'God' is Impossible

A square circle is quite obviously a logical contradiction. But you're going to need to do a better job of explaining why a standalone physical universe is in the same category.

Here's one way of looking at it:

God created the universe ex-nihilo; as a balance of opposites that sum to zero. This is consistent with what science teaches us about the nature of the universe, and how it might have come to be. In this case we can view God as the catalyst that got the self-sustaining process started.

Doesn't sound anything like a square circle to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll quote a few posts of yours, on things you already believe, to exemplify:

Who you are today has a lot to do with what your mother has done for you.
Even though you now in some ways exist separately from her, you carry the effects and consequences of her having raised you.
To be completely separate from her would mean that also all her contributions to your development (such as your proficiency in your mother tongue, the fact that you regularly wash your hands after using the bathroom and other such things that she has taught you) would be taken away from you - and you would not really be you anymore.
You also believe that it is right to recognize your mother's contribution to your development, and you do so by giving her a gift on mothers day.

Similarly, we can say that just like a mother gives birth to a child, God creates the Universe.
And like a mother cares for her child, teaches him, takes care of him, and stays with him indirectly through all the things he now knows and is capable of doing due to her teaching him and caring for him, and stays with him directly as a personal presence in his life and memories of her - so God takes care of the Universe and makes sure that it can function properly, by being indirectly present through things like physical laws, or directly by appearing as a person.

You may seem self-sustaining now, but this is only possible because of the things your mother has done for you and the effects of that that are still operating in you.
So the Universe may seem self-sustaining, but to say it can exist without God would be like saying that it can exist without everything God has provided it with. Such existence is not possible.

It really comes down to recognizing and giving credit where credit is due, and understanding that one wouldn't be what one is today were it not for the input of others who have been making this possible.
This goes for mothers, teachers, friends, as well as God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Four things:

1. A perfect analogy would be a mere tautology.

2. There can necessarily be no adequate material analogy to exemplify the relationship between the material and the non-material.
There are only such material analogies that can point to that.

3. Analogies should be taken as just that: pointers, not perfect explanations.
There is no sense in blaming the analogies or the people who use them for not delivering that which was already agreed that they cannot deliver.

4. The person who insists to understand things is at fault when they insist on not broadening their horizons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Explain to me how god IS proven, outside of your introverted take. How can I know what the proof is LOL. If I knew that I may as well just say I believe in god.

Your fudging argument is weak.

YOU define god as something proven. But you have no proof.

Saying there is no proof of god is not defining god. It is saying there is no proved definition of god. How is saying there is no definition of something defining it? BS.

 

Four replies:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Noone is asking for a "perfect" analogy, just an appropriate one.
And if an analogy is valid / approriate for one point, the person should not automatically assume that other aspects of the analogy must therefore also be valid.

Then why try to force an analogy to exist where one can not.
If one insists on using a tool that they know to be inadequate, how can they blame anyone but themselves for their lack of productivity?

If all parties have already agreed that they cannot deliver - why on earth are they persisting on using them??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Bob, we can't deliver your package by car to the other side of the world in 1 day."
"Okay - I agree it won't work."
"Bob, we tried to deliver your package by car... but it didn't get delivered in time."
"Didn't we agree that it wouldn't work? So why did you try?"
"Hey, don't blame us that it didn't work when we agreed that it wouldn't work!"

Right - so how does "broadening their horizons" help them understand? Surely they either understand or they do not.
If they do understand, great.
If they do not then there are several options as to why not, including flaws in the explanations or whether the explanations are being inadequately expressed.


Ultimately, Signal, if issues with the appropriateness of an analogy have been raised, the person should either seek an alternative or try to address the issues.
And if that person also accepts that the analogy is not appropriate or adequate but STILL tries to use it... :shrug:

 

When "God" seems to be indiscernible from the rest of nature, how do you propose to identify God's input separate from the rest?
And do you tend to give credit to people that you don't even know if they exist or not?

 

Analogies are like rubber bands. If you stretch them too far they fail.
Except that analogies aren't brown and don't come in boxes of 500.

 

Why is such an existence not possible?
"Broaden your horizons" and, for a moment, accept the position that God does not exist: if God does not exist then since the universe does exist, such existence without God is possible... and not only possible but actual.

But if you start with an a priori belief of God's existence, and then beg the question, you will only come to one conclusion.

 

I explained it above, in the example with the mother and her child.

If Thomas has two children, does this mean that he now in fact has to go and buy two bicycles?

 

If God exists, there is His input in everything.

One simply needs to start with actually expressing gratitude to one's parents, friends, teachers.
Doing so, one will eventually reach the source of all existence - whatever it may be.

If, however, one's interest in God is tied in with one's pride

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You and Rav are the ones stretching the Sun-sunlight analogy into invalidity.

