God Proofs Discussion(give em up if you got em criticize em if you don't)

[Zetetic11235]

Here is the first post from the thread "Why Trying to Prove or Disprove god is Stupid" that was unfortunately closed due to a methodology error in attempting to p**** the logic of another post as it were

God is a being which cannot be defined as all who believe in him know him/her/it differently manifest as different things. God by all accounts is beyond human understanding otherwise he would be useless as he would hold no answers that we could not potentially know without him. Because he is beyond understanding, using a logical process to define him is a contradiciton, also, because he hypothetically created everything, including logic, he must also be outside of the system he created and it a part of or extension of him/her/it thus you are attempting to describe the properties of that in which we are contained from within and using parts of the container as the description. To describe somthing in terms of itself can only be approximate and the same is true of description in general, we can only approximate an object in words, pictures and ideas. Our understanding of that which we cannot replicate is incomplete and there is nothing that we can create, we can only manipulate our surroundings as we are a part of them.
In order for somthing to be the creator of somthing else it must be of a fundamentally different nature. We can manipulate patterns, this can be considered creative, but we cannot create matter or change physical law, we are bound by it and try our best to work around it to master our surroundings, but we do not have ultimate control over our surroundings because we are of them. A constituent of a whole,i.e. logic, cannot be used to describe it completely, it falls into an infinite loop (yes I do enjoy proof by infinite loops and contradictions but who doesn't) when describing itself.

Pick it apart, ask questions, post your own ideas, hell talk incoherently to non existent posters if you want just don't start verbally abusing each other I want to keep this one

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

God by all accounts is beyond human understanding otherwise he would be useless as he would hold no answers that we could not potentially know without him.

My parents have taught me things that I could not possibly have known without them. Does that mean that they are beyond human understanding, or even beyond my understanding?

Because he is beyond understanding, using a logical process to define him is a contradiciton

Everything in the universe is beyond complete understanding. Why should that deter us from creating definitions?

he hypothetically created everything, including logic

Is logic a "thing" or a "creation"? I think not, logic is a syntactical organization within human cognition and communication. Logic doesn't exist independently of human thought.

To describe somthing in terms of itself can only be approximate

And to describe something in terms of something else can only be relative.

In order for somthing to be the creator of somthing else it must be of a fundamentally different nature.

My wife and I just had a baby, which is the creation of a whole new life. Are we of a fundamentally different nature from our son?

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Aedes

My parents have taught me things that I could not possibly have known without them. Does that mean that they are beyond human understanding, or even beyond my understanding?

I catch your drift, but I do not think that it applies to my argument, because you understand what they taught you they are of course not beyond human understanding, and I am certain that whatever lessons they taught you could have and have been taught to others, however valuable they might be.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Everything in the universe is beyond complete understanding. Why should that deter us from creating definitions?

It shouldnt, and I never said anything of the sort. If you are assuming that I am attacking defining god you are sorely mistaken, for he must be defined for a proof to occur, another problem in proving him or disproving him.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Is logic a "thing" or a "creation"? I think not, logic is a syntactical organization within human cognition and communication. Logic doesn't exist independently of human thought.

Of course logic is a creation in the context of an omnipotent go for that it is within human cognition it is defined as a creation as humans are defined as creations under the omnipotence of god as a primal creator, so taking god as the creator of humans and thus human cognition, god is thus the creator of logic as well as the things whihc logic can syntactially organize.

And to describe something in terms of something else can only be relative.

Originally Posted by Aedes

My wife and I just had a baby, which is the creation of a whole new life. Are we of a fundamentally different nature from our son?

Congratulations, but that is not creation in my book ,but manipulation of physical data moving through a natural process. You engaged in a natural process that is definitely within the bounds of the physical framework of the universe. I do not consider human beings capable of fundamentaly
creating anything, just manipulating things within set physical laws and doin' their best with what they got to work with.
Your baby doesn't bring new matter into the universe, but rather compiles the existing matter in a very unique way, but not a way that is beyond the physical laws of the universe. Essentially we are just compiled from basic elemental building blocks that follow basic rules that we have to play by, but we can be creative in the common sense, we can be cleaver, and trick out new tools by following instructions within the physical constraints of the universe(and this is what science is), but we still gotta play by the rules.

[Aedes]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make a case for or against the sensibility of logical god proofs. I mean you're already operating on the end of a plank by generalizing about gods at all, considering the idea of a god is vastly different in non-"Western" traditions.

But I do think there is fallacy and a lot of assumption required to construct a logical negation of all logical God proofs. A good example is the following statement of yours:

Of course logic is a creation in the context of an omnipotent go for that it is within human cognition it is defined as a creation as humans are defined as creations under the omnipotence of god as a primal creator, so taking god as the creator of humans and thus human cognition, god is thus the creator of logic as well as the things whihc logic can syntactially organize.

If this is the case, then God would also be responsible for God-proofs. So you trap the argument in a circle by assuming that God's omnipotence extends to the content of human thought.

[Zetetic11235]

I am speaking of god as The Creator, in the very western sense, for much of eastern religion is much more difficult to address both by density and unfamiliarity, plus it does not deal with the same metaphysical issues with which I am concerned here.

Yes, it is a circular trap and that is my assertion. I seek to prove that you cannot prove an omnipotent god.

[Didymos Thomas]

And western notions of God do not present the same problems as eastern notions?

Gnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But here's my question - why do we need to prove the existence of an omnipotent God, or any other sort of God?

[de_budding]

why do we need to prove the existence of an omnipotent God, or any other sort of God?

I think because God represents a very logical side to life; meaning and no meaning, purpose and no purpose, God is a general representation of the meaning/purpose side and I guess that would make atheism the other.

Perhaps that lends some sense to why we feel we must prove the non-existence of God. See what I did there

Dan.

[Didymos Thomas]

I think because God represents a very logical side to life; meaning and no meaning, purpose and no purpose, God is a general representation of the meaning/purpose side and I guess that would make atheism the other.

Take Aedes - he's an atheist, but I'm fairly certain he finds some meaning or purpose to his life.

As for God representing a logical side to life, could you elaborate?

Perhaps that lends some sense to why we feel we must prove the non-existence of God. See what I did there

To establish that life is meaningless or without purpose?

[de_budding]

Well the most fundamental ting we all posses is existence, and it follows that we should ask if there is something we should do with this existence or not (purpose/no-purpose meaning/no-meaning.) As it is a fundamental self exploration, does it not make sense to explore both avenues?

Dan.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

I seek to prove that you cannot prove an omnipotent god.

You cannot prove any other kind of god either, so why focus on the omnipotent ones? Any logical proof that relies wholly on non-physical evidence will have embedded assumptions and/or linguistic tricks and vagaries.