(New) Logical Proof Against God?

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 31

infidelguy wrote:

Oh of course.. I wouldn't argue that. I don't understand precisely how my TV works.. yet I still watch it and trust that it will work when I cut it on.

I agree perfect understanding isn't a good argument.

One must wonder why God needs or wants love.

God doesn't need our love for Him. We do.

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:19 am

Okay I'll bite. Why do we need his love?

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 31

infidelguy wrote:

Okay I'll bite. Why do we need his love?

We need to love Him because that is the only way to be intimate with Him, and without any degree of intimacy with Him in this life we will be unprepared for greater intimacy in Heaven. Without a sufficient degree of loving intimacy, we cannot experience His love for us, for only by loving another can their love for us be experienced.

We need God's love because it is His love that keeps us in existence. We need to experience His love to a sufficient degree because without a sufficient experience of His love it would be impossible for us to choose to love Him in return, and not loving Him in return denies the experience of an intimate relationship with Him.

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:24 pm

And how does one develop this love for a being of which doesn't make any logical sense?

If I didn't exist I wouldn't care if I existed.. so your first and immediate response is quite a moot point. I don't think I've experienced a sufficient degree of evidence for this being of yours so experiencing it's love would be quite difficult.

You say that "not loving him denies... yada.. yada.." Not loving him would be part of his infinitely knowledgeable plan though wouldn't it? Why would he create people knowing that they wouldn't ever come to love him.. solely because of this lack of sufficient evidence?

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 31

infidelguy wrote:

And how does one develop this love for a being of which doesn't make any logical sense?

If I didn't exist I wouldn't care if I existed.. so your first and immediate response is quite a moot point. I don't think I've experienced a sufficient degree of evidence for this being of yours so experiencing it's love would be quite difficult.

You say that "not loving him denies... yada.. yada.." Not loving him would be part of his infinitely knowledgeable plan though wouldn't it? Why would he create people knowing that they wouldn't ever come to love him.. solely because of this lack of sufficient evidence?

Response to question 1: One cannot love God if one is opposed to seeing the sense in God's existence. Love must be voluntary, and if a person would prefer to disbelieve in God then I understand why it would be difficult to love Him. We cannot believe and cannot love unless we are willing.

If you don't care about not existing, then commit suicide in order to provide empirical evidence of your lack of regard for your own life.

What sort of evidence do you require for the existence of God?

You not loving God is not a part of God's plan for you. I don't understand the logic of your belief that God has predestined you to not love Him. Love is voluntary; you choose to not believe in God and not love God.

I don't know why God created us, I only know that we were created. Therefore, I cannot answer your last question.

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:58 am

ufcarazy wrote:

Response to question 1: One cannot love God if one is opposed to seeing the sense in God's existence. Love must be voluntary, and if a person would prefer to disbelieve in God then I understand why it would be difficult to love Him. We cannot believe and cannot love unless we are willing.

If you don't care about not existing, then commit suicide in order to provide empirical evidence of your lack of regard for your own life.

What sort of evidence do you require for the existence of God?

You not loving God is not a part of God's plan for you. I don't understand the logic of your belief that God has predestined you to not love Him. Love is voluntary; you choose to not believe in God and not love God.

I don't know why God created us, I only know that we were created. Therefore, I cannot answer your last question.

Too many assumptions. I see why you come off as you do now. For one.. I am not opposed to evidence. If it makes you feel better about your arguments by saying so.. then believe what you will.

Look, I agree, love must be voluntary. However, it helps one if there is sufficient evidence of what it is one is supposed to be voluntarily loving.

Committing suicide would cause harm to my friends, children and family. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't do such a thing. However, you must be misunderstanding. I was speaking of the fact that there was a point when humans didn't exist. Therefore.. if Zeus didn't create me, could I care or love? No.. for I never existed. Therefore, no need to love a deity. Your God is setting himself up for failure is he not? He creates people knowing they'd have to burn forever. That is, if you believe a Fiery Hell?

