Does God exist?

.... And therein lies the point. well done, it only took you ages.

If one can state logically that fairies don't exist when they can not prove their nonexistence, why can't anyone else state the same thing about a god? What makes god immune from the same logic that lead you to conclude that fairies don't exist if they are disbelieved for the same reason - A lack of evidence supporting the assertion of the positive?

 

What makes God immune from logic ?

That's an excellent question . The monotheistic concept of God is credited whit the creation of the Universe and all that is in it . For starters that kills our logic nonlinear mathematics and quantum mechanics are to things that aren't logic friendly afaik .
So our incapacity to understand the world makes God immune to logic .

What makes God immune to rationalization is the fact that there are billions of believers . The majority always wins of the minority . If I say I jumped naked from the 1st floor and didn't got even a scratch some will believe me , but if I say that I jumped naked from the 10th floor and I didn't got injured almost no one will believe me . This kind of rationalizations makes God immune to the fairies deduction .

 

It seems like you are saying the assertion that a god exists, as with an assertion that fairies exist, is inherently illogical. Which i agree with. But then, you aren't explaining why a belief in god should be given special consideration not afforded to the claim that fairies exist, you are just saying that it should be afforded it.

Not when it comes to the truth it doesn't. If the majority thought the world was flat that wouldn't make the world flat. The same with god. The amount of people who believe it has absolutely no effect on whether it's true or not.

 

But the general consensus is also that Jesus is the son of god, and also that he isn't, but Mohammed is a prophet, but also that he isn't. Are you Christian? Do you have a proof that Allah is the wrong thing?

 

Perhaps I should have formulated my third idea in a more visible way .

No but the opinion of the majority remains "law" until proven to the contrary . And since it is impossible to prove the contrary by rationalization the opinion of the majority stays .

I really enjoy this conversation and I'll post more refined and argued opinions in the next days . In the mean time have some reputation because you refrained from childish posts .

 

If you want to start this conversation please do it in a different topic . And for God's/humanity's/f**k sake please don't use religious arguments and personal opinions .

 

So you believe in islam then?

 

Is my religion relevant ?

 

In this instance it is because it demonstrates whether you believe "the opinion of the majority remains "law" until proven to the contrary" or are just saying it does.

 

So you're telling me that up until a few hundred years ago the Earth was the center of the universe because most people believed it and then one day when that 1 person tipped the balance of belief the Earth stopped being so? Idiotic no?

But idiocy is what the church thrives on to maintain their power and multibillion dollar business.

 

The general consensus is relevant and considered the rule when we're talking about alogical topics like the nonexistence of fairies . When it comes to scientific facts one proven theory can infirm the opinion of the majority . It is a matter using the appropriate means in the appropriate situation .

 

It still has no effect on reality. You don't even actually believe that a majority opinion is "law" because you don't believe in islam, do you?

 

(or god)

a·log·i·cal/āˈläjikəl/
Adjective: Opposed to or lacking in logic

 

Because rejection of Theory A does not mean Theory B,C,D,E and F should be rejected simply because they are theories.

In this instance you want the Theory of fairies (some winged minature humans) to equate to the theory of God (generally, the source of all things.) It's akin to saying apples and oranges are exactly the same because they are simply fruit. Patently am absurd position to take.

Are we to reject all theories simply because they are theories? Because that's what you argue when you demand everybody equates two very different theories and reject both simply because they are theory. In which case, we can reject the theory of dreams, day dreams, thoughts - you get the idea I'm sure.

 

It has no effect on the known , scientifically demonstrated reality . But it does affect the total reality . The people's mind are part of the reality and are part of the concept . By this principle we can dismiss fairies and werewolves but we cannot dismiss aliens or God .

And yes we are debating illogic/alogic subjects whit logical and analogical arguments . Unless you find a way to quantify and rationalize omniscience and unknown laws the we cannot confirm or infirm God from a logical point of view . So from a logical perspective there's a 50% chance that God exist , from analogical perspective there's a 100% chance that God exist , as from a illogical perspective no one knows .

 

Rocky you are still failing, miserably, to explain why they two claims are different, you are just continuously stating that they are. Specifically, why the rejection of the unsupported claim that fairies exist is different to rejecting the unsupported claim that a god, or anything else, exists. If it is "illogical", as you say, to say god doesn't exist how is it then logical for you to claim fairies don't exist if you are rejecting the claim that they do exist for the same reason.

It has no effect on the reality of whether the thing exists or not.

And the same applies to fairies, yes?

 

The human mind and the human though are part of reality . So when you are quantifying analogical evidence you can not ignore the majority .

No , it is more something along the lines dragon and fairies are not real whit God and aliens might be real .

We can not ignore consensus . By ignoring consensus and going for pure logic you would have dismissed both Darwin's evolutionary theory and Hawking's expanding singularity theory . At a point in time they where nothing more then consensus (still are for idiots) .

 

You know that to accept something as factually true because a lot of people believe it is a logical fallacy, right? specifically Argumentum ad populum

Oh so it may be true now? You can still accept the possibility of something existing while rejecting the assertion that it does.

The expanding universe and evolution aren't accepted because of consensus, they are accepted because they are demonstrable and supported by evidence. There may be a consensus because they are demonstrable and supported by evidence, but the consensus isn't why they are accepted.

 

Since there are many different gods and religions then there is no consensus as everyone interprets it differently, meanwhile, those that do not believe in god represent 39% of the population so by your logic god can not exist.

 

I was talking about the concept of God meanwhile I can see that you are posting bullshit :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Please refrain from lying whit numbers in the future .

I say that I believe that God exists . I cannot prove that he exists and you guys can't prove that he doesn't so from A logical point of view there's a 50% chance that he exists . I used the word "might" so you will look at the argument rather then jumping off and posting silly things like Roman .

As for the Big Bang and evolution theory they are partially backup by evidence today . But when they where proposed they where supported by nothing more then consensus . So by invalidating consensus as a argument today we might kill some valid theories . I know it sounds like I'm using the appeal to the people but you're forgetting that we're arguing about something that defies logic .