FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Existence of God(s)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-13-2005, 11:24 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Eastern United States
Posts: 3,383
Default

In string theory, universes do not "crash" into eachother. They interact in such a way that another universe is created. There is no "disturbance" to either of the interacting universes (that is postulated to my knowledge). Also, these universes do not "expand" into eachother necessarily.
Malintent is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 11:32 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixphi
(3) God is a logically possible being
based on... what?

I say god is logically impossible.
Alter is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 12:15 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 4,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixphi
(1) Every logically possible universe exists.
(2) Every logically possible being exists.
(3) God is a logically possible being
(4) Therefore, God exists in at least one universe.
(5) By definition, God is a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being.
(6a) an all-powerful being can effect events in any universe
(6b) an all-knowing being can have knowledge of any universe
(6c) an all-present being can be present in any universe
(7) Therefore, God exists in all universes.
As others have noted, your premises 1 and 2 are baseless.

Furthermore, if 1 is true then it refutes premises 6a-c and your conclusion.
A universe in which no God exists, no God can have knowledge of, and no God can influence is a logically possible universe.
Note that any argument against this universe being logically possible counts equally against your premise 3 that God is logically possible.
Thus, according to your premise 1, this no-Gods-allowed universe exist. The existence of this universe directly contradicts 6a-c and 7.
The fact that your premise 1 implies your conclusions and conclusions that directly refute them, seems to demostrate that your first premise not only is not supported, but logically absurd.
doubtingt is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 12:47 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,088
Default

again, based on your origional post,
since (2) says "every logically possible being exists," then (3) The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.

You can use this argument to justify ANYTHING, therefor it fails. Please insert $.50 to continue.
Paul2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.