Vatican says aliens could exist

[Neosutra]

And there is nothing I didn't address. That's why I'm asking you to put it in a more formal way.

The argument in your previous post is ridiculous, because you use your definition of what is bad to explains why a sentient God can't exist. First of all, God is the being who created the universe, why does it matter if there is rotting biomatter or not in it? You can have the concept of God without giving human any importance. Secondly, what's wrong with rotting biomatter?

On topic..or not, interesting discovery about the barionic matter between galaxy.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/81c6b13a ... 7bdd6.html

That link is off topic, but interesting none the less.

And you completely missed my argument. My argument wasnt the vanity associated with assuming a being of that magnificience cared about us, that was just a question. The point came from claiming the causel paradox of:

1. The universe is infinite, yet was created.
2. God is "more" infinite, yet was not created...

And you didnt address the logical problems to omnipotent and omnicient god theories, you ignored them.

[Kaylia]

1. The universe is infinite, yet was created.
2. God is "more" infinite, yet was not created...

A= universe is infinite
B= God is the largest infinite
C= is created

Premise #1: universe exist
Premise #2: god exist

1: A&C = true
2: B&¬C = true

There is no contradiction between those 2 statements as it is. You would need to add an implication between "is created" and "infinite", or another equality if you want to find a contradiction, but you didn't add anything.

And you didnt address the logical problems to omnipotent and omnicient god theories, you ignored them.

I did using using randomness.

[Neosutra]

1. The universe is infinite, yet was created.
2. God is "more" infinite, yet was not created...

A= universe is infinite
B= God is the largest infinite
C= is created

Premise #1: universe exist
Premise #2: god exist

1: A&C = true
2: B&¬C = true

There is no contradiction between those 2 statements as it is. You would need to add an implication between "is created" and "infinite", or another equality if you want to find a contradiction, but you didn't add anything.


[quote:k3ybfrri]And you didnt address the logical problems to omnipotent and omnicient god theories, you ignored them.

I did using using randomness.[/quote:k3ybfrri]

OH I see it now, once you place an equal sign next to your premis and rename fictional god into the letter B, you prove god exists as an infinite being.

Seriously, your logic makes no sense what so ever. And if the universe is infinite, why did it have to have a begining? And did you even read your own premis, or just look away from the keyboard and type random things, because I hope to hell thats not what you really think.

[Kaylia]

OH I see it now, once you place an equal sign next to your premis and rename fictional god into the letter B, you prove god exists as an infinite being.

I will repeat it again for the 10th times. I'm not proving that god exist, I said you can't disprove God using logics, that you can't disprove it without additional premise based on something else than beliefs. You could replace god by unicorns for all I care, as long you define it outside the universe, or at the edge, you won't break enthropy or physics laws, and it still work with the dictionary definition of God.

If you want to explain the phenomenon that made the world exist, you need to postulate something. Call this postulate god, chaos, infinity, yahve, or anything, it doesn't change the concept of the first cause, and it doesn't change the fact that it is a very simple and useful concept. It's not the only solution, but eliminating one on the belief that it is not good is retarded.

You're the one in this thread who pretend to be able to disprove this concept, but if you can't disprove it using logics, you can't disprove it at all.

Seriously, your logic makes no sense what so ever. And if the universe is infinite, why did it have to have a begining? And did you even read your own premis, or just look away from the keyboard and type random things, because I hope to hell thats not what you really think.

God can't have a cause.
If something has a cause, then it can't be God
If the series of cause/effect is infinite, then you have no choice but to place God at the infinity for it works, or in a larger set that include this infinity.


I'm done replying you, unless you can actually make a demonstration instead of accusing me of saying thing I never said.

[Neosutra]

Make a demonstration?

You make a faulty logical circle that states that the universe is infinite and because it is infinite that god exists. You use bad premises, and bad logic to get to your conclusions, then demand a counter example when your crap is called for the crap it is.

You couldnt get past the faults in the omnicient and omnipotent logical paths, you cant get past the first cause logical paradox. The only thing you seem to be able to do is regurgitate crap and "call" it logic.

Let me sum up all the logical arguments youve had here:

Bananas exist.
Therefor god exists.

You make wild conclusions based on faulty premises. I really cant believe your even trying to justify the concept of god, or an infinite god, via logic.


