An argument for the non-existance of deity

so what you're trying to argue is the fact that human logic is not perfect? I mean to humans, only and only human logic exists. I couldn't care less about the logics of plants or animals etc. because I am human. you're trying to define the logics behind God in a way that it is completely hidden from you. as humans all we have is our own logic. you can't expect to agrue the logics held by a plant unless you were a plant yourself. I'm pretty sure you're human, and arguing from the point of view of a deity, a plant, an animal, or a friggin atom, just cannot be. I was talking about human logics because that is the only thing available to me, and you.

 

what better way for the religionists to bury the question concerning the existence of god in a "reasoning" with no logical basis and possibility of proof. And with the difficulty of trying to prove a negative such as "there is no god", they have further retrenched themselves. It is the same old story as when someone tells a child that these things are beyond their capacity for understanding. But what, if anything, is diminished in our understanding of the world if we should take away the idea of god? Surely nothing related to our perceptions. How riduculous is it to base the existence of all our perceptions on something that is not perceived?

 

One can infinitely ask why. Why is the darkness of space so lurid? Why was the universe created? Was the universe created?

There are two types of people, those who their lives by logic and those who live by stories of the past.

While their Ideology may differ, it doesn’t defer from the fact that they both question their existence.


Reality is insane, if you think “What’s beyond earth?” We know that.

“What’s beyond the darkness of the universe?” and so on and so on, we don’t know.

The existence of god is mainly ignorance on our part, because we simply don’t know what’s beyond that of our own existence. I think this was stated before… sry



But anyway my point is, with all the crazy shit that consists of reality the possibility that god exists outside of it could be a truthful prospect, but as our knowledge exists now, it isn’t.

 

This is true in some cases. The child does not have the experience to understand certain concepts. This doesn't mean that they will never understand, but they are not currently capable of understanding.

God is perceiveable.

Matthew 13:13-16 describes those who do not perceive God's presence (although God is with them).

 

Once you've learned to talk about it, you've defined it.

Once you talk about something potentially outside the logic of your definitions, you've extended your definitions to logically include it.

Regardless of creation, how we define anything is logically creative.

Your grasping at thin air.

 

Urgh.

No, this is not what I'm arguing.

Listen ...

What I am arguing has ...

NOTHING

... to do with human logic, nor does it have anything to do with animal logic, nor does it have anything to do with ANY specific kind of logic!

It doesn't matter if human logic is the only thing *available* to me, because it may not be the only kind of logic that exists.

I am talking about a deity existing outside of ...

ALL

... logic.

Well, think of it like this.

I can define an ice cube as cold.

Or I can define an ice cube as cold, and wet, and transparent.

Both of them are "definitions," but neither of them is complete, because neither of them captures the essence of what exactly an ice cube is. The second one is more precise to the essence, but it's not the complete essence.

Similarly, I am only providing an incomplete definition as to what a god or deity is (something that exists outside of all logic). With either of the ice cube examples, there are a potential million other words you could use to describe ice. The same is true for a god.

I am focusing on one aspect of such a god (the aspect of existing outside of all logic), because many people claim that it is possible, and I am arguing that it is not possible.

So, definitions aside (you had a good observation, though), I'm talking about a god that nobody has been able to complete define, and I'm saying that one of the parts of such a god that we HAVE defined cannot possibly be true.

 

I've got to say, I have no idea what Blueeyedson is talking about at all. There is no logic specifically for humans or plants or animals. Logic is universal, and that's not just my opinion; it's true by definition. Meaning, there is only one logic and that it works for the anyone and everything in the entire universe. I can't emphasize this enough. "4" is a universal, again, by definition. When you say "2 + 2 = 4" it's the same thing as saying "all 2's and all 2's will always yield 4's". Also, Blueeyedson, you're running into two problems. 1) If you can't know animal logic or plant logic, then how can you claim to know that animals and plants live by a different logic? and 2) If there is an animal logic and plant logic, then why isn't there a bear logic and dog logic, or a rose logic and tulip logic? At the same time, why isn't there a Common Sense logic and Blueeyedson logic? In short, you're just not making sense.

 

that's about the only place that "god"can "exist" for those people who believe in such things-outside of all logic. Its' the same with super-naturalism, as if there was anything that could really be outside nature. Mechanics is a good example. Many people, when their car breaks down view it with an almost reverential awe, as if it was a sign from god or something. To the trained mechanic, who has "eyes that see" and "ears to hear", the problem can always be traced to something, a piece of lint in the distribudor, for instance. It is the same with god, if you don't understand something, lump it together and attribute it to the deity.

 

Everything is a sign from God. God coordinates all reality from within and outside of it's physical framework.

