~~Argument Refuting God~~

God Can not exist.

It is a common belief that God is resident in some 'supernatural' world/plane/place.

A theist believe this world/plane/place exists and so can believe in God.

Now this is where it is gonna get messy...

Take religion 'x', believers in religion 'x' do not believe in religion 'y' and likewise believers in religion 'y' do not believe in religion 'x'.

Both religions have the same basis that their diety(s) resides in a supernatural world/plane/place, both religions are 'divinely inspired' by their respective diety(s). Making (on the outside atleast) both 'x' and 'y' the same.

If believers of 'x' openly say that 'y' is false then they are openly stating that 'x' must also be false (x and y are the same).

Therefore one must have faith in all religions that have a deity that resides in a supernatural world/plane/place and that are divinely inspired.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Making (on the outside atleast) both 'x' and 'y' the same.

This is the major flaw in your argument. Of course from the outside they will appear similar(not "the same"), but if said outside observer were to become familiar with religion x and religion y, i'm guessing that they would begin to see the differences.

This part is way too big of an assumption for this proof. You definitely would need to expand on your logic here.

I believe he's trying to say that, if you believe your god lives in a place beyond human reach, that you must also believe in all other religions gods that live in that "plane" or whatever you wish to call it. So he's saying if you believe that one god in particular exists, you must also believe in every other religion that has a god that lives in a super-natural plane. It does, in the smallest way, make a little bit of sense. But when you compare that indirectly, it's like saying "Me and every other totse user that live in America have blonde hair."-just because I'm blonde. Very stupid logic. And how exactly does that prove that god doesn't exist? It just states that followers of a specific religion should follow every religion. Not very good. How long did it take you to think of this? I want back the 5 minutes of my life I spent typing this...

daz, your logic is severely flawed.

just because different religions have different and often mutually exclusive views on the nature of a higher being, it does not logically follow that a higher being does not exist. it may very well be that they are all wrong, but God does exist.

so your post is not a proof.

[Adorkable]

You make atheists look dumb.

quote:but if said outside observer were to become familiar with religion x and religion y, i'm guessing that they would begin to see the differences.

Of course there are differences between the religions, but that is not what im interested in...my interest is with the fact that both 'x' and 'y' where derived in the same way (i should have been more clear on this point).

quote:just because different religions have different and often mutually exclusive views on the nature of a higher being, it does not logically follow that a higher being does not exist.

You obviously didn't understand what i stated above. My argument is not based on the fact that religions veiw their respected diety(s) in different ways but, with the fact that all religions were derived in supposedly the same way.

Im going to clarify (hopefully) my argument.

(btw, i was wrong to assume that this disproves Gods existance, it is more a disproof of religion).

If believers of divinely inspired religion 'x' state that divinely inspired religion 'y' is false they are not actually disputing religion 'y'...they are disputing the divine inspiration of religion 'y', which, in turn is actually denying divine inspiration itself. (seems like i've jumped to a conclusion but i will try and clarify).

A believer of 'x' can not with all thier faith believe that their religion was divinely inspired and then turn around and say another was not.

Why?

Because there is no way to tell that something has been interacted with on this plane by a diety from another plane, no proof or dis-proof hence you can not refute the divine inspiration of a religion if you believe in the divine inspiration of another religion, to do so would end up in you disputing divine inspiration in general.

Thank you for your replies,

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

You obviously didn't understand what i stated above. My argument is not based on the fact that religions veiw their respected diety(s) in different ways but, with the fact that all religions were derived in supposedly the same way.

Im going to clarify (hopefully) my argument.

(btw, i was wrong to assume that this disproves Gods existance, it is more a disproof of religion).

obviously...

quote:My argument is not based on the fact that religions veiw their respected diety(s) in different ways but, with the fact that all religions were derived in supposedly the same way.

quote:just because different religions have different and often mutually exclusive views on the nature of a higher being, it does not logically follow that a higher being does not exist.

Yes, obviously.

It is interesting though that we both came to the conclusion that i wasn't disproving the existence of God, but religion in general.

Here's your argument formalized:

X --> ~Y

Y --> ~X

Therefore

~X <--> ~Y



Flawed logic; not a valid argument.



Entheogenic

quote:

X --> ~Y

Y --> ~X

Therefore

~X <--> ~Y

In english?

Daz i get what your saying if the others dont. But then alot of people suck at algebra. But your view of it is flawed because who said there is only one god or only one world/plane/place that they can be in.