"If the series of cause/effect is infinite, then you have no choice but to place God at the infinity for it works, or in a larger set that include this infinity"

That statement is so invalid and makes so many ill gottin conclusions that I think it completely represents the BS that has come from your argument so far. The bananas to god example perfectly displays the complete inconsistancy in every aspect of your premis/conclusion.

[Kaylia]

Take 3 more minutes to read my post, and stop saying I said God exist, that's just retarded. I never wrote in this thread an argument to demonstrate that God exis.

[Neosutra]

Stop saying I said God exist, that's just retarded. Take 3 more minutes to read my post. If you try to see a demonstration that God exist in my post, you won't find any.

I said prove god OR an attempt to prove infinite god, read my post.

And you stated earlier that to be god you must be infinite, thus by proving infinite nature of god you ARE trying to prove god exists. Do you even ready what you post?

[Kaylia]

I said prove god OR an attempt to prove infinite god, read my post.

And you stated early that to be god you must be infinite, thus you ARE trying to prove god exists. Do you even ready what you post?

It's not an attempt to prove an infinite god either.

[Neosutra]

I said prove god OR an attempt to prove infinite god, read my post.

And you stated early that to be god you must be infinite, thus you ARE trying to prove god exists. Do you even ready what you post?

It's not an attempt to prove an infinite god either

Oh really, so your trying to logically prove what then?

[Kaylia]

I'm saying that such God wouldn't create a contradiction, as opposed to the more defined god religion use.

[Neosutra]

I'm saying that such God wouldn't create a contradiction, as opposed to the more defined god religion use.

...

Oh, so your saying there is no paradox because god wouldnt make a paradox, how dense of me not to see that.

[Kaylia]

My original comment was a reply to Kaelen post, but you jumped on it and tried to mix both argument together. I warned you many time, but you kept doing it, and dragged the argument in many differents directions.

You could, as people often do, re-define "God" every time an argument proves that your previous definition of God is logically impossible

Kaelan said God is logically impossible because you always have to redefine it, therefore, it can't exist since there is no definition.

My counter argument was that a god located at the infinity or at the beginning wouldnt have to be redefined everytime.

[edit]
If you disagree with this argument, than show me where the contradiction is. It's what I'm asking you for 2 pages.

[Neosutra]

My original comment was a reply to Kaelen post, but you jumped on it and tried to mix both argument together. I warned you many time, but you kept doing it, and dragged the argument in many differents directions.

You could, as people often do, re-define "God" every time an argument proves that your previous definition of God is logically impossible

Kaelan said God is logically impossible because you always have to redefine it, therefore, it can't exist since there is no definition.

My counter argument was that a god located at the infinity or at the beginning, wouldnt have to be redefined everytime.

There is no beginning to infinity.

And we have stated MANY times the logical contradictions of an infinite(and thereby omnicient and omnipotent) god.

If you define your god as such, then you define there to be no god, via the paradox that arrises from omnipotence alone, not to mention the first cause paradox, and the free will/omnicience paradox.

Either your definition of "at infinity" or "at origin" is faulty, or you have to yeild that there is no way to define god, thus it doesnt exist.

[Kaylia]

That's why there is a "or" between infinity and first. It's one or the other, not both.

And we have stated MANY times the logical contradictions of an infinite(and thereby omnicient and omnipotent) god.

This argument has nothing to do with omnipotence or omniscience. How many billions times are you going to confuse both arguments.

If you define your god as such, then you define there to be no god, via the paradox that arrises from omnipotence alone, not to mention the first cause paradox, and the free will/omnicience paradox.

The first cause paradox exist for every possibility you stated. The circular shaped universe, the finite universe. In this case, God would be a paradox indeed. That's why I'm generally going with the "infinite" universe, since the other scenario has a paradox, and paradox don't work well with logics..

[Neosutra]

That's why there is a "or" between infinity and first. It's one or the other, not both.

And we have stated MANY times the logical contradictions of an infinite(and thereby omnicient and omnipotent) god.

This argument has nothing to do with omnipotence or omniscience. How many billions times are you going to confuse both arguments.


[quote:2jnswyq1]If you define your god as such, then you define there to be no god, via the paradox that arrises from omnipotence alone, not to mention the first cause paradox, and the free will/omnicience paradox.