I love life, because I am already here to live it.

I am quite shocked that you can't understand what I'm saying. Let me break it down to you in a more logical form.

1.) God has a divine plan which included the creation of man.
2.) God's wants men to love him freely. (Tempted to say "Hopes men will love him freely" here, but that would automatically prove that God isn't omniscient)
3.) Before men were created however, God knew that some men would not love him freely.
4.) Therefore it is God's plan that at least some men would not love him freely and would have to burn in Hell.

Such a swell God you got there chief. heh.

Notice the direction and flow of the argument. Essentially you are stuck between some serious philosophical dilemmas here. That of what god wants and hopes for, verses what he already knows will come before he made us. There is some serious contradiction and irrationality here.

If a god exists and he created me to love him.. then he'd be a failure on the outset. He'd know immediately not to expect such things nor "want" them, for he'd know it's impossible.

I'd like my cousins to treat me better and not hate me for my atheism. That's rational. But.. If I created them knowing they'd despise me.. and expect a different result. I'm the problem. Not them.

I hope you now understand.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 31

infidelguy wrote:

ufcarazy wrote:

Response to question 1: One cannot love God if one is opposed to seeing the sense in God's existence. Love must be voluntary, and if a person would prefer to disbelieve in God then I understand why it would be difficult to love Him. We cannot believe and cannot love unless we are willing.

If you don't care about not existing, then commit suicide in order to provide empirical evidence of your lack of regard for your own life.

What sort of evidence do you require for the existence of God?

You not loving God is not a part of God's plan for you. I don't understand the logic of your belief that God has predestined you to not love Him. Love is voluntary; you choose to not believe in God and not love God.

I don't know why God created us, I only know that we were created. Therefore, I cannot answer your last question.

Too many assumptions. I see why you come off as you do now. For one.. I am not opposed to evidence. If it makes you feel better about your arguments by saying so.. then believe what you will.

Look, I agree, love must be voluntary. However, it helps one if there is sufficient evidence of what it is one is supposed to be voluntarily loving.

Committing suicide would cause harm to my friends, children and family. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't do such a thing. However, you must be misunderstanding. I was speaking of the fact that there was a point when humans didn't exist. Therefore.. if Zeus didn't create me, could I care or love? No.. for I never existed. Therefore, no need to love a deity. Your God is setting himself up for failure is he not? He creates people knowing they'd have to burn forever. That is, if you believe a Fiery Hell?

I love life, because I am already here to live it.

I am quite shocked that you can't understand what I'm saying. Let me break it down to you in a more logical form.

1.) God has a divine plan which included the creation of man.
2.) God's wants men to love him freely. (Tempted to say "Hopes men will love him freely" here, but that would automatically prove that God isn't omniscient)
3.) Before men were created however, God knew that some men would not love him freely.
4.) Therefore it is God's plan that at least some men would not love him freely and would have to burn in Hell.

Such a swell God you got there chief. heh.

Notice the direction and flow of the argument. Essentially you are stuck between some serious philosophical dilemmas here. That of what god wants and hopes for, verses what he already knows will come before he made us. There is some serious contradiction and irrationality here.

If a god exists and he created me to love him.. then he'd be a failure on the outset. He'd know immediately not to expect such things nor "want" them, for he'd know it's impossible.

I'd like my cousins to treat me better and not hate me for my atheism. That's rational. But.. If I created them knowing they'd despise me.. and expect a different result. I'm the problem. Not them.

I hope you now understand.

You are making way too many assumptions. It is clear to me why you choose to see things the way you do. You expect scientific evidence for what I believe, but refuse to provide me with scientific evidence that you are willing to believe in God. I cannot believe that the reason you are an atheist is because of lack of evidence simply because you say so. It is just as likely that the reason you do not see evidence is because you prefer to be an atheist. I will not change my belief in God on the basis of your stubbornness. Your syllogism is not an argument against the existence of a god because any god who wants you to burn in Hell or fails at a task is a god who exists. If all of the premises in your argument are true, then you are wrong for being an atheist.

