Does God Exist?

[Felasco]

And this is a perfect example of a human's inability to understand Logic and Reason.

And this is a perfect example of most of your 4673 posts. A lazy little reactive quip, posting just to be posting, something, anything.

[Conde Lucanor]

This is the first issue of PN and the first article I've read. The very first argument seemed to me fallacious (a type of circular reasoning), but how can this be? Professor Craig is an expert, so it's more likely that I'm getting it wrong.

No, you're not getting it wrong. I'm more inclined to thinking that Professor Craig (really? a professor in what?) is an expert in BS.

[Conde Lucanor]

An all powerful creator would not be bound by the rules of logic it created...

...thus, proving that it cannot exist.

[Felasco]

...thus, proving that it cannot exist.

Sorry, no. Thus proving instead that you have a faith that the rules of human logic are binding on all of reality.

[Arising_uk]

And this is a perfect example of most of your 4673 posts. A lazy little reactive quip, posting just to be posting, something, anything.

Not at all. This is just your wishful thinking or maybe avoidance technique when faced with a short concise appraisal about the error of your thought. But just for you, your previous statement shows that you neither understand the subject of Logic nor its relationship to Reason nor their relationship to existence when you say that a 'God' could create an existence where it could both exist and not exist. No 'thing' whether a 'God' or not can be and not be.

[Felasco]

No 'thing' whether a 'God' or not can be and not be.

Prove this please, and then your post will rise above reactive quip.

Your assertion would seem to depend on human logic being binding on all of reality. So please define reality, the arena you are making the assertion about. To make it easy, tell us something very basic, like how big reality is.

You've observed some segment of reality, and as best you can tell, a thing can't be and not be at the same time. Ok, this might be useful, or not. If the area you've observed is 85% of all reality, then it's reasonable to guess the unobserved segment matches the observed segment. If the observed area is 3% of the whole, then making assumptions about the unobserved area is considerably less reasonable.

Uh oh, oops, you have not the slightest clue what your sample size is. But this doesn't stop you from making a huge sweeping assertion about all of reality...

No 'thing' whether a 'God' or not can be and not be.

All you've done here is state your faith as if it's an obvious truth. Boiled down to it's core, your faith goes like this...

There is no God, therefore there is no God.

That is....

There is nothing above natural law, therefore an all powerful God can't exist.

[Conde Lucanor]

...thus, proving that it cannot exist.

Sorry, no. Thus proving instead that you have a faith that the rules of human logic are binding on all of reality.

If an all powerful creator created logic, it would mean that logic exists with no necessary connection to human minds, only as a contingent connection. So, when humans are out of the picture (when they have not been created yet, for example), you would still have logic and the all powerful creator. Since that's the only mind available, this logic belongs to that creator, is part of its essence. If it defied its own logic, it would be finding itself absurd. That would make it impossible to exist, even when humans are not around.

To solve this problem, you would have to propose that there are two kinds of logic: the all poweful creator's logic and human logic. But that will mean also that for humans it created on purpose a logic different from its own logic, thus making itself unintelligible to the human mind. Therefore, we are obliged by our own nature to find the all powerful creator absurd. If you proposed that human logic is not necessarily obliged to consider the all powerful creator absurd, you would be saying that it is intelligible to the human mind, and thus, bound to its logic. In other words, you cannnot say that your human logic finds a possibility for the existence of the all powerful creator, at the same time you assume your human logic is restricted from considering the possibility.

[Felasco]

The problem is solved much more easily, simply by taking the time to actually understand the basics of the God proposal that so many of us are so eager to debunk.

In the Abrahamic religions at least, it is proposed there is a God who is an all powerful creator of everything. All powerful creator. That is the heart of the proposal expressed in the simplest of terms.

Please understand, I am not arguing this proposal is true. I am only arguing that if we wish to challenge this proposal, the first step is to actually understand what it is that we are challenging.

