Is god real?

[Grave_n_idle]

What is the point of this? It has no bearing on reality.

The topic is "Is god real".

Whether or not 'god' has bearing on reality is debatable, and - indeed - that is the entire topic of the thread. No?

[The Truth and Light]

What is the point of this? It has no bearing on reality.

The topic is "Is god real".

Whether or not 'god' has bearing on reality is debatable, and - indeed - that is the entire topic of the thread. No?

Well where can I start?

First. There is such a thing as absolute truth. For every yes or no question, there is an answer that is absolute. This is most prevalent in mathematics. All numbers have an absolute quantity, and all combinations ofm numbers absolutely come out with a certain answer.

Thus, "Is God real?" has a yes or no answer, and the answer is absolute.

Next, laws of logic exist. Every event causes a reaction, every destruction leads to renewal, everything has a cause. Accidents do not happen. Statistically, actions that defy probability are less likely to happen. What is true may not be popular, what is popular may not be true. Logical rules helps us find absolute truth.

The many uses of logic help us observe scientific laws. Logic is constantly applied to the rules of the universe. We can see this very well in Physics. The universe is designed, preditermined to follow certain rules. All occurences are preset, constrained by the rules of the universe, and caused by something else, thus causing another thing to happen. The universe is like a magnaminous clock, always in motion, always evolving in the predertermined natural way.

There is such a thing as absolute truth. Laws of logic rule the universe. The universe is bound by scientific laws.

But is there right and wrong in the universe? There is. Humans are all aware, unless they are lacking of sanity, of some form of wright and wrong. Perhaps it is a human construction, born of society. Perhaps it is evolutionary. I do not believe in establishing a universal moral set, such may not exist. But every human being is aware of right and wrong in some form. Some do wrong on purpose, some avoid doing wrong. But the general human consensus, is that those who are not aware of right and wrong and mentally deficient. Every good parent teaches their child what is right and wrong. No human has ever gone without hearing about right and wrong. The concept is something the human race cannot escape. Is it real? Yes. Is it binding, yes, in fact without it, no society would thrive.

There is absolute truth. There is logic. The universe is ruled by scientific laws. Humans are aware of right and wrong. All of these are universal, immaterial, and unchanging.

Why does God exist?

Because without the omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God, none of these things would be possible.

[Unchecked Expansion]

There is absolute truth. There is logic. The universe is ruled by scientific laws. Humans are aware of right and wrong. All of these are universal, immaterial, and unchanging.
Why does God exist?
Because without the omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God, none of these things would be possible.

A god that is those things makes unchanging absolute logical laws entirely impossible. Because omnipotence and omnipresence break those laws, they are not absolute. If they are absolute, then omnipotence and omnipresence is impossible
As for absolute morality and omnibenevolence... reality seems to show that neither exist

[The Truth and Light]

There is absolute truth. There is logic. The universe is ruled by scientific laws. Humans are aware of right and wrong. All of these are universal, immaterial, and unchanging.
Why does God exist?
Because without the omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God, none of these things would be possible.

A god that is those things makes unchanging absolute logical laws entirely impossible. Because omnipotence and omnipresence break those laws, they are not absolute. If they are absolute, then omnipotence and omnipresence is impossible
As for absolute morality and omnibenevolence... reality seems to show that neither exist

You failed to back up your arguments. It sounded more like, "Ugh, but it's impossible!"

[Grave_n_idle]

First. There is such a thing as absolute truth.

Is there?

Not sure how this relates to "Sure, if you don't need any 'christ' in your 'christ-ianity'." (Which was the post you responded to) but go on...

For every yes or no question, there is an answer that is absolute. This is most prevalent in mathematics. All numbers have an absolute quantity, and all combinations ofm numbers absolutely come out with a certain answer.

Sure. Assuming of course we're not dealing with five-dimensional objects in a basic Euclidean geometric universe and given the essential premise that all geo-mathematics is based on the hideously limiting notion that one plus one equals two, and not - as Astemeyer correctly postulates - that one and two are in fact the same thing observed from different precepts.

Thus, "Is God real?" has a yes or no answer, and the answer is absolute.

Perhaps. We can certainly accept that there might or might not be a god as our starting premise.

Next, laws of logic exist.

That's a bizarre claim. Just because we employ 'rules of logic', doesn't mean they 'exist'. We could be making a great house of cards, that just seems to hang together because we haven't got enough evidence to know better, yet.

