-A being can exist if it is logically consistent.
-If a proposed being is logically inconsistent (a square circle is logically inconsistent) it is self-defeating proposition.
-The properties of being all powerful and all knowing are logically inconsistent (omnipotent, omniscient). Omnipotence is inconsistent in and of itself, if an omnipotent being can't create an object too large to be moved it is not omnipotent, if it can create such an object that object is out of its power, meaning the deity is no longer able to be called omnipotent. The combination of omnipotence and omniscience is also inconsistent because if you know exactly what you are going to do you can not change what you are going to do. If you knew every move you would inevitably make in a chess game in advance and the response to each move you would be in powerless to change your moves. These properties are logically inconsistent, so deities defined as at least all-powerful or as a combination of all-powerful and all-knowing are inconsistent and no further action is required to disprove their existence. Free will=/= all-knowing
-If you hypothesize the existence of a deity that is logically consistent, you can only say that it can exist. You can not say that the existence of such a deity is likely, at least Occam's razor would not suggest it. To claim that such a deity DOES exist, to claim knowledge (knowledge is demonstrable) of a deity requires substantial empirical evidence; this excludes subjective experiences (useless) and holy books (the books are the claim, not the proof.)
In essence, God as most people conceive it can not exist. Even if God is conceived of in a logically consistent manner, it is almost certain that God still does not exist, though it is technically possible. Any number of beings can be conceived of (i.e. flying spaghetti monster) which you can not completely disprove the existence of, but that does not mean that their existence is likely.
A lot of words to still reach a conclusion is wrong.
Let's start with the question of omniscience verses free will.
Your argument is that it's impossible for a being to be all knowing because that denies the existance of free will.
I would argue that being omnipotent itself brings on omnisicience.
Consider a child, for example, whose favorite food is mac and cheese, but who hates tuna fish. Each morning they wake up and say "I will never eat tuna fish"
(I am straining the example here because I want it to be clear that the child WILL NOT eat tuna fish. They won't eat it to please you, or because they want to shake things up, or for any other reason. So... they will NOT eat tuna fish and they love mac and cheese).
Now, it's time to cook them lunch. You make a bowl of mac and cheese, and a bowl of tuna fish, and you say "you can choose which of these you will have for lunch".
The child still has free will. The choice is theirs to make. But you also know what their choice is going to be.
>-The properties of being all powerful and all knowing are logically inconsistent (omnipotent, omniscient). Omnipotence is inconsistent in and of itself, if an omnipotent being can't create an object too large to be moved it is not omnipotent, if it can create such an object that object is out of its power, meaning the deity is no longer able to be called omnipotent
What if God is actually above such things? What if this apparent paradox is actually solvable on a higher level of existence? Do you really think God could be explained away by a simple logical 'trick'?
Second... you start by saying "a being can only exist if it is logically consistent".
I say... prove it.
You start with an unprovable assumption, and then you build on that. I say that your first assumption is not only unprovable but possibly wrong.
Since you are talking about a God-Type, you cannot assume that he/she/it must exist within the same scientific and logical constraints that we do.
Your example fails because it only contains limited people, no all-knowing deity.
It doesn't matter how much the child hates tuna. God already knows the decision before it's made.
Third... the "can God create a stone so large he cannot move it himself" has been tried for close to 1000 years.
Again... you are basing your logic on the constraints that humans and our universe live in.
Theoretical physicists (especially quantum physicists) would argue that both are true. God can create a stone that simultaneously he can and cannot move.
Except that example only works if you know for certain EXACTLY what you will cook for lunch, and everything you will do after. If you know all of your actions in advance, that's a deterministic situation which is incompatible with free will.
>Do you really think God could be explained away by a simple logical 'trick'?
I think that logically impossible beings can not exist. I think that logically possible beings may exist, but if they may exist to say that "THIS BEING EXISTS" requires evidence.
>Second... you start by saying "a being can only exist if it is logically consistent".
Are you retarded? This "ASSUMPTION" is based on the LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION.
IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION, you can also believe that black is white, up is down, toes are not real but also the most real thing in existence. Also, it's opposite day, but not, but sorta it is.
