Numeric Argument Against the Existence of God

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Going to be giving the Lit section one more try.

_______________________________

First, let me ask you a question:

Before anything existed (aside from God), was God defined as singular? One? Or did God first have to define numeric logic before being considered singular?

Obviously the former, for if it is the latter: how many Gods were there before the creation of numeric logic? If you say more than one, then God cannot be eternally singular as He claims. If singular, then numeric logic must exist. If undescribed, then He cannot be eternally consistent in being the only God (as only implies and necessitates one).

So, numbers precede or run alongside God. Now, another question:

If God wanted to, could He make 2 = 3? If so, then He can defy logic, and if he can defy numeric logic than He cannot describe Himself numerically. But, disregarding that, He cannot make one thing equal both 2 and 3 things at once. For if I have 3 coins, one cannot consider it two coins in any sense further than the names given to the numbers.

God cannot defy numbers (or any logic for that matter), and can also not define them in any sense other than their names. Numbers describe God, confine Him (as He cannot be both two Gods and one God at the same time). However, God does not confine numbers. Numbers describe everything in their realm and their realm is limited by their own nature, not by a limit set by God.

Numbers, since they define God but cannot be defined by God, then numbers are superior in power to God in some respect as their definitions are more absolute and powerful. Now, if this numeric logic is more powerful than God and, according to Descartes, only things may exist if something of equal or greater power can create something, then there must be a being higher than God or the numeric logic is God.

Either way, there would be two beings, making the Bible incorrect and the Christian God therefore not exist.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
In order for God to have been defined in any way, then there would have had to have been an Other through which He may be 'defined'. From an Ontological point of view, He would have had to create an Other in order to receive 'recognition'; in order to be 'defined'. Along with an Other, in order to achieve recognition, He had to create language and logic and numbers in order to 'define' Him in some way. From a theological point of view, He has provided the language through which We can socially construct concepts of God, and to try to understand Him and to get closer to Him. Therefore, trying to ask whether God was singular or multiple is irrelevant as He could be neither or both.

Surely, as God is meant to be Omnipotent, and has created Logic and Numbers, then he does not have to be bound by the rules of logic or numbers?

This is an interesting post. But I would question the point of using logic to 'disprove' the existence of God, when belief in God is a question of Faith?
 

DeletedUser49358

Guest
Rhizome9 said:
In order for God to have been defined in any way, then there would have had to have been an Other through which He may be 'defined'. From an Ontological point of view, He would have had to create an Other in order to receive 'recognition'; in order to be 'defined'. Along with an Other, in order to achieve recognition, He had to create language and logic and numbers in order to 'define' Him in some way. From a theological point of view, He has provided the language through which We can socially construct concepts of God, and to try to understand Him and to get closer to Him. Therefore, trying to ask whether God was singular or multiple is irrelevant as He could be neither or both.

Surely, as God is meant to be Omnipotent, and has created Logic and Numbers, then he does not have to be bound by the rules of logic or numbers?

This is an interesting post. But I would question the point of using logic to 'disprove' the existence of God, when belief in God is a question of Faith?
Click to expand...

Numbers and language aren't creations from God, they're forms of communication between beings. Communication is a construct between individuals thus God can not create something that does not exist unless there are individuals to create it and the same goes for numbers they, are something that already exists even before human beings began to understand them and have always existed.

As for pebble's argument I feel that you are overlooking what any deity's real power is, which is a following, countless deities have been thought to exist yet there is a clear separation between the ones that 'accepted' and the ones that are not and that is a following. We play Grepolis a game in which ancient Greek deities are portrayed in fantasy time of story using tales from people such as Hesiod and Homer to create the powers these gods have and what their purposes are. Greek mythology is studied as a history and not a religious study and thus their 'power' is next to nothing. The same can be said about forgotten gods like Marduk from Babylon and so, think about a future where the Christen God is no longer relevant or worshiped and becomes what the Greek gods are today. In short the only power that God holds is the power that the followers give to the deity.

Basically I'm saying comparing the power of numbers to the power of God is an apples to oranges comparison, God's power is dependent on humanity where the power of numbers is infinite and dependent on nothing. Though considering God as an absolute existence regardless of human worship or creation (which is what I assume you implied with this post) then yes a comparison of God's power to the power of numbers is relevant in disproving the existence of the Christen God that is thought to have created everything.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
God is both singular and plural. He can be seen in all his believers and he as himself.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
a pebble said:
Going to be giving the Lit section one more try.

