To better state Der Trihs’ point, this quote is equivalent to the following statement:
“The notion that magic is impossible is an oxymoron. Magic is, by definition, super-natural and separate from the physical universe.”
If magic is separate from the physical universe, then it can’t be used in this universe, at which point the question of its existence or non-existence is irrelevant. But if it can be used in this universe, then it isn’t separate from the physical universe; it can be measured, tested, and analyzed just like everything else that acts on our universe.
I would disagree that God is poorly defined. Indeed my comments help define God, and provide context to the contradiction inherent in the original claim (that God is physically impossible).
The ‘God’ that I posit exists is indeed well defined, at least well enough to see that He exists without contradiction to the world as we know it.
A farmer hires a Zoologist, an Engineer and a Mathematician to build him an enclosure for his 100 cows. He says he’ll give a bonus to whomever can build a pen using the least amount of fence.
First, the Zoologist (which is pronounced zoh-ologist (I just found that out in a previous thread(aren’t parantheseis fun?))) determined that each of these types of cows needs 25 square ft of room. Since each cow would need a pen that is 5’X5’, all the cows would need 500’X500’ which works out to 2000’ of fence.
The engineer chimes in. He says, it would take 2000’ if you used a square pen! If you use a circular pen, you can enclose the same 250,000 square feet using only 1772.45’ of fence.
The farmer agrees and is about to give the engineer the bonus when the mathematician steps up and says he can do it with only 10’ of fence. The farmer clarifies, “You can give my cows at least 250000 square feet of pen with only 10’ of fence?”
“Sure!”, says the mathematician. He then builds a small fence around himself and says, " I define myself on the outside".
You might want to look up the term, “Moving the goal posts.”
Originally, God lived on top of a mountain. So long as no one went up to the top of the mountain to take a look, there was no contradictory evidence. People started to doubt, so they made God live on top of the clouds, then in space, and now outside of the universe. If you have to keep moving where people have to look to find God to someplace where they can’t yet look, that’s only evidence that the whole thing was fiction to begin with. God can’t be malleable. If you have to come up with some contrived definition to keep him from being indiscoverable, that only goes against your argument.
You made it clear that God was akin to multiverses – something which is outside of and does not affect the universe, and which cannot be tested for existence.
On the contrary; you have done then opposite of define it. You’ve just said that your god isn’t made out of anything we understand, which makes it less defined and not more. Mostly you’ve made claims about what your god isn’t.
Easy; the claims typically made about gods contradict known physical laws, and in many cases the facts of history and the world in general.
Because those two things are opposites. If something interacts with the universe, it’s not separate.
Where did I say that God is not made of anything we understand? God is super-natural. He is not part of or confined by the natural universe, whihc is of course logical since he created it.
You’re entirely missing my point. Your “definition” of God is specifically of something which can’t be proven. Doesn’t that seem remarkably fortuitous that the exact place that God exists and the manners by which he interacts with the world is perfectly aligned with what’s unprovable?
If you met a man who claimed that he could cure the disease that ails you, but after you’ve paid money for him to heal you, he tells you that the only disease in the whole world that truly matters is an impure soul, and he has cleansed yours. Wouldn’t you find it remarkably fortuitous for the man to have cured you of a disease you can’t prove you didn’t have, and remarkably fortuitous for the man that he didn’t have to try and cure an illness which you can prove that you had?
You seem to be suggest that because someone at some time has misrepresented God, then we should be bound by that misrepresentation.
The nature, character etc of the creator is to some degree self evident by the creation. That God has certain characteristics that refute your concerns about Him is not ‘remarkably fortuitous’, rather it is logically consistent.
Perfectly? I could come up with far better versions. The existence of extinction events demonstrates that there’s room for improvement. And exactly how many alternatives have you compared against?
I can’t admit to saying anything like that in the post you quoted. Perhaps, instead of attempting to summarize my post, it would be better to just answer the questions with ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
If a man says that there is a 6 foot tall rabbit standing besides him, but that this rabbit has the amazing ability to be invisible, intangible, to make no sound, or otherwise give any bit of evidence of its presence, doesn’t that set of traits seem remarkably set up specifically to make it impossible to disprove the existence of the 6 foot tall rabbit?
If you met a man who claimed that he could cure the disease that ails you, but after you’ve paid money for him to heal you, he tells you that the only disease in the whole world that truly matters is an impure soul, and he has cleansed yours. Wouldn’t you find it remarkably fortuitous for the man to have cured you of a disease you can’t prove you didn’t have, and remarkably fortuitous for the man that he didn’t have to try and cure an illness which you can prove that you had?
If you met a man who stated that he had placed a tea kettle on the far side of the Sun from the Earth, out of sight from all instruments that Mankind can bring to bear, wouldn’t you find it particularly fascinating that of all the astonishing places that this man could have placed the tea kettle, that it just happens to be in the one place where we can’t confirm it?
Yes perfectly. And the existence of extinction events does not necessitate an imperfect design. There are moral imperatives for why creation is no longer ‘perfect’, but that is taking us onto a whole different subject.