Let's consider the word "supernatural" which is commonly applied to the Abrahamic God. The word "supernatural" means something like "above nature". Western religions are not proposing just another entity that operates within the constraints of natural law. They are not proposing some alien form of life from a far distant galaxy. They are proposing an all powerful form of hyper intelligence which created natural law, and is thus above and outside of the constraints of natural law.

This is why the Abrahamic God is said to be capable of what we would call miracles. Miracles are events which defy natural law. Miracles can be conducted only by a power which is not bound by natural law, or by that power's appointed agents, such as saints etc.

This is what has been proposed by some in Western culture for thousands of years. An all powerful supernatural creator.

It is of course a completely valid philosophic procedure to challenge this proposal, or any other proposal. I am not objecting to such a challenge at all.

What I'm suggesting is that it's not a valid philosophic procedure to claim one has defeated the Abrahamic proposal by attacking another proposal of one's own invention. This is what atheists typically do, no matter how prominent they may be. The atheist critic's position can usually be boiled down to...

God is not logical!

Such a challenge completely misses the point, and reveals that the atheist has not taken the time to actually understand the God proposal being offered by the Abrahamic religions.

The Abrahamic God is not required to be logical, given that it is proposed to be a supernatural entity which is by definition above and outside of natural law.

So when an atheist claims "God is not logical!" they have accomplished nothing other than revealing themselves unqualified to participate in the conversation.

What we see in the contest between theism and atheism is not a battle between faith and reason. That contest is instead a battle between two different flavors of faith.

[Arising_uk]

Prove this please, and then your post will rise above reactive quip.

Your assertion would seem to depend on human logic being binding on all of reality. So please define reality, the arena you are making the assertion about. To make it easy, tell us something very basic, like how big reality is.

You've observed some segment of reality, and as best you can tell, a thing can't be and not be at the same time. Ok, this might be useful, or not. If the area you've observed is 85% of all reality, then it's reasonable to guess the unobserved segment matches the observed segment. If the observed area is 3% of the whole, then making assumptions about the unobserved area is considerably less reasonable.

Uh oh, oops, you have not the slightest clue what your sample size is. But this doesn't stop you from making a huge sweeping assertion about all of reality.

The above shows that you have not grasped(or even read) Philosophy as you do not understand the one thing that is truly its own, Logic and its relation to Reason. I say this because you keep thinking you are saying something with the words 'human logic' which shows you misunderstand what Logic is based upon. Logic is not based upon human reasoning, it's based upon there being states of affairs or things if you wish. If there are things or states of affairs then Logic occurs as as soon as there is a thing or state of affairs then it is the case that it is and is the case that it can not be, P or not P. Reason is what allowed us to symbolise this fact of existence but if there were no humans there would still be Logic, just as long as there were things or states of affairs. This 'God' you talk about would be a thing or a state of affairs and as such Logic will apply to it and as such it is impossible for it to be and not be despite your fantastical wishes.

All you've done here is state your faith as if it's an obvious truth. Boiled down to it's core, your faith goes like this...

There is no God, therefore there is no God.

That is....

There is nothing above natural law, therefore an all powerful God can't exist.

I have said no such thing. All I have pointed out is that your reasoning about this 'God' and its relationship to Logic is faulty, as is your idea about Logic itself.

[Felasco]

I say this because you keep thinking you are saying something with the words 'human logic' which shows you misunderstand what Logic is based upon. Logic is not based upon human reasoning, it's based upon there being states of affairs or things if you wish.

A state of affairs as seen through the human mind, right?

Reason is what allowed us to symbolise this fact of existence but if there were no humans there would still be Logic, just as long as there were things or states of affairs.

Um, please prove the existence of logic outside of the human mind.

This 'God' you talk about would be a thing or a state of affairs and as such Logic will apply to it and as such it is impossible for it to be and not be despite your fantastical wishes.

Again, this is just exactly what I claimed you said, but you deny you said, and so you said it again to help me out.