I don't want to make it seem like I am afraid to communicate with you, but my guess is that we have way too many questions for each other to make a written debate productive. There are too many problems we see in each other's words. For this reason, I would like to end this discussion, but if you want to have the last word I will not hesitate to read your post. However, it is doubtful that I will respond (except to tell you that I have read your final post).

Grand Poster Joined: Jan 12, 2004 Posts: 1693

architecto wrote:

We assume God to be maximally great (perfect, omniscient, omnipotent) and...

Why would "we" make such a foolish assumption?

Quote:

1. A perfect teacher is able to teach any topic and make it understandable to any student. No mater how complex the subject, or how dumb or unwilling the student - a perfect teacher teaches to all, enagages all. To neglect ONE student is to be a flawed teacher.

Your "perfect" teacher is evil. My perfect teacher wouldn't teach to an unwilling student.

Quote:

2. God wants humans to know God, to learn of God and his ways.

3. Not all humans know God, or are clear about His ways. God has not taught His lesson perfectly or it would be clearly understood by all students.

How do you know the lesson is complete?

Quote:

:.Therefore, God is not a perfect teacher. But being maximally great this is impossible, so God does not exist.

A concept which doesn't exist cannot be used to prove something doesn't exist. Your ideal standard of "perfection" does not exist as ideal to everyone.

Quote:

I often get two different responses from Xians about non-belief.
1. You have to be willing to learn God message of Love, or some such thing.

Forcing your teachings on the unwilling is counterproductive. Try it sometime and see.

Quote:

You have to have Faith before you understand Gods message and see that he wants a relationship.

You can understand this God character's message and see he wants a relationship without faith in his existence and/or goodness.

Quote:

2. You can't comprehend God's Plan (for example, why there is Suffering/Evil, etc.)

You may not be able to comprehend it all but you certainly can understand some of "God's Plan" and why there is suffering/evil, etc.

Quote:

This Argument stops all that nonsense, since the Xian will put it upon the persons failings, sin or imperfection that we can't understand the Bible the same way, or can't know God's Plan (because it "would be like a Scientist explaining Nuclear Fission to a Dog")

But, we see in life that a good teacher can teach even the most challenged students. God would be a perfect teacher - better then that "Stand and Deliver" guy, and he taught the "dregs" when others failed - and so it's not our imperfections that limit us. It's the teacher.

Your argument totally relies on an assumption about "perfection". Perfection has no absolute ideal standard thus your argument is not absolute proof of anything.

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:58 am

ufcarazy wrote:

You are making way too many assumptions. It is clear to me why you choose to see things the way you do. You expect scientific evidence for what I believe, but refuse to provide me with scientific evidence that you are willing to believe in God. I cannot believe that the reason you are an atheist is because of lack of evidence simply because you say so. It is just as likely that the reason you do not see evidence is because you prefer to be an atheist. I will not change my belief in God on the basis of your stubbornness. Your syllogism is not an argument against the existence of a god because any god who wants you to burn in Hell or fails at a task is a god who exists. If all of the premises in your argument are true, then you are wrong for being an atheist.

I don't want to make it seem like I am afraid to communicate with you, but my guess is that we have way too many questions for each other to make a written debate productive. There are too many problems we see in each other's words. For this reason, I would like to end this discussion, but if you want to have the last word I will not hesitate to read your post. However, it is doubtful that I will respond (except to tell you that I have read your final post).

Firstly.. I already told you that I am open to evidence. Whatever that may be. God would know exactly what evidence would be sufficient for me to believe right? I mean, he is God. If I don't believe based on the insufficient evidence that he provides then that's your god's fault. Not mine.

I didn't post a syllogism I posted a logical argument. A syllogism is composed of three parts.