Every event causes a reaction, every destruction leads to renewal, everything has a cause. Accidents do not happen.

Another bizarre claim. Brownian motion, for example, is macroscopically 'random', even though it's mathematically predictable at the microscopic level.

Statistically, actions that defy probability are less likely to happen. What is true may not be popular, what is popular may not be true. Logical rules helps us find absolute truth.

Or don't. Your theology seems to be that they do.

The many uses of logic help us observe scientific laws. Logic is constantly applied to the rules of the universe. We can see this very well in Physics. The universe is designed, preditermined to follow certain rules.

This is a huge leap, and you're going to have to do a lot more leg work to have THAT accepted as a valid premise.

Complex geometric forms can be entirely explicable by mathematically valid interactions of chaotic motion (the conical pile of sand that forms under a random leak, for example).

Apparent 'order' and complexity, then, doesn't even begin to necessitate a 'creator'.

All occurences are preset, constrained by the rules of the universe, and caused by something else, thus causing another thing to happen. The universe is like a magnaminous clock, always in motion, always evolving in the predertermined natural way.

Unlikely, given the simple factor that observation at the microscopic level actually causes effects. The mere presence of an observer alters the nature of the observed.

I don't see an argument for how determinism can hold up to an observed universe.

There is such a thing as absolute truth. Laws of logic rule the universe. The universe is bound by scientific laws.

But is there right and wrong in the universe? There is. Humans are all aware, unless they are lacking of sanity, of some form of wright and wrong. Perhaps it is a human construction, born of society. Perhaps it is evolutionary. I do not believe in establishing a universal moral set, such may not exist. But every human being is aware of right and wrong in some form. Some do wrong on purpose, some avoid doing wrong. But the general human consensus, is that those who are not aware of right and wrong and mentally deficient. Every good parent teaches their child what is right and wrong. No human has ever gone without hearing about right and wrong.

Here you admit that there is no universal moral set, that even among a single grouping of people, some do not embrace the same morality... and then go on (within the same paragraph) to suggest that there is some universal validity to the 'right and wrong' concept.

Curious.

The concept is something the human race cannot escape. Is it real? Yes.

Statement of faith, not supported by your arguments.

Is it binding, yes, in fact without it, no society would thrive.

Poppycock. A purely pragmatic approach to an evolving society would create 'moral' equivalents of 'right' and 'wrong'.

There is absolute truth. There is logic. The universe is ruled by scientific laws. Humans are aware of right and wrong.

According to your own earlier statement, this isn't true.

All of these are universal, immaterial, and unchanging.

Why does God exist?

Because without the omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God, none of these things would be possible.

And this is pure theology, and does not follow from what has gone before.

And, worst of all, I still don't see how it connects to the post you were originally responding to.

[Unchecked Expansion]

A god that is those things makes unchanging absolute logical laws entirely impossible. Because omnipotence and omnipresence break those laws, they are not absolute. If they are absolute, then omnipotence and omnipresence is impossible
As for absolute morality and omnibenevolence... reality seems to show that neither exist

You failed to back up your arguments. It sounded more like, "Ugh, but it's impossible!"

You failed to make any argument at all. You just stated things and claimed they proved god.
As for why you can't have those sets of things - if there are absolute rules, then god is bound by them, and so not omnipotent. If there is an omnipotent being, then rules are not absolute. Simple enough to understand?
This doesn't even disprove gods. It just disproves your argument

[Bennettricia]

In my opinion, it makes more sence for the evolution of man to be the creation of humanity, not some super powered invincible being who can't be seen and who can create all, destroy all, and who never interacts when important shit goes down.

[The Truth and Light]

You failed to back up your arguments. It sounded more like, "Ugh, but it's impossible!"

You failed to make any argument at all. You just stated things and claimed they proved god.
As for why you can't have those sets of things - if there are absolute rules, then god is bound by them, and so not omnipotent. If there is an omnipotent being, then rules are not absolute. Simple enough to understand?
This doesn't even disprove gods. It just disproves your argument

Unless, of course God is not in the universe. Then again, you failed to name the rules that prevented omnipotence.

[Unchecked Expansion]

You failed to make any argument at all. You just stated things and claimed they proved god.
As for why you can't have those sets of things - if there are absolute rules, then god is bound by them, and so not omnipotent. If there is an omnipotent being, then rules are not absolute. Simple enough to understand?
This doesn't even disprove gods. It just disproves your argument

Unless, of course God is not in the universe. Then again, you failed to name the rules that prevented omnipotence.

