Mageth

I think I grok your argument. I don't think you grokked mine. I said logic cannot be used prove/disprove god(s). However, logic can be used to "attempt" to disprove a particular concept of god as self-contradictory, for example the xian omnimax concept of god. I didn't say each of the attributes of the particular god can or need to be disproved. If one can use logic to disprove the omnipresent and/or omniscient attributes of a particular concept of a god, one has used logic to disprove that particular concept of a god, no?

wild ox

Mageth,

You may be able to prove that omniscience or omnipresence is not possible for physical entities.

But, how could you prove that they are not possible for non-physical entities that cannot be defined or completely understood, such as God, which, as I demonstrated, cannot be disproved?

Mageth

Some concepts, such as God, cannot be logically or scientifically disproved because they cannot have exact definitions. They cannot have exact definitions because they have no physical representations.


From the above:

1) god cannot be logically or scientifically disproved (or proved)
2) there is no (exact) definition of god
3) god has no physical representation

I conclude from the above that god is an absolutely meaningless, useless concept. From this, I may not totally rule out the logically possible existence of some kind of god, but this seems to be only a mental exercise, much like considering the paradox of a square circle. I can assume that in all probability there is no god or if there is it's totally irrelevant. No wonder I'm an atheist.

Mageth

But, how could you prove that they are not possible for non-physical entities that cannot be defined or completely understood, such as God, which, as I demonstrated, cannot be disproved?

The same way one can logically disprove the concept of a square circle. You can prove an attribute or a combination of attributes of a god concept are logically inconsistent or contradictory. Unless you're saying a particular concept of a god is not bound by the rules of logic and can be attributed with logical contradictions? You disallowed square circles, remember?

WJ

Hans!

Emotions can exist both 'inside and outside' the brain. But in order to prove the 'essence' of that, you/I would have to translate electrical impulses into sentient existence or sentient qualities like from depression, fear, anger, love, and all the rest. This is another reason why medical science has not found the exact reason for things like depression.

Of course in that regard, the materialist's argument fails. Think essences!

Walrus

wild ox

Mageth,

We are simply having a discussion as to whether or not non-physical that are independent of the mind are arguably possible.

You seem to conclude that they are arguably possible, but because of some other belief, such as their lack of evidence, which we have not discussed, you conclude that such discussion is only a useless mental exercise.

I sympathize with you. But, because physical and factual evidence is not a part of this discussion, lets stay focused on the issues. I really just wanted atheist to admit that Christians need not present absolute logical or scientific proof in order to justifiably believe in the existence of God.

That's all. In light of the fact that non-physical concepts independent of our minds could arguably exist, don't you agree? Be intellectually honest.

wild ox

WJ, Hans, and others,

Let’s stay focused.

I have my own opinions on the subject of electrochemical brain functions and their relationship to the non-physical world.

I am planning a very controversial post later in the week on that subject. I hope you all will participate.

I really just wanted to present the view that:

Atheists should not demand that Christians produce logical or scientific proof that God exists in order to justifiably believe in Him.

This is because the concept of God is a non-physical one that is arguably possible.

Who agrees?

Mageth

You defined earlier:

physical concepts are concepts that can be potentially defined using references to exact spacial dimentions and material desciptions

If god posesses an "omnipresent" attribute, isn't that a reference to an "exact spatial dimension" (to be exact, all space), and thus isn't this concept of a god said to possess a physical attribute of "everywhereness?"

Is "omniscience" in a sense a material description, i.e. god is a repository of all knowledge of the physical universe?

You argued that "omnibenevolence" was a non-physical concept. I would argue that omnibenevolence, as argued for love, does not exist outside of action. If god does not show himself by action (again a physical interaction) to be benevolent in every situation for every person, then god cannot be said to be omnibenevolent.

Thus I argue that a claim of a "non-physical" god falls apart because, for the concept to have any meaning or usefulness whatsoever, you have to attribute physicalness to it.

Philosoft

When we discuss gods, are we discussing something? If not, we're discussing nothing, we're just acting like we're discussing something. Square-circles are nothing but we can have a discussion as if they were something. Here, let me rewrite your passage above in a (probably futile) attempt to show you why your logic is useless:

You may be able to prove that square-circleness or circle-squareness is not possible for physical entities.

But, how could you prove that they are not possible for non-physical entities that cannot be defined or completely understood, such as square-circles, which, as I demonstrated, cannot be disproved?


Once you get in the habit of considering non-logical things real, you might as well stop thinking.

Koyaanisqatsi

No one is concerned with whether or not people can self-justify belief.

Belief is irrelevant. What we are concerned with is what can or can not be demonstrated to be true, i.e, proved.

You can't prove "love," but no one is claiming that "Love" is a creature that factually exists and blinked the universe into being in order to punish it.

Return the favor. Whether you define "God" as physical or "non-physical," you're still imagining a "he" aren't you?

Either the creature factually exists or does not. If it does, then where is the evidence for that existence? That's a simple, basic question reasonably applicable to all existence in one way or another, but, apparently, notthe question of "whence God?" arguably the most important question.

If you state, "In my heart," then we're done, since such evidence is inherently worthless outside the individual's "heart" and I can just as easily state, "I know God doesn't exist because Vishnu told me yesterday in a dream that it is the only true God."

So where does that leave us?

This is WJ's favored stalemate attempt, by the way, so enjoy and welcome to the board.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>