_______________________________

First, let me ask you a question:

Before anything existed (aside from God), was God defined as singular? One? Or did God first have to define numeric logic before being considered singular?

Obviously the former, for if it is the latter: how many Gods were there before the creation of numeric logic? If you say more than one, then God cannot be eternally singular as He claims. If singular, then numeric logic must exist. If undescribed, then He cannot be eternally consistent in being the only God (as only implies and necessitates one).

So, numbers precede or run alongside God. Now, another question:

If God wanted to, could He make 2 = 3? If so, then He can defy logic, and if he can defy numeric logic than He cannot describe Himself numerically. But, disregarding that, He cannot make one thing equal both 2 and 3 things at once. For if I have 3 coins, one cannot consider it two coins in any sense further than the names given to the numbers.

God cannot defy numbers (or any logic for that matter), and can also not define them in any sense other than their names. Numbers describe God, confine Him (as He cannot be both two Gods and one God at the same time). However, God does not confine numbers. Numbers describe everything in their realm and their realm is limited by their own nature, not by a limit set by God.

Numbers, since they define God but cannot be defined by God, then numbers are superior in power to God in some respect as their definitions are more absolute and powerful. Now, if this numeric logic is more powerful than God and, according to Descartes, only things may exist if something of equal or greater power can create something, then there must be a being higher than God or the numeric logic is God.

Either way, there would be two beings, making the Bible incorrect and the Christian God therefore not exist.
Click to expand...
I've got one sentence for you; 'God works in mysterious ways.'

I used to do the same thing you're doing here. Try to disprove he existence of any god with logic, however I have given up long ago. A very good point has been made in this thread, namely:
But I would question the point of using logic to 'disprove' the existence of God, when belief in God is a question of Faith?
Click to expand...
Rhizome9 really hit the nail on the head here. It has simply become impossible to disprove the existence of any supernatural being because the people who believe in them don't follow logic. Much like the statement 'haters gonna hate' I think that 'believers gonna believe.' It doesn't matter what argument based on logic, (scientific) facts, common sense or rationalism you bring to the table. Due to the supernatural nature of the subject matter the proponents can simply claim we cannot, and can never, fully comprehend the intricate workings of their supernatural being of choice. It's pointless to present substantiated arguments disproving it because they believe the being exists. They have faith it exists. For some people their god is like an intergenerational santa clause which spreads goodness throughout the world for those who deserve it. For some their world would shatter if they were ever told he didn't exist and so they cling to the thought of it being real, and nothing can tell them otherwise. It doesn't matter that it's obvious santa claus cannot visit every home in the world in one night or fit all of the present on his flying sleigh, because the presents are there and it doesn't matter how they really got there.


Slim Shaddies said:
Numbers and language aren't creations from God, they're forms of communication between beings. Communication is a construct between individuals thus God can not create something that does not exist unless there are individuals to create it and the same goes for numbers they, are something that already exists even before human beings began to understand them and have always existed.
Click to expand...
This isn't true. Numbers are purely a human invention and only exist because we do. The concept of what they represent has always existed, even before us, true. But that makes sense. We have created numbers to easily represent and visualize a concept that already existed.


Slim Shaddies said:
As for pebble's argument I feel that you are overlooking what any deity's real power is, which is a following, countless deities have been thought to exist yet there is a clear separation between the ones that 'accepted' and the ones that are not and that is a following. We play Grepolis a game in which ancient Greek deities are portrayed in fantasy time of story using tales from people such as Hesiod and Homer to create the powers these gods have and what their purposes are. Greek mythology is studied as a history and not a religious study and thus their 'power' is next to nothing. The same can be said about forgotten gods like Marduk from Babylon and so, think about a future where the Christen God is no longer relevant or worshiped and becomes what the Greek gods are today. In short the only power that God holds is the power that the followers give to the deity.
Click to expand...
Very true, the only reason Christianity and the Islam are as 'powerful' are they are at the moment is because they both have millions of believers. In every other way they are no different than the ancient Greek or Norse religions.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Knowledge is power. That is the first credo. It is the only credo ​

a pebble said:
Going to be giving the Lit section one more try.