Any of them if they are absolute. If it's bound by absolute logical rules, it isn't omnipotence. It's just potence

[Ceannairceach]

You failed to make any argument at all. You just stated things and claimed they proved god.
As for why you can't have those sets of things - if there are absolute rules, then god is bound by them, and so not omnipotent. If there is an omnipotent being, then rules are not absolute. Simple enough to understand?
This doesn't even disprove gods. It just disproves your argument

Unless, of course God is not in the universe. Then again, you failed to name the rules that prevented omnipotence.

Can God create a mountain he cannot lift?

[Grave_n_idle]

Unless, of course God is not in the universe. Then again, you failed to name the rules that prevented omnipotence.

Can God create a mountain he cannot lift?

Can Harry Potter?

[The Truth and Light]

Unless, of course God is not in the universe. Then again, you failed to name the rules that prevented omnipotence.

Can God create a mountain he cannot lift?

Yes. And then He can lift it anyway. That's omnipotence, yo

[Grave_n_idle]

Can God create a mountain he cannot lift?

Yes. And then He can lift it anyway. That's omnipotence, yo

So, 'all-powerful' actually means 'internally inconsistent'?

[Ceannairceach]

Can God create a mountain he cannot lift?

Yes. And then He can lift it anyway. That's omnipotence, yo

No he can't. If he can create an mountain that an omnipotent person can't lift, then he isn't omnipotent. If he can can't, then he isn't omnipotent.

[The Truth and Light]

Yes. And then He can lift it anyway. That's omnipotence, yo

No he can't. If he can create an mountain that an omnipotent person can't lift, then he isn't omnipotent. If he can can't, then he isn't omnipotent.

What part of omnipotent don't you understand. Perhaps God can create a mountain He cannot lift, but perhaps He's not so stupid, being omniscient and all.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Can God create a mountain he cannot lift?

Yes. And then He can lift it anyway. That's omnipotence, yo

Congratulations, you just invalidated absolute laws of logic.

[Urstania]

Yes. And then He can lift it anyway. That's omnipotence, yo

No he can't. If he can create an mountain that an omnipotent person can't lift, then he isn't omnipotent. If he can can't, then he isn't omnipotent.

He can lift that mountain just not all at the same time... maybe one rock at a time but by the end of it he would of lifted the entire mountain, it would just take a lifetime to do and a very strong pick axe

[Ceannairceach]

No he can't. If he can create an mountain that an omnipotent person can't lift, then he isn't omnipotent. If he can can't, then he isn't omnipotent.

What part of omnipotent don't you understand. Perhaps God can create a mountain He cannot lift, but perhaps He's not so stupid, being omniscient and all.

You obviously fail to understand the "absolute law" of omnipotence.

[Ifreann]

The topic is "Is god real".

Whether or not 'god' has bearing on reality is debatable, and - indeed - that is the entire topic of the thread. No?

Well where can I start?

First. There is such a thing as absolute truth. For every yes or no question, there is an answer that is absolute. This is most prevalent in mathematics. All numbers have an absolute quantity, and all combinations ofm numbers absolutely come out with a certain answer.

Division by zero disagrees. And I presume you would discount meaningless questions as not having absolutely true answers.

Thus, "Is God real?" has a yes or no answer, and the answer is absolute.

For properly defined values of "God" and "real", certainly.

Next, laws of logic exist. Every event causes a reaction,

That's physics, not logic.

every destruction leads to renewal,

Oh really?

everything has a cause.

Does it, though? Keep in mind the mad world of quantum physics.

Accidents do not happen.

I would have thought they do.

Statistically, actions that defy probability are less likely to happen.

That's what "defy probability" means, yes.

What is true may not be popular, what is popular may not be true. Logical rules helps us find absolute truth.

Yes, you appear to be quite familiar with tautologies.

The many uses of logic help us observe scientific laws. Logic is constantly applied to the rules of the universe. We can see this very well in Physics. The universe is designed, preditermined to follow certain rules.

It appears to follow certain rules, but that doesn't imply design or predetermination.

All occurences are preset, constrained by the rules of the universe, and caused by something else, thus causing another thing to happen.

Except things that don't have causes.

