• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

God Does Not Exist: Logical Statement?

God Does Not Exist: Logical? Scientific?

  • Logical but not scientific.

    Votes: 4 9.8%

  • Scientific but not logical.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Logical and scientific.

    Votes: 7 17.1%

  • Neither logical or scientific.

    Votes: 30 73.2%
  • Total voters
    41
Dav said:
Logic has nothing to do with it. Neither scenario has an answer that is more logical than the other.
Click to expand...

You could make a logical argument based on the Drake Equation for the likelihood of extraterrestrial life. It might be wrong, but it would still be logical. There is no comparable argument that can be made for the existence of a god. Furthermore, extraterrestrial beings could exist without assuming the existence of anything beyond the natural forces for which there is already evidence. The same is not true of most versions of a god.

Dav said:
It's all about what is, as you say, reasonable. I think it's reasonable that the universe is so big, there is probably life on it outside of the Solar System.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Dav said:
I don't think it's reasonable that we could even be having this conversation if in the end we all die and disappear, and then eventually everyone dies and everything that ever happened is forgotten, and none of this will ever have mattered or happened for any reason.
Click to expand...

Why not? What is inherently unreasonable about that? :confused:
And even if you are correct, how would it be an argument for the existence of a god?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
You could make a logical argument based on the Drake Equation for the likelihood of extraterrestrial life. It might be wrong, but it would still be logical.
Click to expand...

Not true. It would be reasonable, not logical (or illogical, for that matter). The Drake Equation has no logical basis and is full of assumptions.


There is no comparable argument that can be made for the existence of a god. Furthermore, extraterrestrial beings could exist without assuming the existence of anything beyond the natural forces for which there is already evidence. The same is not true of most versions of a god.
Click to expand...

Only partially true. The fact is that we humans have only a tiny sliver of an idea about how the universe works, and what we do "know" is being altered all the time; while the existence of God may require forces that we don't yet know about, such forces probably constitute the majority of the universe. Not to mention, it is very possible for God to work within the realm of forces which we do already understand. There are whole books with scientific explanations for how Jesus might have walked on water, or how Moses might have parted the Red Sea.


Why not? What is inherently unreasonable about that? :confused:
And even if you are correct, how would it be an argument for the existence of a god?
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's all based on assumptions. Such a universe just doesn't seem reasonable to me - there's nothing inherent about it, it's just how I process it. That is why arguing for/against the existence of God is ultimately fruitless.
 
Uh...Dav,

You do realize that logic is based on assumptions to produce a framework for thinking no? That if we remove assumptions, logic fails to function. Case in point: omnipotence.
 
Toothpicvic said:
If you say so... :roll:
Click to expand...

I say so, that's what quantum string theory, gravity theory, magnetism, dark matter, cosmic string theory, and more, are all about.

Once one realizes that terms like "supernatural" have been hijacked by Disney and are no longer accurately used, then clean away the taint of the misuse and return to their proper meaning, one sees that this is exactly what the word means.
 
Jerry said:
I say so, that's what quantum string theory, gravity theory, magnetism, dark matter, cosmic string theory, and more, are all about.

Once one realizes that terms like "supernatural" have been hijacked by Disney and are no longer accurately used, then clean away the taint of the misuse and return to their proper meaning, one sees that this is exactly what the word means.
Click to expand...

But you weren't using the word supernatural correctly either...Just sayin :2wave:
 
Kandahar said:
I realize it doesn't prove it...I'm just saying it should be the default assumption.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you're making the statement. As an absolute, it's just wrong. As a means for falsification though, it should be the default because it is the easiest to falsify. By stating that there is a god, one would have to look absolutely everywhere and find no gods. By stating that there is no god, it only takes a single instance of a god presented to falsify the statement.
 
Ethereal said:
I don't know. Would you react the same way to a person that believed in "God" as you would to a person that believed there was an invisible dragon in his garage?
Click to expand...

