John Page

1. Proposition: God is everywhere.
2. Put a scope on the search - someplace/time.
3. Everywhere includes someplace/time (by definition).
4. God ain't where I looked - someplace/time.
5. Therefore god ain't everywhere & doesn't exist as defined. QED.

Mine's a cold beer, any German denomination will do .

Cheers, John

AtlanticCitySlave

(The same would apply for alien abductions as well, and we would have better grounds for rejecting God than you would have for rejecting alien abductions.)

Jayhawker Soule

This is the same New Age mantra that admonishes skeptics to 'open themselves to the possibilities', and serves as the last refuge of pseudoscience. Let's all go meditate ...

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Totalitarianist

No, nothing like that.

We shouldn't deny or accept anything extraordinary. Alien abductions are not extraordinary; they can be explained.

The existence of God (not faith in Him) cannot be elaborated on, unlike alleged alien abductions, and so both denial and acceptance is illogical; it is best to ignore the meaningless notion of God; it is logical to simply lack a belief.

Faith healing, the Christian God, miracles, pixies, ghosts--I believe those allegations can be refuted by reason. The existence of God, the Creator, the First Causer, etc cannot.

Can the Christian God be refuted by reason? Yes, He can; an all-knowing God does not contradict himself.

So reason does not apply to a notion that transcends our ability to comprehend.

We hitherto cannot comprehend the cause of the universe.

Therefore absolute denial of all causes or causes that you do not like is illogical.

Edit: UBB code

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

John Page

Pseud:

By definition an all-knowing god will hold contradictions. (Because contradictions can be known).

This is illogical . There is no basis for this conclusion: for example, that I cannot yet comprehend the rules of baseball does not mean they are unreasonable.

Cheers, John

Totalitarianist

Exactly.

Just because I cannot yet comprehend the notion of God, does not make his existence unreasable.

And so it is illogical to deny God.

By definition an all-knowing god will hold contradictions. (Because contradictions can be known).

That would mean he's omnipresent--to actually hold the contradiction; he only knows the contradiction; he is not part of it; he is not omnipresent.

A god that is aware of everything--including what he will say on the morrow--cannot contradict himself, unless unintentionally.

If he knows he is going to say something contradictory one day, he will not say the thing that will cause a contradiction on the fore.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

WJ

"None of them stand up to rigorous and objective standards of proof."

John, if there are no [objective] absolutes, what is your argument/point?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Sorry, but you did not explain the denial/rejection of the existence of something that does not exsit, you just proved God does not exist.

A subtle, but salient point that means the Hefe Weizen are still settling...

Koyaanisqatsi

Non sequitur.

First, I'll take it that you meant "and so it is illogical to deny God's existence," a contradiction since God's existence has never been established to a reasonable degree of certainty for you to "deny" or "affirm."

In other words, do not use the word "deny" and everything is fine, because it is clearly being improperly applied.

Second, whether or not his "existence" is personally incomprehensible to you has no bearing on whether or not his existence (as defined, or, in this case, impossible to define) is "unreasonable," in any relevant, logical sense in keeping with your conclusion of "illogical."

Third, his existence is not conditioned necessarily upon it being "reasonable" or "unreasonable." Ultimately, either the creature exists or it does not.

The question to you, however, is whether or not such "unreasonableness" is sufficient grounds to render the possibility of his existence "illogical."

None of this, however, has any bearing on the word "deny." That is simply the wrong term to use, since it would be possible for me to stand in front of you and still have you deny that I am standing in front of you.

Denial is an irrational condition, so the proper term to use would be "and so it is illogical to state God does not exist."

Thus, your syllogism would be properly formatted:

As you can plainly see, that is non-sequitur.



That makes absolutely no sense.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Totalitarianist

It makes perfect sense.

I was applying that to the God of Christianity.