_______________________________

First, let me ask you a question:

Before anything existed (aside from God), was God defined as singular? One? Or did God first have to define numeric logic before being considered singular?
Click to expand...
A God, any God exists, not on the basis of any empirical evidence but in the imagination of those who are devoted to that diety. Humanity’s understanding of science, of evolution, of computer numeracy is finite. At this stage of human evolutionary development it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural mysteries that may or may not guide humanity’s progress. Thus to prove or disprove God is not the important question. Not as important as how do we acquire the scientific knowledge to benefit and advance the planet; to benefit and advance humanity and indeed all species. God is not the prime credo . Science is.
You are asking the wrong question.

Rhizome9 said:
But I would question the point of using logic to 'disprove' the existence of God, when belief in God is a question of Faith?
Click to expand...
The existence of diety’s are of fundamental importance to millions of human beings. Civilisations have risen and fell because of those beliefs and the central tenets of those religions continue to have profound impact on the policies of nation states, movements and perhaps more importantly the individual emotional state of the individual believer. The question of faith can sometimes become in every individual act that we carry out motivating us to strive with love, passion, devotion, righteousness, repugnance, violence,evil. When almost all else appears to have failed humans will look to “faith” in order to maintain their grip on their sense of self in relation to the circumstance which appear to affect their lives. Faith has its part in sustaining us when nothing else works. We all use it…. But it doesn’t prove that God exists.
 
Varun

Varun

Strategos
In my opinion, it would be better if this debate closed right now. Debates about religion and God or gods always gets messy.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
Varun said:
In my opinion, it would be better if this debate closed right now. Debates about religion and God or gods always gets messy.
Click to expand...

Debating politics also gets messy. I try to just avoid getting into an argument, but sometimes I just can't help it.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
We just don't want it to get out of control like it did last time. That resulted in a pebble feeling upset and in the discontinuance of his writing in this section.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
figtree2 said:
We just don't want it to get out of control like it did last time. That resulted in a pebble feeling upset and in the discontinuance of his writing in this section.
Click to expand...

lol pebble has no emotions. You should know that by now.
As for him stopping his writing that was not caused by one of these.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Varun said:
In my opinion, it would be better if this debate closed right now. Debates about religion and God or gods always gets messy.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. Threads should never be closed because of what could happen, but what happens. If it gets messy people will be infracted. Alternatively it doesn't get messy and sparks an interesting discussion. Past thread regarding religion have actually gone very well. Don't always assume the worst. :D

figtree2 said:
We just don't want it to get out of control like it did last time. That resulted in a pebble feeling upset and in the discontinuance of his writing in this section.
Click to expand...
The thread that made pebble stop posting was nothing like this, it was just a poem with a lot of spam and then a discussion regarding said spam. Philosophical threads like this one have actually done pretty well in the past with minimal aggression and a good discussion.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
Well... faith is just what you believe in, and you aren't supposed to prove or disprove it as some people might try to do. Discussion about whether God is real or not will just get out of control. If you believe, that is fine. If not, that is also ok. Religion dates back tens of thousands of years, long before Christianity. It seems almost all ancient peoples worshiped their own deities. I find that very interesting.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
figtree2 said:
Well... faith is just what you believe in, and you aren't supposed to prove or disprove it as some people might try to do. Discussion about whether God is real or not will just get out of control. If you believe, that is fine. If not, that is also ok. Religion dates back tens of thousands of years, long before Christianity. It seems almost all ancient peoples worshiped their own deities. I find that very interesting.
Click to expand...
"Threads should never be closed because of what could happen, but what happens"

Also they haven't in the past here.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
I am just telling you from my past experiences, it almost always happens.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
figtree2 said:
I am just telling you from my past experiences, it almost always happens.
Click to expand...

"Threads should never be closed because of what could happen, but what happens"

Either way though it's pebble's call if this stays open.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Skullyhoofd said:
I strongly disagree. Threads should never be closed because of what could happen, but what happens. If it gets messy people will be infracted. Alternatively it doesn't get messy and sparks an interesting discussion. Past thread regarding religion have actually gone very well. Don't always assume the worst. :D


The thread that made pebble stop posting was nothing like this, it was just a poem with a lot of spam and then a discussion regarding said spam. Philosophical threads like this one have actually done pretty well in the past with minimal aggression and a good discussion.
Click to expand...

This^

If it gets out of control, I'll handle it then. As for the current replies, I'll reply to them later. I'm tired atm lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top