CerealKiller wrote:Based on the concept of logic I have this to offer.
Thank you, CK
for actually dealing with the question rather than doing the end run most people attempt.
Quote:The dictionary defines something as being "logical" as being "Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year."
The dictionary defines logical in many ways
but I am willing to use this one. I do want to point out, however, that using it does not suppose that anything falling outside this parameter is, perforce, ILLOGICAL! "Black holes" "strings
as in string theory" "quantum particles"
were NEVER illogical even though at one time, they fell outside the definition of logical as outlined in this usage.
Quote:As we have no prior evidence or record of a god like being, we also have no recorded evidence of anything being supernatural.
This would be a good time to mention that I despise the use of the word "supernatural" to describe a god. It is an inherent impossibility
like a square circle. If a god exists
then by definition, it is a part of nature. We humans obviously do not know the entire of NATURE at this time
and even things like the so-called "laws of physics" are recognized by scientists as possible non-absolutes. (Scientists are unsure, for instance, that the so-called laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe
and do not know if they apply at all in any alternate dimensions. )
Some dictionaries actually define "nature" as "a creative and controlling force in the universe"
or " the external world in its entirety"
which would, in turn, define any gods that exist as part of nature.
In short, the "supernatural" thing is much overdone.
Quote:Thus it would be unreasonable to claim that such a being could exist. It is then completely reasonable and logical to say that such a being does not exist.
Where does that come from??? It does not follow from what you wrote.
Quote:The existence of a god is not anymore logical than the existence of planets made out of Belgian Chocolate. Both are equally illogical.
You were on to something
but now you've gone off track.
Tidy up what you started with if you think it can be worked into a reasonable argument
and we'll discuss it.
Quote:Surely a god is inherently a contradiction of current established records in regards to physics and the laws of nature.
To make such an assertion, you would have to make a convincing argument that we humans know all "the laws of nature" and that what we consider to be physics
actually is all there is to the mechanics of the universe. There is not a reputable scientist working today who would make such an assertion.
Quote:The dictionary defines a "god" as:
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions and the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. Being both omniscient and omnipotent is a logical fallacy and have major internal contradictions. Being supernatural by definition means that you are contradicting the established laws of nature.
A dictionary tells us how words are generally used
and certainly this is how God is often used.
Quote:The ONLY logical conclusion is that a god(s) do not exist.
The ONLY logical conclusion is that we do not know if gods exist or not
and that the evidence for and against the existence of gods is incredibly ambiguous.
Quote:A god could never have existed in the past as the laws of nature had to be different, in order for the god to be able to exist. This would no longer make IT a god as IT would not be "supernatural" but simply natural. The same would count for the future existence of god. Because the concept contradicts the logically established principles and laws of physics and nature, one can logically say a god never existed, does not exist and could never exist.
Based on my argument above, the laws of nature had to change to enable an unnatural being to exist. There could thus never be a god as it would then become a natural being and thus no longer be a god by definition. It would have to subscribe to the laws of nature and physics in order to exist, which would disqualify it from being a god in the first place.
Wonderful try
and perhaps the beginning of a logical and reasonable piece of evidence.
I would suggest
encourage
you to work on it
and tidy it us considerably. I also would suggest that you aim more for establishing it as a piece of evidence rather than the MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more difficult "establishing it as a proof."
It needs lots of work to become evidence that "no-gods" makes more sense than "gods" (as it is, it pretty much is an amalgam variation on both the non-evidence I mentioned earlier)
but it shows promise.
You actually did not mention if you are an atheist or not, CK. Are you an atheist...or is this just an intellectual exercise for you?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace