Workable systems of god

In other words, God is the result of the impossibility of nothingness, and the universe is borrowed energy from God.

Are you all theists yet, or should I keep trying?

Yes, for I will be opening the Church of the Near-Nothing of God. A large vacuum will suck everyone in and empty their pockets. Should have a large cult following within a day or two.
 
God is logically valid
Nope: try reading some of the threads.

(depending on what logic one used)
Ah, you mean if you ignore the bits you don't like then god becomes logically valid.

but by the very definition is scientifically invalid (at least for anthropomorphic Abrahamic God). But then again, the definition of God is so obscure, it can even be scientifically valid if one is to define It in an extremely unorthodox way.
So god is scientifically invalid but he isn't?
Is this an example of how you [mis/ab]use "logic"?
 
Last edited:
Heh, there's an idea - everyone "swap" sides and present their best argument...*

People are doing this anyway, implicitly, when replying to the other side.

You can see how much theism an atheist understands by watching how he replies to theists.

And you can see how much atheism a theist understands by watching how he replies to atheists.

The two are mostly behaving like they are from different universes, they are not having a conversation, they are merely talking at eachother, not to eachother.
 
Ah yeah it can . Asteroid the hemorrhoid comes a long...
and is thus not at a moments notice. Perhaps misunderstanding of this phrase is where the issue lies... as an asteroid generally spends quite a while travelling, whereas I was referring to the inability of the universe to just add mass, with no need for asteroids travelling etc.

To make it clearer, I'm talking about if, say, the Earth suddenly got twice as massive with no external input (asteroids).
 
If I started with something not ridiculous It wouldn't be a workable system.
And if you start with the ridiculous you just come across as ridiculous. Better, surely, to make your point succinctly?
We aren't "bound" by anything in the universe except our simple misunderstandings of it.
So you can fly unaided? You can travel back in time? You can suddenly speak every language on the planet?
Impressive.
You think I'm being grandiose when I speak an objective truth or intelligent joke.
When you speak either I'll let you know. ;)
 
May I request your definition of "Logic"?
Sure.
Try here for starters.

Although "my definition" (and asking for it) is not relevant: like I said - try reading some of the threads here that have shown that God is NOT logically valid.
Or maybe you think you can show otherwise.
 
Dawkins' argument... the universe is a really improbable thing, so a deity would have to be even more improbable.
Still not entirely impossible.
 
Dear Sir, I'm not requesting a Wikipedia page.
I'm requesting your definition of "Logic".
I'm not a sir.
Why is my definition relevant?
But, for the record, I agree with entirely with the Wiki page. Try reading it.
And then try explaining why you can't answer a simple question, or why you think god is logically valid.
 
If I started with something not ridiculous It wouldn't be a workable system.
Please show how you arrive at this supposition.
As a simple refutation: you personally tend to start with something ridiculous and never manage to arrive anywhere. How does that help?

We aren't "bound" by anything in the universe except our simple misunderstandings of it.
:roflmao:
 
I'm requesting your definition for I believe you have this idea that there is only one kind of Logic and contradictory Logic cannot exist. As I am avoiding making unjustified conclusion, therefore I am requesting your definition first.

Regardless, Descartes' Ontological argument is logically valid and sound.
 
As I am avoiding making unjustified conclusion, therefore I am requesting your definition first.
Which part of "I agree with the Wiki page" did you not understand?

Regardless, Descartes' Ontological argument is logically valid and sound.
I see you haven't taken my advice and read any of the threads. This argument, and many similar, have been show to NOT be sound/ valid. Both here on Sci and in the "real world". (Leibniz, for example).
 
I must ask first - not valid under which Logic?
Well, since you appear to be so fond of asking questions, how about you answer one.
You have claimed that it is valid, logically.
So which system of logic are you using?
 
I'm not a sir.

transgender_symbol2ukj79a.jpg


head-scratch.jpg
 
Does it rely on (per the definition I have already agreed with from Wiki) "the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning."?
If so, it's logic. And, as already stated, Leibniz, among others, has shown that it is faulty.
But if you think you can defend it go ahead.
Although I suggest you take my advice and check previous threads first, just so you don't go repeating the same tired old arguments.
 
Back
Top