Unanswerable Questions

[sniperrfl1011]

Originally posted by EGGO
If God is beyond logic, then no meaningful statement can be made about God at all. That argument is used by theists to avoid dealing with the contradictions raised by atheists, but what they don't realize is that it also invalidates all the complimentary stuff claimed about God as well.

A being that violates boolean logic, or the law of non-contradiction, for want of better expressions, cannot exist.

e.g.: a square that is also a circle cannot exist.

e.g.: something cannot be totally blue, but also totally red.

Ah I won't go any further

A square that is also a circle CAN exist, just not in our realm of things...God is beyond just our three dimensions and time...

[EGGO]

lol, oh what a cop-out.

Just make sure your head doesn't explode when this god (who is bound by your logic when it comes to understanding him but is conveniently not bound by logic when it is against him) shows you how he does this.

By the way, he really can't, by definition, a circle (VERY ROUGH definition shape with no angles and sides) can never be a square (shape with angles AND sides). But hey, if your god can simply have black be white then sure whatever makes you sleep better.

[sniperrfl1011]

lol...i dont understand Him...He's beyond my understsanding

[brit]

well generally when you don't understand something, it is needless to say it goes beyond your understanding.

[Mistral]

Actually, even without using a rough definition, a circle still cannot be a square. A circle (ellipse with a constant radius) is not equal to a square (polygon with four 90-degree angles and four sides of equal length), regardless of dimensional bearing, because both circle and square are two-dimensional by definition.

God is beyond just our three dimensions and time...

First, let's assume this postulate as true. Now, a being of a higher dimensional (Shorthand: n-dimensional) level would be able to see through three-dimensional barriers (Effectively omnipresent, assuming that said three-dimensional universe is contained within a small region of the n-dimensional space, though it would not be omnipresent should our three-dimensional space be too large relative to it), interact "over" these same barriers with objects within, and generally toy with some of the laws that make sense within a purely three-dimensional outlook. One of these laws is not conservation of matter. Such a being would not be able to create matter from nothing, necessarily, though they could create an illusion of it by moving n-dimensional objects through our three-dimensional plane, thus creating a projection, so to speak. We would see one of these objects rendered only in the three dimension we can perceive with our senses, and perceive it as creation of something from nothing. In actuality, these things existed all along, and the being theorized is a charlatan, and created nothing.

To consider the idea of a higher-dimensional being creating something too heavy to lift, we would have to recognize that an n-dimensional being is no more omnipotent than we are, necessarily. Just because we cannot see all of it does not mean we cannot necessarily interact with that part that we can see when it should happen to intersect our space with a part of itself. It would be obscenely powerful in relation to us, certainly, but it would indeed be able to build something that it could not lift, just as a human can build something it cannot lift (A semi, for example).

The Christian God is as convenient an answer to the questions of science as Thor is, really. Whereas Thor was created to explain lightning and thunder, God was created to explain creation. The greatest problem is to explain where God came from - if God was always around, why not apply Occam's Razor and get rid of the extraneous element; apply the principle of eternal existence to the universe directly rather than to an arbitrarily created being, and postulate an eternal Big Bang/Crunch cycle instead. A god may or may not exist (if one did, I would bet money that it is indeed an n-dimensional being), there is no proof either way, but an omnipotent, omnipresent God is vanishingly improbable, in my opinion.

[sniperrfl1011]

Zephyr:
What you say makes alot of sence, and i would agree that everything you say is true.
Years ago, i was exactly like you, i was an athiest and i thought my logic and thinking could explain everything.
about three years ago, i went to church, and i thought the people there were crazy. After awhile tho, i felt God, i realized that God was real, not because i could prove it, but from my personal experience. Once you experience how real it is, there is no need for logic, altho i have seen some people use alot of logic like you just did to show that it is very probable that God exists. Either way, it doesnt matter, it just matters what you have experienced.

[Mistral]

altho i have seen some people use alot of logic like you just did to show that it is very probable that God exists.

I didn't think that was my point. I was trying to follow up on EGGO, pointing out the foolishness in necessarily merely claiming something as not understandable regardless of circumstances by demonstrating that one can apply logic and understanding even to beings and objects, as you said, "beyond just our three dimensions and time". Just because something is in a higher dimension doesn't mean theoretical science can't be applied to it - if it did, string theory (Applicable only in 10 or 26 dimensions) would have been thrown out long ago. I shall grant that my arguments were geared entirely against the omnipotent, omnipresent God, and not a merely superhuman god (Which, as I said, I agree is a possibility), and that you haven't clarified that your deity of choice is necessarily either of those, but given the use of capitalization, I would assume that you do refer to the God I argue against.

Still, one could argue for pink invisible unicorns existing just as effectively as one could argue for or against God. Logic tells us that they're invisible, and faith tells us that they're pink, after all...if something is defined as being beyond logic or proof, the basic rejoinder can only be, as Feynman said, "It's so crazy that it's not even wrong."

[ZeikHunter]

the process of applying teflon to pans involves sandblasting the pan and baking the teflon on at high-heat. even then its not meant to be permanent. ever notice how easily the stuff comes off?

[31337D00D]

Nice, i like a lot of these

[Vagabond]

Ive been to Hawaii and there are Interstates there that should be called highways.

[SA-X]

o cum on, y is every1 gettin so scientific and logical, they are only stupid questions, so who cares?