You claim that Logic is binding on ALL OF REALITY, something none of us could possibly know. This is the faith based assumption at the heart of atheism. In most atheists it is a blind unexamined faith.

This assertion is ridiculously easy to debunk logically, but I admit it is near impossible to penetrate the emotional defenses forum atheists typically construct to defend their faith.

Nonetheless, I am a fool indeed, so here's an attempt.

A very simple question...

How big is reality?

If we can't answer this simple question, on what basis do we claim that anything applies to all of reality, an arena we can't define in even the most basic manner?

[Arising_uk]

A state of affairs as seen through the human mind, right?

Are you saying existence depends upon humans existing? You an Idealist of some kind? Regardless, are you claiming that there are no things nor states of affairs?

Um, please prove the existence of logic outside of the human mind.

Once again you fail to grasp the philosophy behind Logic. It is not that because there are human minds that Logic exists, its a fact of the existence of things or states of affairs. If there was just this 'God' then it will be bound by the rules of Logic as being a thing or a state of affair.

Again, this is just exactly what I claimed you said, but you deny you said, and so you said it again to help me out.

No its not. As usual you are typing your thoughts to some imaginary interlocutor, I guess just to hear them without reading what others say. I am not talking about whether this 'God' exists or not. I am questioning your assertion that this 'God' can both be and not be based upon your misunderstanding of 'it' having its 'special' logic. If what you are attempting to say is that 'it' could be in some kind of transcendental realm and as such does not exist in this one then all well and good but in that realm 'it' will be bound by Logic as 'it' exists in that realm as a thing or state of affairs. If you are trying to claim that 'it' can exist in this one and not be bound by Logic then you misunderstand what Logic and Reason are when it come to talking sense and nonsense in this existence. Its what Philosophy has been all about but then you're not actually interested in Philosophy per se, just typing pretentious nonsense.

You claim that Logic is binding on ALL OF REALITY, something none of us could possibly know. This is the faith based assumption at the heart of atheism. In most atheists it is a blind unexamined faith.

No, I'm claiming that if there are things or states of affairs then Logic arises just from that brute fact. Its called Reason, something you appear to dislike as you wish to make it all faith for some reason? I guess because Reason and Logic is anathema to your beliefs.

This assertion is ridiculously easy to debunk logically, but I admit it is near impossible to penetrate the emotional defenses forum atheists typically construct to defend their faith. ...

You are looking in a mirror and applying it to others. There is nothing to defend in Atheism, I do not roam around thinking there is no 'God', I don't think about it at all unless I run into a theist who insists on telling me their 'God' exists.

Nonetheless, I am a fool indeed, so here's an attempt.

So far I'm beginning to think 'never a truer word'.

A very simple question...

How big is reality?

So far about 13 billion(never sure if this is a proper billion or the short one?) light years and very roughly around 1042 in ratio between the large and the small.

If we can't answer this simple question, on what basis do we claim that anything applies to all of reality, an arena we can't define in even the most basic manner?

So apparently we can define this arena in more than the most basic manner but this 'epistemology' of yours works on a false premise that we cannot know anything until we know everything which is again a misunderstanding of knowing. It also again demonstrates that you do not understand the principle that basic Logic rests upon, i.e. that there be a thing or state of affairs and it matters not whether its just one or a multiplicity, Logic holds from the brute fact of the existence of states affairs or things.

[thedoc]

A very simple question...
How big is reality?

So far about 13 billion(never sure if this is a proper billion or the short one?) light years and very roughly around 1042 in ratio between the large and the small.

I was under the impression that this was the "observable" universe and the "real" universe was much larger?

[Arising_uk]

Could be, how could we tell?

[Felasco]

Are you saying existence depends upon humans existing?

No, I'm saying ideas about existence depends upon humans existing.

Once again you fail to grasp the philosophy behind Logic. It is not that because there are human minds that Logic exists, its a fact of the existence of things or states of affairs. If there was just this 'God' then it will be bound by the rules of Logic as being a thing or a state of affair.