The universe is like a magnaminous clock, always in motion, always evolving in the predertermined natural way.

How is it magnanimous?

There is such a thing as absolute truth. Laws of logic rule the universe. The universe is bound by scientific laws.

But is there right and wrong in the universe? There is. Humans are all aware, unless they are lacking of sanity, of some form of wright and wrong. Perhaps it is a human construction, born of society. Perhaps it is evolutionary. I do not believe in establishing a universal moral set, such may not exist. But every human being is aware of right and wrong in some form.

Are biologists quite sure that the notion of morality is inherent and not learned? Because if it's learned then there are surely humans now or in the past who never had the benefit of learning of it.

Some do wrong on purpose, some avoid doing wrong.

Some question what is wrong.

But the general human consensus, is that those who are not aware of right and wrong and mentally deficient.

Really? So infants are mentally deficient?

Every good parent teaches their child what is right and wrong.

Which shouldn't be necessary if right and wrong is part of being a sane human.

No human has ever gone without hearing about right and wrong.

Even our ancient, extinct relatives? I don't think you can know that.

The concept is something the human race cannot escape.

Nonsense, of course we could.

Is it real? Yes.

It is as real as any other concept

Is it binding, yes, in fact without it, no society would thrive.

But it's not binding. Useful, yes, but not binding. Every day people do things which many would call wrong and suffer no ill consequences.

There is absolute truth. There is logic. The universe is ruled by scientific laws. Humans are aware of right and wrong. All of these are universal, immaterial, and unchanging.

Since humans are a relatively new addition to the universe and we're confined to a very small corner of it, then what we're aware of absolutely is not universal and unchanging.

Why does God exist?

Does God exist?

Because without the omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God, none of these things would be possible.

You spent all that time talking in circles only to say "There just has to be a God"?! What total bullshit!

I demand my wasted time back.

[Grave_n_idle]

No he can't. If he can create an mountain that an omnipotent person can't lift, then he isn't omnipotent. If he can can't, then he isn't omnipotent.

What part of omnipotent don't you understand. Perhaps God can create a mountain He cannot lift, but perhaps He's not so stupid, being omniscient and all.

Wait... are you under the impression that omniscient and omnipotent are the same thing?

[Grave_n_idle]

Does it, though? Keep in mind the mad world of quantum physics.

Indeed. I have a cat in a box, somewhere, that insists that the claim isn't true. And is. And isn't.

[Ifreann]

A god that is those things makes unchanging absolute logical laws entirely impossible. Because omnipotence and omnipresence break those laws, they are not absolute. If they are absolute, then omnipotence and omnipresence is impossible
As for absolute morality and omnibenevolence... reality seems to show that neither exist

You failed to back up your arguments. It sounded more like, "Ugh, but it's impossible!"

What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck? You just said that there is a God because there has to be, providing nothing in support of that and plenty of bullshit to distract from it, and then you come out with this?

[The Truth and Light]

What part of omnipotent don't you understand. Perhaps God can create a mountain He cannot lift, but perhaps He's not so stupid, being omniscient and all.

Wait... are you under the impression that omniscient and omnipotent are the same thing?

No. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, as I am not an idiot and mean what I say.

God is smart, duh. He's not the type of person to create a mountain that He cannot lift. So yes, God CAN create an unliftable mountain, but so far He HAS NOT, so it is irrelevant.

[Ceannairceach]

Wait... are you under the impression that omniscient and omnipotent are the same thing?

No. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, as I am not an idiot and mean what I say.

God is smart, duh. He's not the type of person to create a mountain that He cannot lift. So yes, God CAN create an unliftable mountain, but so far He HAS NOT, so it is irrelevant.

No, its relevant.

If he can create such a mountain, he is not omnipotent.
If he can't, he isn't omnipotent.
If he can and can still lift it, then there are no absolute laws.

[Grave_n_idle]

Wait... are you under the impression that omniscient and omnipotent are the same thing?

No. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, as I am not an idiot and mean what I say.

God is smart, duh. He's not the type of person to create a mountain that He cannot lift. So yes, God CAN create an unliftable mountain, but so far He HAS NOT, so it is irrelevant.

I admit, I was confused by your post suggesting that someone didn't understand omnipotence... because (and this is how I read it) they didn't allow for the claim that god is omniscient.

Nevermind, moving on... If he CAN create a mountain he can't lift... isn't not being able to lift something an indicator he's not omnipotent?