An argument for the non-existance of deity

Word to that Ray.

Now its time for someone to backup the non-existence.

 

Well, let's look at it logically.

Logic (and by that I think we all mean Formal Logic.. you yourself mention the Law of Non-Contradiction below) is not all encompassing in terms of existence. Logic deals with the spectrum of statements and their correspondence to reality (their truth). All logical arguments are series of statements that are bound by relationships due to subject matter.

For example:
1. A->B
2. A
3. therefore B.

A and B can be any statement and if premise 1 and 2 are true, then 3 must be true. I am sure you are aware of this.

We can use deductive logic to determine the truth of a statement. However, questions, exclamations, commands... these things are completely beyond logic. They are outside the sphere of what logic deals with.

For example:

What color is the sun? True or False?
Wow! True or False?
Get some rest. True or False?

What logical argument or form would conclude with "What color is the sun?"? Emotions are also beyond logic. So is color, sound, etc. Anything that is not a statement is not bound by logic in the sense that they cannot be subjected to a logical test, truth table, or deductive argument. You will never see:

1. A->B
2. A
3. Therefore "blue"

Now these things will never *contradict* logic (a car will never be blue and not-blue at the same time in the same respect). However, you will also not be able to fit them into deductive arguments because logic only deals with the truth/falsehood of statements.

Your argument seems misplaced in this sense. God is beyond logic in the same ways that we are. However, God cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction or the Law of the Excluded Middle. However, God (like us) can do things that are not "bound" by logic. We can ask questions, we can issue commands, we can feel emotions. These things work within the framework of reality, but are not subject to logic in the sense that they cannot be formalized. However, anyone that thinks that God can violate the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle is either foolishly naive or severly uneducated.

In the Christian understanding of God, logic (like love and justice) is an intrinsinct part of God's nature and character. God didn't create logic nor is God subsequent to logic. God is bound by logic as he is bound by his love and justice. In the same way, we, too, are bound by our own nature and character. He cannot alter logic (because he cannot alter his own nature).

Anyway, do you see how God could be bound by logic (his statements can be subjected to formal logic and he cannot violate logical laws) and at the same time not be bound by logic (aspects of his character and nature do not fall into the realm of true/false statements or the determination thereof).

God may act in a way that seems "non-common-sensical" but never in a way that is truly logically contradictory.

 

Finally hikaru lost, I rented that anime by the way SUCKS ASS. jk

 

Could we not reduce it to this.
Not to be reductionist ar anything. But needless complication is just that. needless.

The observed universe presents to the perceptions of human beings.
And thus to the process of reason that can contemplate such.
A superset of systems.

Systems and structure require laws and something for those laws to act appon.
Those are the parameters of the superset.
All the subsets of this are hierarchical in extention, distribution and enviroment.

Our understanding of the superset and its subsets. Is of a thing so massively complex and yet ballanced.
That the system/structure called life can sustain growth and increasing complexity
within a superset law called entropy.
Yet
Life uses more energy than it needs to exist under entropy. To gain complexity and diversity in a changing enviroment without any apparent need to do so in a stable system.
Why?
The complexity and intricacy of life is so massive and interconnected as to defy the computation of a billion human supercomputers. Yet all other systems like stellar evolution we can see the final understanding of.
With just one such computer.

Some here say that is a result of chance.
Some, say it is chaos theory.
some call it god [but which one?]

Occam suggests. that THE LAWS.. that are applied to the stuff called
reality . Mater, energy, space and the motion of such called 'time.
Were most probably designed to result in our observed universe.
This is a result of the principle of parsimony..Occams razor.

'Most probably' means just that.. Not 'fact'

Occam

 

----starting tranmission----

Occam got that it was simple... the simplest explanation is the right one

HERE IS NOW IS BE IS YOU IS ONE. BEYOND THE CONCEPT OF GOING BEYOND... GET IT TO GIVE IT.

What's more simply then you dude. thanks for playing

Nobody here

---end of transmission---

 

ganjaprince, your insane.

 

If a deity can be defined, then its existance or non-existance becomes a simple true or false statement of that definition, well within the realm of logical examination.


That's why no two people care to agree upon a single definition of their favorite deity, because every one suspects that their deity is really only a fabrication.


The logic of deities however, is that they remain largely undefinable.

It is in this undefinable state that they are most useful as mytho-symbolic archetypes of our most repressed survival and reproductive preoccupations.

I believe in all the deities.

After all each deity represents centuries of evolving fabrication.