Um, you've merely repeated a faith based assertion without offering any further justification for it.

Your assertion is that these rules we call logic are binding on all of reality, and thus would be binding on a God as well.

I counter claim that none of us are in a position to know what is or isn't binding on an arena we can not define in even the most basic manner. I claim your assertion is understandable, but wild speculation nonetheless.

I am not talking about whether this 'God' exists or not.

I understand this. Same for me. We're on the same page there.

I am questioning your assertion that this 'God' can both be and not be based upon your misunderstanding of 'it' having its 'special' logic.

If the God often described should exist, he would by the usual definition commonly called "supernatural" not be bound by any natural law. That's what the word "supernatural" means.

You are claiming to know "the state of affairs" for all reality, but like the rest of us you are unable to define the arena you are making this claim about. You are making a wildly speculative claim about an arena you can't define, and calling it reason.

In your defense, it's not just you, but also a great many very intelligent and articulate atheist preachers all doing the same thing.

If you are trying to claim that 'it' can exist in this one and not be bound by Logic then you misunderstand what Logic and Reason are when it come to talking sense and nonsense in this existence.

Again, those talking either sense or nonsense are all human beings, a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, who have thousands of nuclear missiles aimed down their own throat. This is who, whether theist or atheist, is making these huge claims about all of reality, an arena none of us can define.

You are clinging to a faith based certainty that the rules of logic invented by these entirely modest creatures accurately represent "the state of affairs" as you call it. I'm saying it's entirely reasonable to propose that such small largely insane creatures may entirely misunderstand the state of affairs.

That is, it's simply not credible to declare Logic to be God, the ruling authority over all reality.

No, I'm claiming that if there are things or states of affairs then Logic arises just from that brute fact.

Do you realize you are claiming knowledge of brute facts about all of reality, which includes all those things unseen and utterly unknown by man? Do you realize you are making sweeping claims about areas nobody knows the first thing about? Do you realize that you have not the slightest clue what your sample size is? Do you realize that you are labeling such a procedure to be reason, and that to do so is completely normal and accepted by most humans?

Its called Reason, something you appear to dislike as you wish to make it all faith for some reason? I guess because Reason and Logic is anathema to your beliefs.

You are the one doing faith, and I'm the one doing reason. You are making a huge sweeping assertion based on an unknown sample size, that's not reason, but wishful thinking. Understandable, common, widely accepted, but still not reason.

There is nothing to defend in Atheism, I do not roam around thinking there is no 'God', I don't think about it at all unless I run into a theist who insists on telling me their 'God' exists.

All the years you've spent on this forum, apparently wasted, as you've learned nothing about atheism. Atheism is the faith based belief that human logic applies to all of reality.

So apparently we can define this arena in more than the most basic manner

You've defined only the part of reality we currently know of, not the "all of reality" you were making claims about. Your credentials as an authority on reason are declined.

[Conde Lucanor]

The problem is solved much more easily, simply by taking the time to actually understand the basics of the God proposal that so many of us are so eager to debunk.

In the Abrahamic religions at least, it is proposed there is a God who is an all powerful creator of everything. All powerful creator. That is the heart of the proposal expressed in the simplest of terms.

Please understand, I am not arguing this proposal is true. I am only arguing that if we wish to challenge this proposal, the first step is to actually understand what it is that we are challenging.

Let's consider the word "supernatural" which is commonly applied to the Abrahamic God. The word "supernatural" means something like "above nature".

Western religions are not proposing just another entity that operates within the constraints of natural law. They are not proposing some alien form of life from a far distant galaxy. They are proposing an all powerful form of hyper intelligence which created natural law, and is thus above and outside of the constraints of natural law.

This is why the Abrahamic God is said to be capable of what we would call miracles. Miracles are events which defy natural law. Miracles can be conducted only by a power which is not bound by natural law, or by that power's appointed agents, such as saints etc.