That's not how quantum physics work. Superpositions work in that both options are possible until you collapse the situations into one or the other. It's not a stable situation and relies on non-observation.
You say my example fails because it only contains limited people.
But the OP started with the assumption of an all-knowing being.
Therefore, it makes no difference if we limit it to two people or the entire universe.
>you are basing your logic on the constraints that humans and our universe live in
Erm, not really.
>Theists propose properties for a deity
>These properties are logically contradictory
>Theists then argue that the logical contradictions are okay because non-believers are just forgetting that God doesn't need to be logically consistent or something
">I think that logically impossible beings can not exist
and that's why God is above you"
You are fucking stupid. If you don't believe in the law of contradiction you are one of the most deluded people on the planet and should google the definition of "cognitive dissonance" and "law of noncontradiction" ASAP
>except that example only works if you know for certain exactly what you will cook for lunch…
In my example, the cook is God and the child is everyone else.
Again... OP has started with the assumption of an all knowing being, therefore my example is still valid.
Okay, let me break it down.
The child in your example has free will because all observers are limited in their knowledge, none of them knows the future.
Once you introduce an observer that knows the future, the child can no longer decide because his "decision" is already known beforehands. In that scenario, the future is set in stone, we can only follow the narrow path of precognition.
Have you ever considered that God is beyond the laws of the mortal realm? What makes you think God could not be self-contradicting? Why not? Is it hard for you to imagine that something could be beyond explanation and imagination?
What lies beyond the end of the universe? What is faster than light? What exists inside a singularity? What came before the universe? What is death?
>Have you ever considered that God is beyond the laws of the mortal realm? What makes you think God could not be self-contradicting?
Have you ever considered that square circles are beyond the laws of the mortal realm? What makes you think square circles could not be self-contradicting? Why not? Is it hard for you to imagine square circles?
Insert list of 3spooky5you questions
Even if God doesn't exist, a lot of people have had faith imbued in them because of the concept.
Atheists want to be right more than they want to make the world a better place. When Marx said 'religion is the opiate of the masses' he was wrong. Religion can help people a great deal, it isn't just used for starting wars.
>What lies beyond the end of the universe?
Nothing. If there's something beyond what we call the universe, that just means we underestimated the size of the universe. That's what the term means: Fucking everything.
>What is faster than light?
Theoretical particles with mass <0
>What exists inside a singularity?
>What came before the universe?
Good question. Who knows? We'd like to know, but the presumed singularity killed all evidence.
>What is death?
The end of activity in a biological machine. Usually accepted is the end of brain activity.
>Have you ever considered that square circles are beyond the laws of the mortal realm
Yes, but not beyond God.
You think you have answers but they are just evasions worded to sound better than the reality which is "I don't know".
The law of non-contradiction, like all laws of logic and physics, can only be said to apply to our physical universe.
In fact, when the mind experiment of Schrodingers cat was first brought out, it would have been easy to say that it violated the same law of non-contradiction; but the entire quantum field is based on an opposition to that law.
If you want mental gymnasics, consider the example in the attached picture and tell me how the experiement will work out.
>can only be said to apply to our physical universe.
Imagine something "Exists outside the universe" but not in this universe. That's the definition of not existing, as least as far as anyone in this universe is concerned.
Consider a being that has the ability to see all of time (past present and future) like we can see our 3 normal dimensions.
seeing the future existing in one with the present and past, they can see the path of all of their lives.
The question is... does knowing what decisions people will make mean that the people themselves didn't have the ability/freedom to make decisions?
But if something exists in another universe
1. Claiming that something exists in another universe is bullshit unless you have a PhD in theoretical physics and you're referring to the multiverse.
2. If something does not exist in this universe, it can not affect anything in it. If you'd like to claim otherwise, I'm open to some evidence.
> does knowing what decisions people will make mean that the people themselves didn't have the ability/freedom to make decisions?
Yeah, if I know -for a fact- all of my actions in advance I can't change them.
Free will is not compatible with limitless knowledge.
