Logically, this God figure would either have to not be a God like being, or be incredible ignorant/dumb/shortsighted/evil/etc. Any being with Godlike powers would have no need for us and would not create a universe of this scale and complexity for our entertainment, or it's own (assuming it can already see what has occurred in the future...)
So, If logic is a bad way to define God... what next?
Your line of thinking here is entirely a subjective assertion. How do you ascribe logic to it?
The subjectivity of the assertion is almost entirely restrained to the use of the term god, which nobody seems to be willing to accept a definition of. And logic is ascribed to it as an assertion, which is supported elsewhere. The definition of god used here is, in fact, a fairly narrow one, which requires only that god possess absolute power and absolute knowledge, but is one generally accepted by the religions that seem prevalent on this thread.
The proof is along the lines of, something happens that results in someone being less than satisfied. At that point there is a flaw in the world, if one assumes that a 'god' exists, then its existence would need to be justifiable in the presence of such a flaw. The entity is sufficiently capable that it may choose for there to be no potential for flaws, and that have no value to it. There is nothing it cannot defeat and nothing it requires. So the only possibility is that it chooses to maintain flaws for their own sake. It is quite possible that they are not flaws, but that requires that humans are not valuable to it, it is possible that it chooses to maintain flaws for its own amusement. But people ascribe a positive nature to this god, with respect to humans, so they refuse to accept that it desires these flaws...
I'm not going to go over all of it again, but there's no logical reason for a a god to exist given the attributes we give to gods. If you really feel like reading it, it's back about 30 pages by now.
I think it's safe to say there is no need to go over it again since it cannot be anything except a subjective assertion.
This is an example of someone choosing not to explore something based upon a preexisting faith in its flaws. It is exactly this willingness to rely upon unfounded claims that makes the flaws in human understanding that allow religion to exist so dangerous. The appearance of a god, or enlightenment, or a cult leader, or any other fixation of blind devotion can be falsified in far more vivid ways than mere perfect visual, auditory, tactile, and aromatic illusions could hope to achieve. I for one do not want people willing to abandon a reliable reality for one that can be assumed to be fictional. It is all but certain that religion would exist in a world devoid of gods.
Your opinion of what God might like to do is precisely that -- your opinion. I honestly have no idea how anyone would even begin to assume they can define what a god or gods might reasonable be expected to want or to do. If there is no God that created us in His own image, then most assuredly we created gods in our own image. What we choose to do is not dictated by strict logic. Any god or gods would simply not be constrained by your definitions of what is good, or logical, or useful, or sensible.
Morality may indeed be utterly subjective, but if you happen to be God, your opinion is the one that counts.
But people do assume to know what their gods want, without it religion is futile, as the entire value of religion is that one would be able to adapt to its god. And so people can logically extrapolate from the assumptions presented by religions and prove them to be false.
Humans do not strictly use logic, but their choices are dictated by logic. Humans can act according to logic, but they can also act according to less analytical methods, but both can be logically deduced. For example, a human steps into quicksand, they begin to sink. sinking is constant, raising one leg causes the other to sink, and causes sinking to increase. It is logical to seek a legless solution to the problem, failing that, one leg should be completely extracted from the sand before the other is moved, anything less than complete extraction is a complete loss. An alternative response is to panic, to struggle, and to sink. This may seem completely devoid of logic, but one can see that the reactions would be highly successful in more common scenarios, such as being bitten, or placing a foot upon a dangerously hot surface. Just because logic is not used does not mean that it is not present.
Logic requires only patterns, if a god is not beholden to logic then that god is random, and has no effective value, not to mention that its presence would be obvious.
The only morality that can act, and therefore the only morality that counts, is the morality of the one that acts. If a god's morality is not defensible by humans, then humans should not act upon it.
Being an atheist does not mean you know everything.
Being an atheist means you know everything about your own understanding of gods, which is far more than a religious person who refuses to define their god.
The question of whether God exists is the question of the nature of our own selves.
Error, the nature of the self is defined by the self. If a divine relationship is a component of the self then it can be discerned by studying the self.
We know we are conscious decision makers, or at the very least that we are aware and perceive some sense of being conscious decision makers. All of religion evolves from there. I don't think I overstate the case in saying all of philosophy and ethics also starts from there.
Perception may perceive a fictional self, memory can be false, expectation can be false, fact can be false, time can be false, thought can be false, experience can be false, only perception itself is certain. Philosophy begins with the assumption that the self is subject to doubt. Ethics begins with the assumption that the self is without value.
you can't just say that you don't believe in anything that cannot be fully explained, because you really have no choice. There are things in life that are, yet are not fully explained.
Reliable responses are a constant of human, and all other decisions. When an ancient human constructs a solid structure, it is assumed that the structure will not pass through the solid ground or rise into the air, gravity and energy are not required to understand this, explanations are not required to understand this, reliability is sufficient. Gods provide no input upon which to rely.
By the time you start combining Goedel's proof with chaos and fractals, you get to a point where it seems very likely that there is a theoretical limit to knowledge. We are closer to proving that it is impossible to know everything than we are to explaining everything.
if absolute knowledge is impossible then no entity can possess it. Principals can be deduced and from principals can be deduced any fact from an absolute scope of information. Absolute knowledge would be available in the absence of absolute storage of that knowledge.
This is a world where faith must always play its role.
Internal consistency is sufficient and can exist in the absence of faith.
It's the same either way. It's, "God did it," or, "that's just the way it is."
Error: "that's just the way it is." is required for "God did it,". An absolutely encompassing scenario is certain, even in the absence of existence.
I don't believe in God to explain how or why. I was looking for the truth concerning the nature of myself and, to the best of my ability to ascertain, Christ is the Lord. It's not something I believe because I can't figure out how the universe began. It's something I believe because it fits the evidence I have at hand concerning myself, humanity, history, and yes, in many ways even science and mathematics.
I looked into myself and found that a virtuous god was impossible, and an avirtuous god must be opposed, and that the honest view is that there is no god at all. However, the assumption of ignorance is necessary for the pursuit of knowledge, if you would share the ability to ascertain the nature of this christ then it may expose something that I am ignorant of...
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 392641 times)