This is what has been proposed by some in Western culture for thousands of years. An all powerful supernatural creator.

It is of course a completely valid philosophic procedure to challenge this proposal, or any other proposal. I am not objecting to such a challenge at all.

What I'm suggesting is that it's not a valid philosophic procedure to claim one has defeated the Abrahamic proposal by attacking another proposal of one's own invention. This is what atheists typically do, no matter how prominent they may be. The atheist critic's position can usually be boiled down to...

God is not logical!

Such a challenge completely misses the point, and reveals that the atheist has not taken the time to actually understand the God proposal being offered by the Abrahamic religions.

The Abrahamic God is not required to be logical, given that it is proposed to be a supernatural entity which is by definition above and outside of natural law.

So when an atheist claims "God is not logical!" they have accomplished nothing other than revealing themselves unqualified to participate in the conversation.

What we see in the contest between theism and atheism is not a battle between faith and reason. That contest is instead a battle between two different flavors of faith.

That just makes things easier. If an Abrahamic God is not required to be logical, it then can be considered absurd, which is exactly what an atheist does, following your own definition. We would be unaqualified to participate in a conversation with that other entity that responds to a different logic, but since you are dealing with conversations between humans, we are still under the same criteria.

But there are other problems, too:

1) When your all powerful Abrahamic god creates a "supernatural world", before any human is around, he has just created something that from then on exists as part of reality, thus making it part of the natural world. You can posit as many worlds like that as you like, each one with its own laws if you wish, but in the end they'll be dimensions of one single reality, which should be called the "natural world". In a 3D spatial system, for example, an inhabitant of the "X" coordinate will have no clue about the existence of the "Y" and "Z" coordinates, they are all unintelligible from each perspective. And all of the inhabitants of the system will not have a clue about its existence as a whole. So, in the same way, we will have your all powerful Abrahamic god and one natural world, comprised of n independent unintelligible dimensions. That means:

1a. You are obliged to consider any other dimension but yours, absurd. Otherwise you would make them intelligible, thus part of your own world (which laws you are capable of understanding).

1b. You are obliged to consider the whole reality system beyond yours, absurd. Otherwise you would make it intelligible, thus part of your own world (which laws you are capable of understanding).

1c. For the same reasons above, you are obliged to disallow any relationship between the laws of each dimension. Otherwise you would be making the whole reality intelligible. That rules out any kind of "miracle" as intervention of one world into another.

2. The problems above show up when an all powerful intelligence "creates" worlds. But the whole concept of "creation" is problematic, too. Doesn't this god reside in a world by itself?

2a. If so, this world would be the natural world and would make god part of it. That would make them both intelligible to the human mind and bound to the laws that humans are capable of understanding. And no other world and no other laws could be created that were not already in your all powerful Abrahamic god's world.

2b. If not, as an alternative, you are only left with the possibility of considering your all powerful Abrahamic god and the natural world as one single substance, an all-encompassing entity. But that rules out any possibility of creation, since there's nothing else to be created. Otherwise, that something else would be subsumed as part of a substance outside your all powerful Abrahamic god. In other words, another world, which will send you back to 2a. No distinction either between "natural" or "supernatural" worlds, there would be only one entity, which is god and nature at the same time (as brilliantly deduced by Spinoza).

3. In any of these scenarios, an intelligence has to be ruled out. In the first case, other worlds or dimensions are unintelligible for the human mind. This is quite a big problematic contradiction for an Abrahamic all powerful god that pretends to be manifest to the humans it created, that uses "revelation" to be intelligible, knowable, cognizable. In the second case, a single all-encompassing substance cannot have parts, nor it can sense and have concepts of these parts, so it cannot be intelligent, nor have any intervention in human affairs. It just sits there.

So, in the end, there's a way to find a perfectly logical god: one that has no practical significance, just the same as if you find it absurd.