I'd be more than happy to invite you to a verbal/audio discussion.

Lastly, your response about my argument showing that I am "wrong" for being an atheist is absurd. It justifies my atheism. You obviously didn't even comprehend the argument.

Bye..

Grand Poster Joined: Jan 12, 2004 Posts: 1693

Tormentor wrote:

A xian arguement to this would be "God sets the standards of perfection, so he will always be a perfect teacher."

God sets an ideal standard of perfection. I see no reason to assume there is only one ideal standard of perfection.

Quote:

I've said this before and i'll say it again. Kill all of the xians/muslims/jews. There is no point in trying to enlighten them unless they are children who haven't been stained with jewism in their mental developement stages.

While killing, your battle cry can be silence ".........." since your atheist sect kills for a lack of belief.

Welcome to the wonderful world of sectarian violence. I knew atheists couldn't resist it's allure for long. Watch out for this Allen Akbar guy though, I've heard he also sees no point in trying to "enlighten".

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:06 am

atheod, why would you lump all atheists in with him? and weren't you banned from here?

Newbie Joined: Jan 10, 2008 Posts: 12

architecto wrote:

I don't know if this one has been done before exactly like this, and it needs refinement, but it may be somewhat convincing.

Argument from Perfect Teacher.

We assume God to be maximally great (perfect, omniscient, omnipotent) and wants a relationship with humanity. So, a Xian God at least, perhaps more.

1. A perfect teacher is able to teach any topic and make it understandable to any student. No mater how complex the subject, or how dumb or unwilling the student - a perfect teacher teaches to all, enagages all. To neglect ONE student is to be a flawed teacher.

A perfect teacher also allows his students to choose whether or not they want to learn. Forcing someone to learn something is not teaching.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 31

infidelguy wrote:

ufcarazy wrote:

You are making way too many assumptions. It is clear to me why you choose to see things the way you do. You expect scientific evidence for what I believe, but refuse to provide me with scientific evidence that you are willing to believe in God. I cannot believe that the reason you are an atheist is because of lack of evidence simply because you say so. It is just as likely that the reason you do not see evidence is because you prefer to be an atheist. I will not change my belief in God on the basis of your stubbornness. Your syllogism is not an argument against the existence of a god because any god who wants you to burn in Hell or fails at a task is a god who exists. If all of the premises in your argument are true, then you are wrong for being an atheist.

I don't want to make it seem like I am afraid to communicate with you, but my guess is that we have way too many questions for each other to make a written debate productive. There are too many problems we see in each other's words. For this reason, I would like to end this discussion, but if you want to have the last word I will not hesitate to read your post. However, it is doubtful that I will respond (except to tell you that I have read your final post).

Firstly.. I already told you that I am open to evidence. Whatever that may be. God would know exactly what evidence would be sufficient for me to believe right? I mean, he is God. If I don't believe based on the insufficient evidence that he provides then that's your god's fault. Not mine.

I didn't post a syllogism I posted a logical argument. A syllogism is composed of three parts.

I'd be more than happy to invite you to a verbal/audio discussion.

Lastly, your response about my argument showing that I am "wrong" for being an atheist is absurd. It justifies my atheism. You obviously didn't even comprehend the argument.

Bye..

Later.

Just Arrived Joined: Jan 08, 2005 Posts: 4

Logical proof against god has indeed been achieved through the application of Dr Gene Ray's Time Cube discovery. See, for instance, the CubicAO Time Cube Proof , in which Case 64 draws a logical conclusion that god doesn't exist.

Indeed god is but fraudulent religious mindcontrol. Everyone must seek Time Cube--for great wisdom!

Grand Poster Joined: Jan 12, 2004 Posts: 1693

infidelguy wrote:

atheod, why would you lump all atheists in with him? and weren't you banned from here?

Sorry, all atheists don't want me killed. I shouldn't have lumped you all in with him. And why would I have been banned from here?


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore