Eliminating the Possibility of God

[MysterMenace]

Originally Posted by bowmore

Well, if they're undetectable, that's no surprise. The question at hand is however not whether they exist, but whether they can logically exist.

It seems to me that undetectable existence is a contradiction within the meanings of the concepts of undetectable and existence, and therefore is a logical contradiction.

Originally Posted by bowmore

Again, the question is not whether such a thing exists, but whether it is logically possible.

I think it is not within the meaning of the ideas that an object can be in "our universe" but not be "of our universe".

Originally Posted by bowmore

Moreover, why couldn't there be material of our universe that we cannot detect?

To explain my usages, a thing that we cannot detect now we may be able to detect later, but a thing that is undetectable cannot become detectable without becoming a different thing.

[bowmore]

Originally Posted by MysterMenace

It seems to me that undetectable existence is a contradiction within the meanings of the concepts of undetectable and existence, and therefore is a logical contradiction.

Then you'll have to deduct this contradiction from the definitions of both terms.

Originally Posted by MysterMenace

I think it is not within the meaning of the ideas that an object can be in "our universe" but not be "of our universe".

Again, this should be shown from the definitions of the terms it seems.

Originally Posted by MysterMenace

To explain my usages, a thing that we cannot detect now we may be able to detect later, but a thing that is undetectable cannot become detectable without becoming a different thing.

But why should the undetectable become detectable?

It seems to me to be an odd notion that existence depends on our ability to detect it.
If humanity had not come about, would nothing have existed?

[blastpeed]

Originally Posted by MysterMenace

You cannot know that a thing exists unless it is detectable.
You can create a name for a thing but that doesn't make the thing exist.
You can define a thing but that doesn't make the thing exist.
You can think about a thing but that doesn't make the thing exist.
Names, definitions and thoughts exist but they are not the same as the thing.

In our universe, since it is a physical universe, for a thing to exist it must have a physical existence.
Anything physical is part of reality and is not impossible to detect.
Logically, therefore, a thing that is not detectable does not possibly exist.

Semiotics/Difference is primary, not materialism.

Everyone seems to be attacking something they are barely defining. Attributes/concepts must be put forth and then at least they must be shown to be unessessary and at best an error.

[xcept2010]

MysterMenace is clearly limiting his existence to the 5 senses alone.

Unfortunately everyone, including atheists know better than this.

[spacedog]

Apologies if I misunderstand this point, it seems that you are asking if people have a reason not to believe in god?
Well I don't think I need one. The idea is based on no evidence, plucked out of thin air. Therefore to not believe in god is an entirely neutral position.
The definition of an agnostic is really someone who believes it is impossible to believe anything with no evidence either way, therefore atheists really are the agnostics; while supposed agnostics are somewhat closer to the position of people who believe in god.

[MysterMenace]

Originally Posted by bowmore

Then you'll have to deduct this contradiction from the definitions of both terms.

It just means you can't logically describe an both with both terms.

Originally Posted by bowmore

Again, this should be shown from the definitions of the terms it seems.

It is implied from the definitions.

Anything outside our universe would not necessarily be subject to the logic of our universe. So, for logic to even be applicable we need to assume that anything in our universe is part of our universe.

Originally Posted by bowmore

But why should the undetectable become detectable?

Since an undetectable thing cannot exist, it cannot become detectable. A thing that does not exist, can begin an existence and then is detectable.

Originally Posted by bowmore

It seems to me to be an odd notion that existence depends on our ability to detect it.
If humanity had not come about, would nothing have existed?

The detectability of a thing depends upon it existing.

[MysterMenace]

Originally Posted by xcept2010

MysterMenace is clearly limiting his existence to the 5 senses alone.

Unfortunately everyone, including atheists know better than this.

Our five senses can detect matter and energy, the revelations of scientific experimentation and exploration, the words in books, the thoughts from brains, the ideas of minds, and the ignorance of pretentious ranters. What else is there?

[GordonHide]

Originally Posted by MysterMenace

Since an undetectable thing cannot exist, it cannot become detectable. A thing that does not exist, can begin an existence and then is detectable.

Do you include abstract entities in this rule?

[bowmore]

Originally Posted by MysterMenace

It just means you can't logically describe an both with both terms.

I guess something went wrong here... doesn't seem to make sense.

Originally Posted by MysterMenace

It is implied from the definitions.

Yes, so what are the definitions you use. I suspect they're different from mine.

Originally Posted by MysterMenace

Since an undetectable thing cannot exist, it cannot become detectable. A thing that does not exist, can begin an existence and then is detectable.

Wait, you were trying to explain why an undetectable thing cannot exist, you cannot use that as a basis for explaining it.

Originally Posted by MysterMenace

The detectability of a thing depends upon it existing.

Yes, but not necessarily the other way around.

[MysterMenace]

Originally Posted by bowmore

I guess something went wrong here... doesn't seem to make sense.

It just means you can't logically describe an both object with both terms.

Originally Posted by bowmore

Yes, so what are the definitions you use. I suspect they're different from mine.

"In our universe" means an object exists within the boundaries of our universe, and "of our universe" means that an object is not composed of anything other than what our universe is composed of.

Originally Posted by bowmore

Wait, you were trying to explain why an undetectable thing cannot exist, you cannot use that as a basis for explaining it.

Anything that exists in our universe is composed of the stuff of our universe, which I claim is all detectable.

Therefore, for an object to be undetectable it would need to be composed of stuff not of our universe, and therefore, the object would not be of our universe.

Originally Posted by bowmore

Yes, but not necessarily the other way around.

Of course.