Because there are analogies that are partly useful. And by providing several such analogies, it is possible to narrow down the field of questions.
This is how people often understand abstract topics.

Do you want me to play your mother or what?

It's what people go to school for and such.

And I have.
I have pointed out how the inquirer's attitude (in this case, you and Rav and some others) plays a part in the discussion.

 

Logic IS useless you say? So why do YOU use it to assert god???

If god is illogical Arfa Brane, then why do you seek to explain it using logic?

This is contradictory and hypocritical. Please EXPLAIN?

 

The subject of god is 'ILLOGICAL' according to Arfa. Then he tries to justify his take using . . . you guessed it . . . LOGIC.

How will he respond to my post 512 and 513? Yes. you guessed it . . .using LOGIC.

Arfa, your position is untenable. BIG LOL.

 

So everyone. Logic is something one can use when one wants to. And it is something one can ignore if someone uses it against one's illogical belief. But one can use logic to support one's illogical belief.

Does that make sense?

I think it is all clear now?

 

Lets all use logic to PROVE that logic itself is at fault, and therefore illogical.

Biggest fudge I have EVER heard LOL.

 

Fair enough I guess.

Sorry, but this does not necessarily follow. You can choose to characterize the relationship between God and universe as that of a mother who actively supports and guides her child's development, but it's nothing more than something you've chosen to believe.

I am (for the sake of argument) accepting that the universe owes it's entire existence to God, since it wouldn't be here if he hadn't created it. It is the way it is because he created it that way. But being that he is an omnipotent designer, he may have created a universe that does not need sustaining by virtue of it being a perfect balance of opposites with no net loss of energy, which is exactly what science tells us the universe is. In other words, God has created a perfect machine that does not need maintenance. Note that this does not preclude God from interacting with his creation if he so chooses, although many Deists tend to believe he doesn't really do that either.

So far you haven't come close to demonstrating that this is the equivalent of a square circle.

 

While the analogy is appropriate in terms of expressing cause/effect and dependence, it fails in that there is no discernible evidence of God looking after the universe... there is nothing that one would not expect in a universe that looks after itself.
Yes, one can ask "where did the universe come from" - but while there is ample evidence of where a child comes from (DNA testing for example) there is nothing equivalent with regard Universe and God.
So please don't assume your analogy is appropriate in this regard.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure, because you believe it is that way. However, if you believed that God does not exist then His input is not in everything:
- If God exists then the Universe looks like it currently does.
- If God does not exist then the Universe looks like it currently does.
Can't then use the way the universe looks as evidence for either.
And if His input looks exactly the same as no-input... :shrug:

I'm sorry... perhaps I'm a bit slow, but are you putting this forward as a means of reaching / identifying the "source of all existence"?

We call it as we see it. Thus far the arguments haven't been countered.

Useful analogies are generally ones that are appropriate.
But combining inappropriate analogy with inappropriate analogy will do nothing.

If you can't counter the argument decently, you should try to do better than pointless quips.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think the topic of whether school broadens one's horizons would be best served elsewhere. Needless to say, the only sense of "broadening one's horizons" I can grasp from your posts is a willingness to accept stuff we don't agree with and that we consider flawed. You seem to take rebuttal as being close-minded.
If you want us to accept that which we don't agree with, without discussion, examination and review then threads will be short... and pointless.

If you think that was an example of you countering any argument or issue with the appropriateness of the analogy then you are, simply, wrong.
Arguing that one's attitude plays a part in a discussion is NOT a counter to an argument but a plea for leniency, or waiver, or acceptance. It might allow a discussion to sweep the perceived flaw under the carpet but it is no way a counter.

And as for attitude... as said, if the purpose of discussion is to accept things we disagree with, to roll over and not to raise criticisms as we find them then discussions here are neutered and rather pointless.

 

Some of the numerous analogies pedalled around here (no names named) are indeed the colour of shit. So yours isn't far off

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Anything can be dismissed with "but it's nothing more than something you've chosen to believe."
I don't really have much of a reply to that at this point.
It does strike me as interesting that you think believing something is a choice, though.
Have you read William James' "Will to believe"?

You dismiss what I say with a "but it's nothing more than something you've chosen to believe."
:shrug:

 

I've been through this. It's like claimimg that music exists, then showing someone how you can listen to music.
I know it's entirely prosaic; most people know about music--they have proof of existence--at an early age, and don't need to be told about music when they can understand spoken language.

If you were born deaf, you could rightly claim that there is no proof music exists.
You could be shown all kinds of musical instrument, lots of sheet music, and watch people playing instruments, reading the sheet music, dancing to music, etc. But you never hear it so, does it exist?

But that isn't what you're saying, you're saying "there is no proof", and there are definitions of God, lots of them.

You are placing the subject in the set of things with no proof of existence, at least. Like the subject of music for someone completely deaf.