We ought to, there's no functional difference between the two. Both are delusional beliefs, one just happens to be a culturally-accepted delusion. However, just because one is accepted and one is not doesn't mean that both are not still irrational, right up until one of them is supported by objective evidence. That hasn't happened, therefore...
 
Cephus said:
We ought to, there's no functional difference between the two. Both are delusional beliefs, one just happens to be a culturally-accepted delusion. However, just because one is accepted and one is not doesn't mean that both are not still irrational, right up until one of them is supported by objective evidence. That hasn't happened, therefore...
Click to expand...

So as I said before:

Dav said:
Except that is not even remotely close to being a valid comparison.

God's existence is a hypothesis regarding the structure of the entire universe. It is not like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, which are nothing more than specific creatures within the universe.
Click to expand...
 
From my perspective, trying to disprove god is pointless, as god has no real definition. Without a list of known traits, such a task is impossible. How you find or not find something if you don't know what you are looking for. However, it is infinitely easier to prove that religions were more likely invented by humans than actual supernatural beings.


For example, its fairly reasonable to say that Zeus doesn't exist. We have surveyed every mountain-top in the entire world and didn't find Olympus. Also, given the fact he was considered responsible for lightning and thunder, we which now know are not divine in origin, its quite likely that he was simply used as a explanation for natural phenomenon.

The Abrahamic god doesn't have a form we can identify, which makes things trickier, but still possible. For example, it is a startling coincidence that gods morality just happens to mirror the societies were the religions first developed. Technology is startling similar as well , with the bible describing a close approximation of pi, which is probably the best they could do at the time, but not exactly within a divine margin of error. Even things like banning pork had practical health application given the lack of knowledge about illness. This suggests that these ancient societies were responsible for inventing such a god.
 
rathi said:
The Abrahamic god doesn't have a form we can identify, which makes things trickier, but still possible. For example, it is a startling coincidence that gods morality just happens to mirror the societies were the religions first developed. Technology is startling similar as well , with the bible describing a close approximation of pi, which is probably the best they could do at the time, but not exactly within a divine margin of error. Even things like banning pork had practical health application given the lack of knowledge about illness. This suggests that these ancient societies were responsible for inventing such a god.
Click to expand...

Pork was banned because pigs compete with humans for food. :p They were invnted by nomadic societies and thus the laws are compatible with nomadic societies more than settled society.
 
Perhaps the biggest argument that man made god(s) and not the other way around is the way that religion is spread. Nobody has ever independently discovered the same god. If any of the divine beings mentioned existed, why are they so careful to only ever appear in a very select geographic region? The sole means of spreading religion is human contact. The gods who used to intervene constantly on earth as written in the holy texts have yet to ever make their presence known today.
 
obvious Child said:
Uh...Dav,

You do realize that logic is based on assumptions to produce a framework for thinking no? That if we remove assumptions, logic fails to function. Case in point: omnipotence.
Click to expand...

Okay, but when one of your assumptions is the very thing you are trying to argue in the first place, it kind of ruins the point. The Drake equation may itself be the logical conclusion to a set of assumptions, but it does not provide a logical basis for the argument that extra-terrestrial life exists at all, since that is basically an assumption it makes.

Also, when I used the word "assumption" earlier, it was partially for lack of a better term; most of the time I was talking about gut feelings or psychological instinct, or however you want to describe it.
 
Pork was banned because pigs compete with humans for food. :p They were invnted by nomadic societies and thus the laws are compatible with nomadic societies more than settled society.
Click to expand...

I'd suspect that it also had more to do with the dangers of eating raw pork.
 
Cephus said:
We ought to, there's no functional difference between the two. Both are delusional beliefs, one just happens to be a culturally-accepted delusion. However, just because one is accepted and one is not doesn't mean that both are not still irrational, right up until one of them is supported by objective evidence. That hasn't happened, therefore...
Click to expand...

The examples are not comparable.

One is a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, whereas the other is a random and nonsensical claim.