For the sake of the argument: We know that particles popping into and out of existence are a thing. I forgot the term for it, but when a matter-antimatter pair pops into existence at the event horizon of a black hole, what may happen is that unlike usually they don't annihilate each other, but one falls into the black hole, the other is emitted into space.
This could be a way of interaction between different spacetime bubbles.
Okay, so I've actually heard about stuff being emitted from black holes, but I'm not sure is this has been confirmed or only hypothersized. You said "we know" so I'm assuming it has been confirmed?
What you likely heared of is hawking radiation, which is matter coming actually out of the black hole. That's a different thing.
"We know", when talking about black holes, is always a... complicated thing. We don't exactly have a black hole to experiment with here. The next one is fortunatly far away.
The only thing they emit is Hawking radiation.
No one has confirmed them releasing anything else, and Hawking Radiation is the process through which lack holes dissipate - the small ones at least.
>Emotional arguments and assumptions
Heh, no. Nice attempt at pathologizing your opponents, but theists are the ones receiving special exemptions in the DSM, not atheists.
I can think of a 3 foot tall man with 53 toes. That is logically possible, but to go from saying he could exist to saying he does requires evidence.
Yeah I heard about them dissipating. That's probably it.
The point I am trying to make is this: you are pronouncing absolutes (God doesn’t exist) based on limited (human) logic.
Mind you… as far as human logic goes, it’s pretty good logic. Most of the arguments you are making have been made for close to 1000 years. But again, you are starting with the assumption that human knowledge can be perfect.
Does the planet Saturn exist to a bee? Or better… would a two dimensional organism know we exist, even if we were looking down at it in a Petri dish?
Science and reason have made wonderful progress in the history of humanity. But it has always suffered from the same problem: at any given moment, it has believed that its reasoning was complete reasoning.
The doctors who bled patients to remove the bad humors, the midwives who put a knife under the bed to cut the pain in half, and even (though to a lesser extent) the scientist of today all start with the assumption that the are correct at any given moment.
Even climate change. I’m old enough to remember when it was global warming. Back in the 70’s, scientists were warning everyone that the planet was going to overheat. Then they changed their mind and said it was going to overcool. Now they are saying it’s either going to overheat or overcool, but they’re sure it’s going to do SOMETHING.
I think the closest we can get to an absolute truth is Descartes’ argument that all we can really know is that we, ourselves exist. And that anything else is based on assumption.
>omnipotence literally means that the Lord can do anything, logically consistent or not. The lord can, in fact, create a rock too heavy for himself to lift and a square circle because the Lord can change the rules of logic at any given time. Omnipotence means it doesn't matter what you ask, it can happen (logically or not). I mean, if you're gonna argue about omnipotence at least know what the word fucking means. ignorant plebian.
>when we imagine, we create
Oh fuck, I'm imagining a giant shark behind you, watch out FUUUUU-
>you are pronouncing absolutes (God doesn’t exist) based on limited (human) logic.
I am merely stating the consequences of the law of noncontradiction. That which is not logically consistent can not exist. If a proposed deity is logically consistent, then feel free to provide proof of said deity, otherwise that consistent but unproved deity can only be said to potentially exist.
>Most of the arguments you are making have been made for close to 1000 years
I'm aware, I don't think I'm original.
>you are starting with the assumption that human knowledge can be perfect.
I am relying upon the law of noncontradiction which is necessary to not have an insane world view.
>would a two dimensional organism know we exist, even if we were looking down at it in a Petri dish?
2 dimensional beings would have a 1 dimensional view, meaning they would see a single "pixel" in front of them, one plane. They could move forward and backward on the plane, and if we were on that plane they could see us. Nice try at being 3deep5me.
>And that anything else is based on assumption.
"assumptions" like assuming the law of contradiction which we have no proof of being violated in the billions and billions of years since the big bang will not have a convenient exception for a deity.
A concept is NOT as real as a physical entity, that is the nature of concepts.
Of course mathematics exists, but only to humans.
Dogs have no concept of math, because it is a concept invented by humans to explore and explain the world around us, not a physical entity.
The concept of God is real. God is not.
>but a concept is just as real as a physical entity.