You could have one god on world/plane/place x and another on y telling two sets of people different things.

Or it all could be a load of bullshit to controll the masses.

It won't matter if there is only one God, or infinite planes, or infinite Gods on infinite planes.

"I was just divinely inspired to create a religion" if you believe in divine inspiration, or a deity from another plane acting in this plane, you can in no way refute this.

A question for the theists. What made you pick your religion over the others? And why, are the other religions not true, even though they are divinely inspired?

If someone answers that we may be getting somewhere...

[Hexadecimal]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

God Can not exist.

It is a common belief that God is resident in some 'supernatural' world/plane/place.

A theist believe this world/plane/place exists and so can believe in God.

Now this is where it is gonna get messy...

Take religion 'x', believers in religion 'x' do not believe in religion 'y' and likewise believers in religion 'y' do not believe in religion 'x'.

Both religions have the same basis that their diety(s) resides in a supernatural world/plane/place, both religions are 'divinely inspired' by their respective diety(s). Making (on the outside atleast) both 'x' and 'y' the same.

If believers of 'x' openly say that 'y' is false then they are openly stating that 'x' must also be false (x and y are the same).

Therefore one must have faith in all religions that have a deity that resides in a supernatural world/plane/place and that are divinely inspired.

Doesn't that then make pantheism and atheism the only two viable* religous choices?

*Edit: Mistyped as 'viablo'

[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 04-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

It won't matter if there is only one God, or infinite planes, or infinite Gods on infinite planes.

"I was just divinely inspired to create a religion" if you believe in divine inspiration, or a deity from another plane acting in this plane, you can in no way refute this.

A question for the theists. What made you pick your religion over the others? And why, are the other religions not true, even though they are divinely inspired?

If someone answers that we may be getting somewhere...

first, you claimed that god does not exist, and set out to prove it. when i illustrated that you, in fact, proved nothing, you changed your claim. (and somehow managed to throw in a comment about MY capacity for comprehension)

"i meant, religion is wrong! here's my proof..."

and then you proceed to type a muddled, incoherent mess about how if someone believes a person who claims divine inspiration, then they must either (a) believe everyone who claims it, or (b) no one at all.

all you've done is to take healthy skepticism and gone nihilistic with it.

good luck.

Ok.

Obviously i misunderstood what you wrote the first time, and you are right...i in no way disproved the existance of (a) God.

The topic and first sentance of this thread are misleading. My apologies.

However, you are right that i am saying...

quote:if someone believes a person who claims divine inspiration, then they must either (a) believe everyone who claims it, or (b) no one at all.

and i still find it to be true, don't you find it to be a contradiction to believe in one divine inspiration and not another? even though you have no way to be sure whether it did/did not occur?

What made you pick your religion over the others? And why, didn't you choose a different religion even though they too are divinely inspired?

(i've edited the question a little, hopefully this will generate a response)

Btw,

Eil, i find nothing wrong with changing an argument after it has been proved illogical, it is just part of the refining process.

sorry about that. misdirected anger - i was frustrated by other threads.

to answer your question, i don't think it's a contradiction, since the nature of divine inspiration is so ambiguous.

that's precisely the point - it's very difficult to say if any experiences of transcendence, communion, epiphany, etc are true, even one's own. however, healthy skepticism is hardly conclusive logical proof that all religion is false.

it's just another pragmatic observation about the potential flaws of rigid belief systems. there's no algebra involved.

personal beliefs are another matter.

I guess what it comes down to in the end is what makes a person choose one religion over another? why? and why not?

You spent a really long time to say "religions argue so they're both wrong."

Flaws in your argument aside, your conclusion is similarly skewed:

quote:Therefore one must have faith in all religions that have a deity that resides in a supernatural world/plane/place and that are divinely inspired.

Your logic does not say this. The simple rebuttal is to say "perhaps all dieties exist on different planes."

Or perhaps you were trying to say (and I think you did say this) that God can't be proven or disproven. Well, duh. That's why religion is called "faith."

PS - The logical statement:

X > ~Y

Y > ~X

.*.

~X <> ~Y

means (correct me if I'm wrong my logic is rusty):

X makes Y impossible (X negates Y)

Y makes X impossible (Y negates X)

THEREFORE

X and Y are impossible (by virtue of self-negation)

It assumes that both X and Y are true, and then concludes that both X and Y are false. That is why it is flawed.