Of course a person who does not know God "Always seeing but not perceiving, always hearing but not understanding" would not understand that God caused the lint to get caught in the distributor.

 

You seem to be talking about a State of Being, which is beyond a our mere State of Knowledge.

A State of Knowledge is the usual object-subject separation; the separation of the Knower from the Known.

A State of Being, on the other hand, reflects the Taoist wisdom that 'only those who don't know truely know'.

In other words, you must be the wind to know the wind.

Knowledge in itself is just a secondary by-product of one's State of Being.

A State of Being is often refered to as a State of Nature where one is alive like a child in the Natural Spontaneous Perfection of the Moment.

This is a Wholistic State of Enlightenment where one does not separate, individuate, nor alienate one's self from Nature.

Alienation, however, is the one word most often used to describe the condition of Civilized Man.

This arises from Civilized Man's fear-driven fight-or-flight dualistic interpretation of Causal Relations.

You and I are trapped in this dualistic mental mode in which we simplistically objectify and individuate every experience and relationship we will ever have in life.

You and I, because we have already been Civilized, will never be able to experience this GOD-thing you mention that's beyond mere definition or logic.

You and I will never be alive to that spirit.

All we can do is speculate in futility.

Every idea we conceive is already contaminated with the alienated flesh of our ubiquitous death-drive.

So why bother, unless we enjoy holding our nose.

 

Cripes, I'm not talking about a state of being, I'm talking about definitions here; definitions associated with logic.

A human definition can never be a complete definition of anything absolute (like a chair, or any kind of thing). That's why I'm not talking about human definitions. I'm talking about definitions in an absolute viewpoint; as in, matter and energy.

It has nothing to do with a state of being whatsoever. You're taking it WAAAAY too far off track.

For the record now: I'm saying that no god can exist outside of all logic, because there is no such thing as existance in the absence of some structure that can define what "existance" is.

I'm saying, how can there BE a spirit that exists outside of all logic? A spirit has to have some form, some kind of existance, which requires that there is some rule that allows it to be defined.

 

I agree, but in our current mental state we could never prove it.

You call that proof!?!

Using logic to prove that nothing exists outside of logical definitions!?!

Look, Diests always hide their Dieties outside of logical definitions merely to protect them from logical attacks.

But using logic to prove that their Dieties don't exist outside of logical definitions is not the way to go.

For one, if anything exists outside of logical definitions at all, it won't be a Diety.

Call it what you will, GOD it is not!

So don't worry about dis-proving God with that 'nothing can exist outside of logical definitions' arguement.

It's a waste of time, because it can't be done except with the use of logic.

Moreover, if your going to start believing in Absolutes, well then, your no different than the Diests your trying to disprove.

 

I was looking at something completely different. :&
2 plus 2 is still 4 yes?

 

I don't understand. Do you mean that you were talking about something completely different? Was that even a reply to me? If you were talking about something completely different, why don't you elaborate and tell me what it is you're talking about? But I can tell you right now, either we're talking about the same thing, or you misused the word "logic".

 

No, it's 5.

 

numbers don't exist

 

Well, of course number don't "exist" proper. They're ideas. But they're purely logical ideas, meaning that mathematics is necessarily true. In any case, I don't see your point. What does the existence of numbers have to do with this discussion?

 

numbers, like god, can't exist outside of all logic.

 

no all I mean is that I was concentrating on something completely different than what Hikaru was arguing in the first place. I wasn't even trying to talk about different kinds of logic. I was mistaken in what the topic was and was trying to actually say the opposite of what I said because I don't take it to be true. Hikaru was saying something other than what I was thinking he said but in the end maybe I was just arguing with myself since Hikaru's point had nothing to do with what I thought he said.
my initial thought was he was arguing against and for different types of logic by which God can be proved through some kind of definition. but nevermind, appologies if I caused any headaches

 

I don't know if there is a 'God'. I do know what I believe, though, and that is for me and me alone to decide. Others can and must believe what they feel is right for them, and I support their right to do so. If it is based in love, and harms no one else, I see nothing to criticize.
If someone tells me that they are certain God is real, I believe them. Their reality is not mine, so how can I dispute it? If another says there is no God, I believe them too, and see no contradiction... two individuals, two unique lives, two different realities, both valid, both real, both true.
I would bet that if The Great Spirit is a real entity, It is very likely beyond our ability to define, comprehend, or know completely. We have enough of a challenge understanding our own brains.... I see that task as very nearly impossible, akin to using a hammer to understand what a hammer is.
My goal is to increase agreement, and decrease divisiveness, so I would not argue God's existance for that reason alone. Besides, I still don't see the point of it.