But seriously . . . atheism?

[Braddogg]

Who said a "natural law"?  I said that logic was derived from observations on reality.  It's not a natural law, but it is a set of standards we have derived from reality.  I honestly don't understand what your objection is, perhaps you could clarify it?

If the rules of logic are specific to this universe than they would be comparable to natural laws, which might not apply in other universes.

On the other hand, the rules of logic might transcend the universe, and even extra-universal entites capable of creating this universe would be bound by them.

. . . . Like I said, a God in this universe is necessarily bound by the laws of logic.  I think that entity violates the laws of logic, and the God hypothesis is illogical.  If a God is out of this universe, then it's impossible to say if the God hypothesis is logical or illogical, because the laws of logic may or may not apply.  Where's our disagreement?

In any case, that's an issue with creationistic belief systems, and doesn't apply to all notions of deity/deities.

It's a problem with any belief system that is theistic (a personal God).  It's a problem for non-theistic belief systems that postulate a supernatural act of creation (Deism).  I cannot think of a faith-based belief system that does not fall under that.  But I may be missing something; can you find one?

Some systems don't postulate creation of the universe.  They view the universe as a "framework" that has Or one could go further and tag all sorts of properties on that deity, still without blaming creation of the universe on it, and not have any such issues.

Are you listening?  I said a theistic god or a creative god violates the laws of this universe.  The theistic God is a personal god, performs miracles, answers prayers, gives advice.  The creative god created the universe.  Some god concepts are theistic and creative (literalist Christianity), some are theistic (some forms of modern liberal Christianity), and some are creative (some forms of Deism).  But I can't think of a religion or faith-system that contains a deity that is neither personal nor creative.  You only addressed the fact that some faith-systems do not postulate the creation of the universe.  Do those faith-systems also say God has no influence on this universe?  Even if a god is a "unifying force," or whatever, then it still conforms to the laws of logic (or the laws of logic need to be discarded).

[MaineShark]

. . . . Like I said, a God in this universe is necessarily bound by the laws of logic.  I think that entity violates the laws of logic, and the God hypothesis is illogical.  If a God is out of this universe, then it's impossible to say if the God hypothesis is logical or illogical, because the laws of logic may or may not apply.  Where's our disagreement?

If it's impossible to say, then why say it?

Are you listening?  I said a theistic god or a creative god violates the laws of this universe.  The theistic God is a personal god, performs miracles, answers prayers, gives advice.  The creative god created the universe.  Some god concepts are theistic and creative (literalist Christianity), some are theistic (some forms of modern liberal Christianity), and some are creative (some forms of Deism).

Uh, you said it applied to theistic (but non-creationistic) belief systems as well.  Issues of creation cannot apply to that sort of system.

But I can't think of a religion or faith-system that contains a deity that is neither personal nor creative.

I'm sure we could find one...

You only addressed the fact that some faith-systems do not postulate the creation of the universe.  Do those faith-systems also say God has no influence on this universe?  Even if a god is a "unifying force," or whatever, then it still conforms to the laws of logic (or the laws of logic need to be discarded).

Why would some deity influencing the universe be an issue?  Yes, that deity would have to conform to the laws of logic, but the laws of logic do not prohibit such a thing.

Joe

[Braddogg]

. . . . Like I said, a God in this universe is necessarily bound by the laws of logic.  I think that entity violates the laws of logic, and the God hypothesis is illogical.  If a God is out of this universe, then it's impossible to say if the God hypothesis is logical or illogical, because the laws of logic may or may not apply.  Where's our disagreement?

If it's impossible to say, then why say it?

Are you listening?  If God exists entirely out of this universe, it is impossible to say if he is logical or illogical.  THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.  BUT, and this is the next step in the argument (I didn't think it'd take so long to nail down the previous step), as soon as a god enters into this reality to act, he is subject to the laws of this universe, including logic.  If a deity lives in the 9th Parallel Universe but acts in ours, the deity's actions in our universe are subject to our laws, including logic.  SO, a deity MAY exist in the 9th Universe, and that deity may or may not be logical vis-a-vis this universe, but as soon as the deity is hypothesized to act in our universe, that god hypothesis can be evaluated in terms of the logic of this universe.

Are you listening?  I said a theistic god or a creative god violates the laws of this universe.  The theistic God is a personal god, performs miracles, answers prayers, gives advice.  The creative god created the universe.  Some god concepts are theistic and creative (literalist Christianity), some are theistic (some forms of modern liberal Christianity), and some are creative (some forms of Deism).

Uh, you said it applied to theistic (but non-creationistic) belief systems as well.  Issues of creation cannot apply to that sort of system.

Issues of LOGICAL CONSISTENCY apply to theistic yet non-creationist belief systems.  Re-read what started this part of the discussion.  I said that God, if he acts or resides in this universe, is subject to the laws of logical consistency.  OF COURSE issues of CREATION don't apply to a NON-CREATIONIST belief system.  But there are lots of other things a theistic yet non-creationist god does that are subject to logical consistency; I mean, the damn deity has to do SOMETHING, and WHATEVER that something is is subject to logical consistency.

You only addressed the fact that some faith-systems do not postulate the creation of the universe.  Do those faith-systems also say God has no influence on this universe?  Even if a god is a "unifying force," or whatever, then it still conforms to the laws of logic (or the laws of logic need to be discarded).

Why would some deity influencing the universe be an issue?  Yes, that deity would have to conform to the laws of logic, but the laws of logic do not prohibit such a thing.

How does this deity influence the universe?

[PinoX7]

Are you listening?  If God exists entirely out of this universe, it is impossible to say if he is logical or illogical.  THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.  BUT, and this is the next step in the argument (I didn't think it'd take so long to nail down the previous step), as soon as a god enters into this reality to act, he is subject to the laws of this universe, including logic.  If a deity lives in the 9th Parallel Universe but acts in ours, the deity's actions in our universe are subject to our laws, including logic.  SO, a deity MAY exist in the 9th Universe, and that deity may or may not be logical vis-a-vis this universe, but as soon as the deity is hypothesized to act in our universe, that god hypothesis can be evaluated in terms of the logic of this universe.

Yes, god may have all the power in the universe, and there is nothing you can say that he cant do.
'change everything red to blue'
There god could do that,
but ask god to make a square circle, well even he would fail,
making a circle square would not let it be a circle anymore, he could change the meaning of circle to square, but never make a circle square