Is God a logical contradiction?

[Lek]

Duh....

[Abaddon_ire]

Duh....

Oh, you failed to meet your own low bar for discourse. Quelle surprise.

[Lek]

Duh....

Oh, you failed to meet your own low bar for discourse. Quelle surprise.

What's your problem?  You have a chip on your shoulder?  I have better things to do with my time than to spend it trading insults with you in this forum.

[Rahn127]

My first questions would be, "How did you determine the attributes of the god character in the book ?"

In a Spiderman comic his strength is amazing and he's able to lift about 20 tons (give or take)
I can't measure his strength because he's a fictional character.

In much the same way, the character of god appears to be just as fictional with writers making up his attributes.

If the god character is real, then you should be able to determine the attributes, unless it's like determining the number of single celled creatures on a distant planet that we haven't discovered yet. (Unknowable at this time)

[Rhondazvous]

Is God a logical contradiction? Is saying an [all-powerful] immaterial intelligence [God] like saying a square circle or married bachelor? To the best of my knowledge there are no immaterial things, such as energy waves, that exhibit intelligence. I need help with this. Anyone?

Can you give me a list of all immaterial things known to us? Do any of them exhibit intelligence? Are all immaterial things known to us (as in there can't be anymore)?

The problem with the above: Is it possible there could be something immaterial which is intelligent? Maybe, maybe not imo. This could be like asking "is it possible that a bachelor could be married?" No, it's not possible. But then maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks.

I question your question. I know deities are by nature immaterial, but where does the idea of intelligence come in?

Theists insist that the universe was created by intelligent design, then they defeat their own purpose by presenting us with the god of the Bible.

The god of the Bible is idiotic, psychotic, schizophrenic, petty, neurotic, anything but intelligent.

[Lek]

My first questions would be, "How did you determine the attributes of the god character in the book ?"

In a Spiderman comic his strength is amazing and he's able to lift about 20 tons (give or take)
I can't measure his strength because he's a fictional character.

In much the same way, the character of god appears to be just as fictional with writers making up his attributes.

If the god character is real, then you should be able to determine the attributes, unless it's like determining the number of single celled creatures on a distant planet that we haven't discovered yet. (Unknowable at this time)

Albert Einstein, who studied science and the physical universe as much as anyone ever, believed in God.  It wasn't a theist type god, but rather a pantheistic kind of god.  He would never call himself an atheist, but uncomfortably settled with agnostic.  His belief in some kind of god came from his observation of the universe, such as the order of it.  He never proved the existence of a god, but nonetheless believed in one.  He, like myself and the apostle Paul (Romans 1) agree that the existence of God can be realized by studying the universe.  It's not proof by the scientific method, but rather a revelation from that god which is all.

[Simon Moon]

My first questions would be, "How did you determine the attributes of the god character in the book ?"

In a Spiderman comic his strength is amazing and he's able to lift about 20 tons (give or take)
I can't measure his strength because he's a fictional character.

In much the same way, the character of god appears to be just as fictional with writers making up his attributes.

If the god character is real, then you should be able to determine the attributes, unless it's like determining the number of single celled creatures on a distant planet that we haven't discovered yet. (Unknowable at this time)

Albert Einstein, who studied science and the physical universe as much as anyone ever, believed in God.  It wasn't a theist type god, but rather a pantheistic kind of god.  He would never call himself an atheist, but uncomfortably settled with agnostic.  His belief in some kind of god came from his observation of the universe, such as the order of it.  He never proved the existence of a god, but nonetheless believed in one.  He, like myself and the apostle Paul (Romans 1) agree that the existence of God can be realized by studying the universe.  It's not proof by the scientific method, but rather a revelation from that god which is all.

He did not seem so uncomfortable with calling himself an agnostic in his later life. His only complaint with atheism was that he did not share the, "crusading spirit of the professional atheist".

But if we're going to play the "argument from authority" fallacy game, why did you stop your "smart guy that seems to believe in a god gives my beliefs credibility" stratagem, back in the early part of the 20th century with Einstein?

After all, physicists since Einstein, have been no less intelligent, have been better trained, have much more knowledge that Einstein did, have access to much better test and observation equipment, they all except QM, which Einstein (irrationally) could not do, etc, etc, yet, the majority* of them are atheists.

It would seem, that with all the more advanced knowledge and observations physicists have made since Einstein, evidence for a god would have become more obvious and convincing to them, not less.

* Let me make a slight correction. Not every study show a majority, but some do.

[Lek]

So the fact that scientists have a higher than average percentage of atheists goes against the argument that learning more about science should lead one to God. I have read where it has led some to God and I feel that it should, but I'll concede this one.

[Succubus]

So the fact that scientists have a higher than average percentage of atheists goes against the argument that learning more about science should lead one to God. I have read where it has led some to God and I feel that it should, but I'll concede this one.

Which commentary have you butchered and bastardised that you imagine this is a fitting reply to?

[Lek]

Just maybe the one above it?