The first cause paradox exist for every possibility you stated. The circular shaped universe, the finite universe[/quote:2jnswyq1]

Doesnt matter if there is an "or" or an "and" between them, they both fail the logical test. And if you claim a definition of a god "at infinity", then you DO concede the paradox of omnicience and omnipotence. If you claim a definition of god "at origin" then it fails the first cause test.

Both your definitions fail. You might as well just say "god is undefinable" and thus not a relevant aspect of this universe.

edit: Take your time responding to this one, going to hit the sack, ill continue this tommorow. Sleep tight.

[Kaylia]

Doesnt matter if there is an "or" or an "and" between them, they both fail the logical test. And if you claim a definition of a god "at infinity", then you DO concede the paradox of omnicience and omnipotence. If you claim a definition of god "at origin" then it fails the first cause test.

Both your definitions fail. You might as well just say "god is undefinable" and thus not a relevant aspect of this universe.

It's funny how 3/4 your argument consist of "it fails" without any sort of explanation following them.

I don't think I ever tried to explain the paradox of free will and omnisciences with an infinite God. That's why I used the christian scenario with a finite God and souls to demonstrate my point that both can coexist. If I thought there was no contradiction in Christian belief, I would probably be Christhian. I just don't think the contradiction is in what Senoska said.



If you want to argue with my own belief, than do it with one of those 2 quotes. It sum up my belief

"You don't need the concept of soul to value human life imo. I don't really believe in soul or similar concept (I personally think our universe is just fluke without much importance), but I do value human life, as a human being. Why? I'm not even sure myself, but it's probably because of the empathy feeling that we are born with."

"What I believe in is a probability that god exist, and an equal or smaller probability that he is conscious. I say probability because no logical argument is ever going to demonstrate that god does in fact exist, or doesn't exist."


Will be all i say in this thread for today, need to go to bed soon.

[Neosutra]

Both good quotes though I obviously disagree with the second, as he assigns a probability to a variable w/o really having a good reason to associate it with any non 0 value.

As for the rest of the post, I am still confused exactly what your trying to say. Now your saying you were just trying to state that a fininite god and souls can exist? I thought you were stating that a plausible definition of an infinite god can exist (and thereby answer the paradoxs)? Perhaps I am just missing the point, but Ive scanned the last 2-3 pages and cant seem to come up with a solid idea of what your trying to say.

[Demosthenes11]

lol @ trying to explain god through science

[zoobernut]

I have been reading and following this thread closely and I have to say that both sides make extremely good arguments and it is really interesting to see the existence of god so logically thought out and discussed.

With that being said one of the strongest arguments against the existence of god is the idea that there are so many givens several logical leaps that one must take in order to accept the rest of the argument. Atheists argue this weakens the whole situation, which makes me want to point out that even science relies on undefinable parameters as a foundation. Math in its entirety (at least geometry) can be simplified down to several undefinable terms. Things that cannot be defined without using themselves in the definition or something that contains them.

The best example of this is the concept of the point. There is no definition for a point and yet it is the foundation for defining a line and a graph and so many other important math concepts.

As for my own personal belief I am agnostic. I just thought I would throw that idea out there because when discussing the existence of a god or god one must accept the fact that there will be undefinable terms that will create the foundation for other arguments.

[Neosutra]

I think the difference zoobernaut is that science doesnt call those leaps in logic "fact", or "even plausible theories". I cant think of one scientific theory that makes such a huge jump in logical assumption, especially as large as the god arguments.

There is a general transition of:

Fact -> Plausible Theory -> Plausible Probability -> Plausible Possibility -> Random Possibility.

Fact would be anything we can prove through repeated scientific procedure and have complete understanding of cause to finish(almost nothing falls in this category Q.Q).

Plausible Theory would be just about all scientific theories where as we describe physical phenomina and explain causes via empirical evidence and can support that evidence through many premises and results. (just about all of science goes here, because science always subscribes to the self correcting premis of "if its ever proven wrong, we get rid of it", not the "this is correct forever and ever"

Plausible Probability would be things that are deemed probable via our current understanding of the physical universe and the properties it holds.

Plausible Possibility are things that -may- be possible via our current understanding of the physical universe, but have not had any empirical evidence to support it.

Random Possibility would be absolutely anything you can imagine, regardless of validity, evidence, or any supporting observation. God goes here.