No, it's not. Literally, a forest (the conceptualization of a group of trees) does not exist. Rights, a concept, do not exist in the real world. These concepts do not have matter or energy.
>I think that logically impossible beings can not exist.
The laws of thermodynamics state that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed yet, here we are, beings of matter that exist. The universe is logically inconsistent and thus the only logical assumption is that there exists some entity not bound by the rules of the physically universe we have observed.
And why is the physical more real? How do you prove this?
They do have energy. You just expended energy in consideration of them. If you explain that concept to another person you have spread that energy to them.
All concepts exist, they do not have to be embodied in order to be 'real'. They are just as real as anything else. As we create the physical, so do we create the mental, and though they often overlap, it is not necessarily so.
>because the Lord can change the rules of logic at any given time.
Right, have any proof of that?
>The universe is logically inconsistent
There are a variety theories regarding the inconsistencies of the big bang, but I don't think that about 14 billion years of noncontradiction can be considered "inconsistent."
>You just expended energy in consideration of them.
Concepts do not have any existence outside the mind that is considering them.
Sorry you live in a shithole, here, take this potatoe as my condolence to you
>That which is not logically consistent cannot exist
But again, you have not proven that a deity must be logically inconsistent.
On Descartes... read preface that leads up to his famous saying "I think therefore I am" to see what I'm talking about when I mention assumptions.
I don't think you know where Estonia even is but ok.
Your reasoning is still stupid. I fucking despise wanna be intellectuals like you. Your pace is in YouTube comments fishing for likes not shitting this place up.
if God doesn't exist how did you just communicate about God?
of course they do. a new concept is created and the energy of it spreads to other minds as they learn about it. did the concept of gravity die when isaac newton did? no, because now it exists outside his mind.
>A being can exist if it is logically consistent.
>Human reason is infallible
What exists is the idea of madoka or god as you think of god.
That doesn't mean the being itself necessarily exists. Belief doesn't make things come true, ask anyone playing the lottery.
That's a funny picture, OP. I would rather know that someone has me in their prayers than knowing that someone is thinking for me.
The first is well intentioned even if their efforts come to nothing. The second wishes to subjugate me to their way of thinking.
how about this:
why don't you list 3 things in your next post that are not concepts and do not exist.
you cant, because all things exists and are concepts.
if you can interact with it physically, it exists. if you can conceive of it, it exists. its not any less real just because you can't build it, or you can't find it on an infinitesimaly limited location (the earth out of everything) and God is beyond EVEN THOSE LIMITS, because God is God, not mortal.
>The second wishes to subjugate me to their way of thinking.
Right, because the religious never subjugated others to their way of thinking
His argument is that if you can ask the question “do I exist”, you must exist as something capable of asking the question.
Everything else is assumption because:
What we know comes into our brain via our senses and our reasoning. It is impossible to know that our senses are actually projecting reality (or in modern terms, if we’re in some sort of video game).
His argument is that the best we can do is to ask if we exist, and that by asking that question we have proven it.
No one knows for certain what came before the big bang, how, or why. I do not claim to know, but that what preceded the big bang may have not been consistent with the law of contradiction does not mean that it is invalid currently, and that it is necessary for existence in the universe at this moment.
The first may be well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The second thinks for you - that doesn't mean you can't think for yourself as well. It means that two brains achieve more than one. It means there may be some actual help on the way.
Things that do not exist:
A 100000 ton diamond
A 500000000 ton bar of pure gold
An OP that is not a fag
None of this is a concept, they're all pretty good idea of things that even could exist.
>if you can interact with it physically, it exists.
That much is true, but unrelated.
> if you can conceive of it, it exists.
I can concieve ten thousand euros in my pocket right now. Shit, still empty.
>His argument is that if you can ask the question “do I exist”, you must exist as something capable of asking the question.
That's the flaw.
What we know is that something wonders about the question. I can write a program that prints out lines to that extent, that doesn't mean the program is actually self-aware. In other words, all we know is that something exists, and the result of the something is thoughts. Thoughts that may or may not be your toughts, or maybe they're just the thoughts of something that imagines you.