Quote from: Beliathon on July 09, 2015, 02:02:21 PM

Quote from: harlenadler on July 09, 2015, 04:25:34 AM

I am a Muslim, but to all the Atheists out there, I would like to send my special congratulations to you, because most of the people who believe in a God are doing blind belief - a man is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; another is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him. And that is truly commendable.

That's the most reasonable theist I've seen on these boards yet.

Quote from: the joint on July 09, 2015, 03:29:47 AM

it's a false-analogy to liken an omnipotent god to some imaginary dragon, even if you ascribe the imaginary dragon to be omnipotent. This is where logic weighs in on things and can catch subtle distinctions which make a world of difference. Instead of an imaginary dragon, let's use the well-know examples of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russel's Teapot. Again, for simplicity, let's just focus on the FSM.

Specifically, the problem is that the FSM, even if omnipotent, is a false analogy. This is because the identifying characteristics (i.e. what constitutes its identity) of an omnipotent god is its omnipotence, whereas for the FSM it is both omnipotence and the topological characteristics of being a monster made of spaghetti who flies, i.e. its physical constraints. So, an omnipotent god, or ID for "intelligent designer," is defined in terms of a total lack of constraint, whereas the FSM is defined in terms of both constraint and a total lack of constraint.

LOGIC 101:

A creator must exist outside of whatever it is he or she is creating. So if what you're creating is reality itself, you'll need to not be real.

THEREFORE, any creator could not exist within our reality, and therefore the claim of a Creator is impossible to disprove. As this claim is impossible to disprove, it can never be scientific. The end.

FURTHERMORE, a creator concealing the truth about his existence by failing to PROVE his existence would be violating of the free will of his own creation, in that you have denied them vital information about their spiritual choices, information that could determine whether or not they burn for eternity.

Logic 201:

1) Something that is abstract does not exist "outside" anything because "outside" is a spatial term applicable to physical spacetime, which itself is axiomatically defined according to abstract distance and temporal metrics.

2) A claim of a creator is impossible to disprove empirically, but not logically. To disprove a claim of a creator would simply require proving the inverse of the claim to be true, i.e. logical falsifcation. It's the exact same standard for the claim that observation has no effect on physical reality, which is the basis for Empiricism and therefore empirical science. You really want to walk that line of intellectual hypocrisy? Empiricism is empirically unfalsifiable (but not logically unfalsifiable). A logical explanation of equal-or-greater scope trumps a scientific explanation 100% of the time, all the time, every time.

3) You third point is just all over the place. Are you making an argument against the existence of God based upon what you personally think should be to case, i.e. in an "Well, if I were God..." kind of way? Do you realize how silly that is?