The concept of God fits logically into a theory or model of the universe. It is possible and plausible. But garage-dragons!? What theory or model do they fit into? What line of reasoning would necessitate a dragon in one's garage? Sure, it's possible, but is it really plausible!?

And if they really are logically equivalent then where are all the people who think there's a dragon in their garage? Surely, if billions of people can "delude" themselves into believing in God, then a substantial amount of people out there should also be deluding themselves into believing there's a dragon in their garage. Why don't they?
 
rathi said:
I'd suspect that it also had more to do with the dangers of eating raw pork.
Click to expand...

Trichinosis was a factor, but the ultimate reason was the anthropological one of it being more viable for nomadic societies not to cultivate pork versus animals which do not compete with humans for food.
 
Lightdemon said:
But you weren't using the word supernatural correctly either...Just sayin :2wave:
Click to expand...

Sure I was.

Science is about learning about what we do not currently understand.
 
It is only a logical statement if you believe that. Why do people wish to complicate things when they are simple?
 
Look.. Nietzsche said God is dead and that is that. Forget about it. We do not need proof or anything, right? ;):2razz:

When you can prove that God does exist? Get back to me.. Til then? Logic tells you that he does not exist. That is logic. The End.
 
Kali said:
Look.. Nietzsche said God is dead and that is that. Forget about it. We do not need proof or anything, right? ;):2razz:

When you can prove that God does exist? Get back to me.. Til then? Logic tells you that he does not exist. That is logic. The End.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately nobody has managed to find God's body yet, so billions continue to cling to the hope that he is still alive since his death cannot be proven. :2razz:
 
Jerry said:
Sure I was.

Science is about learning about what we do not currently understand.
Click to expand...

The supernatural cannot be explained by natural law, which is what Science is. Science does not deal in the supernatural. YOUR use of supernatural is incorrect.
 
Dav said:
So as I said before:
Click to expand...

If, as you say, God is a hypothesis of the structure of the universe rather than a being in the universe, then there must be a way to empirically test this hypothesis. So let's first clarify what exactly we're talking about here: What would the existence of God tell us about the structure of the universe, that could not possibly be true without a God?
 
Ethereal said:
The examples are not comparable.

One is a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, whereas the other is a random and nonsensical claim.
Click to expand...

What version of god are you talking about, and how is it a plausible explanation? And what makes the garage dragon a random and nonsensical claim? If I tell you that not only do I have a dragon living in my garage, but that he also created the universe, does my claim become MORE or LESS plausible?

Ethereal said:
The concept of God fits logically into a theory or model of the universe. It is possible and plausible. But garage-dragons!? What theory or model do they fit into? What line of reasoning would necessitate a dragon in one's garage? Sure, it's possible, but is it really plausible!?
Click to expand...

I don't see why it's any less plausible...just because society conditions people to accept one claim and not the other.

Ethereal said:
And if they really are logically equivalent then where are all the people who think there's a dragon in their garage? Surely, if billions of people can "delude" themselves into believing in God, then a substantial amount of people out there should also be deluding themselves into believing there's a dragon in their garage. Why don't they?
Click to expand...

I think the purpose of Sagan's example was to pick something that people DON'T commonly delude themselves into believing. But garage dragons aside, there ARE many other examples of widespread delusions that have nothing to do with religion: Ghosts, UFOs, astrology, homeopathy, magic, prophecies, etc.
 
Kandahar said:
What version of god are you talking about, and how is it a plausible explanation? And what makes the garage dragon a random and nonsensical claim? If I tell you that not only do I have a dragon living in my garage, but that he also created the universe, does my claim become MORE or LESS plausible?



I don't see why it's any less plausible...just because society conditions people to accept one claim and not the other.



I think the purpose of Sagan's example was to pick something that people DON'T commonly delude themselves into believing. But garage dragons aside, there ARE many other examples of widespread delusions that have nothing to do with religion: Ghosts, UFOs, astrology, homeopathy, magic, prophecies, etc.
Click to expand...

But none of those things have left behind a complex and well ordered creation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom