally fucked from the beginning it's actually somewhat childish to try and make sense of it.

[Leepaidamba]

A very interesting argument but as always people just say "Gawddunnit" and they're fine with that, even though they know that the "gawd"they believe exists most certainly hasn't "dunnit".

[Johz]

So, because you're limited in these ways, God must be too? How embarrassing...

What are you even talking about?

I think he's suggesting that you would be unable to affect the world in this situation, but that does not mean that his deity would.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Using logic and physics to disprove religion? I'm not sure how those subjects are even applicable to the situation, given that God is literally described as the essence of everything.

I used no physics at all, only philosophy, the subject which has ALWAYS been used in theology. As for logic, it forms the basis of philosophical inquiries.

If you can supply me with surefire evidence that God doesn't exist - I'd probably still disregard it

This statement alone demonstrates that arguing with you is a waste of time. Nothing at all could ever convince you, even if it were ironclad. Why should I debate with someone who refuses to consider even the possibility of being wrong?

[Four-sided Triangles]

It's not really supposed to make sense. By definition if a god did exist, he would be totally outside our pathetically frail intellects ability to even begin to conceive what that might be like. We heave no reference, analogues, or even a priori reasoning that would suffice in explaining what being a non-contingent being means. Therefore, any discussion about the nature and existence is so totally fucked from the beginning it's actually somewhat childish to try and make sense of it.

There's a big difference between "impossible for humans to comprehend intuitively" and "fundamentally and irreparably nonsensical."

[Connopolis]

I used no physics at all, only philosophy, the subject which has ALWAYS been used in theology. As for logic, it forms the basis of philosophical inquiries.

My point here is that your argument is solely based on personal opinion, and you don't consider the fact that God isn't affected by the standard laws of physics. It is widely accepted that He exists outside of our universe, and that His existence can't be understood by the human mind.

This statement alone demonstrates that arguing with you is a waste of time. Nothing at all could ever convince you, even if it were ironclad. Why should I debate with someone who refuses to consider even the possibility of being wrong?

I was being hyperbolic - my point was that there will most likely never be an argument that will prove either sides beliefs.

[Four-sided Triangles]

My point here is that your argument is solely based on personal opinion, and you don't consider the fact that God isn't affected by the standard laws of physics. It is widely accepted that He exists outside of our universe, and that His existence can't be understood by the human mind.

I NEVER INVOKED PHYSICS! It was nothing but metaphysics and logic.

I was being hyperbolic - my point was that there will most likely never be an argument that will prove either sides beliefs.

Nonsense. A logically inconsistent proposition is false, by definition. Any concepts of god which are logically contradictory are disproved before discussion even begins.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's not really supposed to make sense. By definition if a god did exist, he would be totally outside our pathetically frail intellects ability to even begin to conceive what that might be like. We heave no reference, analogues, or even a priori reasoning that would suffice in explaining what being a non-contingent being means. Therefore, any discussion about the nature and existence is so totally fucked from the beginning it's actually somewhat childish to try and make sense of it.

There's a big difference between "impossible for humans to comprehend intuitively." and "fundamentally and irreparably nonsensical."

Yes. Humans can often comprehend what is otherwise nonsensical.

[Avenio]

I think he's suggesting that you would be unable to affect the world in this situation, but that does not mean that his deity would.

I think what Four-sided Triangles is saying that though a transcendental deity would be able to act upon the world and influence it, but that it would likely be utterly incomprehensible and totally unlike the common conception of a loving, monotheistic deity. Time would have no meaning to it, ensuring that thought, in the linear sense that we're aware of and causality becomes an intensely tricky affair. Not to mention that a transcendental deity runs afoul of the laws it supposedly created in the universe; if it breaks the laws frequently to interfere in the lives of the squishy meatbags its taken upon itself to care for, then we'd notice it. If it didn't or couldn't interfere, then, of course, what's the point in worshiping it?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

There's a big difference between "impossible for humans to comprehend intuitively." and "fundamentally and irreparably nonsensical."

Yes. Humans can often comprehend what is otherwise nonsensical.

Politics for example.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

It's not really supposed to make sense. By definition if a god did exist, he would be totally outside our pathetically frail intellects ability to even begin to conceive what that might be like. We heave no reference, analogues, or even a priori reasoning that would suffice in explaining what being a non-contingent being means. Therefore, any discussion about the nature and existence is so totally fucked from the beginning it's actually somewhat childish to try and make sense of it.

There's a big difference between "impossible for humans to comprehend intuitively." and "fundamentally and irreparably nonsensical."

Not really. Everything you think, know, believe, understand etc. is entirely limited by your brains capacity for understanding. Logic is not exempt from this, you can only understand it as much as your brain can process it, which simply is not enough.

The first rule of all things is to understand you know nothing.

[Siorafrica]

[Four-sided Triangles]

I think what Four-sided Triangles is saying that though a transcendental deity would be able to act upon the world and influence it, but that it would likely be utterly incomprehensible and totally unlike the common conception of a loving, monotheistic deity.

Wrong. I'm saying that a transcendent deity which is "outside" of time and space cannot act at all. Any action it takes would contradict its being outside of time.

[1000 Cats]

I'm saying that most religions describe God as "some guy" and some even "some guy with a beard". I say that God is everything and everywhere. He is life. Though i'm a Orthodox Christian. Or maybe we all just got wrong what religions told us and turned God into a being.

That sounds like pantheism, a.k.a. "sexed-up" atheism. It's where you use the word "god" as a synonym for "life, the universe, and everything."

I believe in "life, the universe, and everything." Can I therefore say that I believe in god, even though I don't think the universe is teleological and I think that everything is natural?

Yes, because pantheism implies a conciousness and thus a direction, whereas atheism does not. Stop quoting Dawkins; it makes you look like an idiot.

[Norvenia]

Note: This ONLY applies to the super-transcendent deity of the kind espoused by some monotheists high on Platonism and Aristotelian metaphysics.

A transcendent god is often described by believers as being "outside of" time and space. Because god is outside the flow of time and outside of location in space, he is able to be a non-contingent being, that is, a being whose existence is dependent on nothing external at all.

However, a major problem exists with this logic. If god does not reside within time and space, then god cannot think or act at all. The idea of a process is only coherent within the context of some notion of time. Creation is a process, as is conscious thought. Without a sense of time along which change occurs, any sense of a "process" occurring is incoherent and self-refuting. Therefore, if god is a perfect being which exists outside of time and space, "he" cannot act in any way, nor can he have any consciousness.

If, instead, god exists INSIDE of some flow of time, he becomes able to perform actions and have thoughts. However, he also becomes a contingent being, and thus both his transcendence and the "argument from contingency" utterly fail, not that the argument from contingency works even for a do-nothing deity.

In the quest to make god increasingly "perfect" and "transcendent," some theists have defined him so abstractly that he can't actually function as anything at all.

Why do you care?

[Johz]

It's not really supposed to make sense. By definition if a god did exist, he would be totally outside our pathetically frail intellects ability to even begin to conceive what that might be like. We heave no reference, analogues, or even a priori reasoning that would suffice in explaining what being a non-contingent being means. Therefore, any discussion about the nature and existence is so totally fucked from the beginning it's actually somewhat childish to try and make sense of it.

There's a big difference between "impossible for humans to comprehend intuitively." and "fundamentally and irreparably nonsensical."

I think it should be noted at this point that our scientific knowledge is not infalible. To refer to something 'outside of the universe' is as fundamentally nonsensical in scientific terms as 'before the big bang', even when doing so proves the falsity of this god. Your discussion is flawed to begin with.

[The Parkus Empire]

you know nothing.

For all foreseeable, pragmatic, applicable, effective and real purposes, this is false.