Is there a God?

[T'ai Chi]

By whatever definition of god, goddess, gods, higher power, etc., you use.

[volant]

No Goddammit!

[Iamme]

T'ai---You can't just leave 'open' ALL possibilties for the definition of God. It has to be more of a closed system than that. Here is why: One could say that the fact that there is a universe = God. You can't prove me wrong. You could argue and say, "There is no God. It's strictly chaos. It just happened." I could counter that all science and chaos = God. Neither of us can win. There is no definition for God. And there would be no point in the merits of calling the occurance "God".

You have to have THIS definition of God, for God to have any meaningful merit: This God possess not only a power, but a plan in the creation. If you don't accept THAT, any of us could say that a planless universe IS God. And you could not counter that remark. But what's the sense...to say everything is God. The only thing that would gicve any MEANING to whether or not there is a God is to pose the question in a way that we believe or don't believe that some being, force or being/force or? knew what it was doing and made this whole thing with some kind of planful purpose.

Now THAT could be argued. The argument then would be: Either you believe in a God the creator who made all things with a purpose, or, you believe it all just happened.

[geni]

Since T'ai Chi has pretty much ruled out arguing about how you define god. How about how do you difine "is"?

[ehbowen]

Yes, there definitely is a God, with a definite personality, purpose, and plan for achieving the maximum positive impact upon the lives of all those who love him. He has revealed himself to the world in the past--on his time schedule, not ours--and I am convinced that he plans to reveal even more about himself in the future. I believe this based upon my own interaction and relationship with him over the past thirty-three years and on the testimony and experiences of others.

[Dancing David]

No,
there are human experiences that we equate to goddesses and gods, but they are human experiences placed upon a lacking reality.

Self, mind, god all human illusion placed over what is.

[c4ts]

Where's my "planet X" option, dammit?

[Eos of the Eons]

God is on planet x cause he doesn't exist.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
God is on planet x cause he doesn't exist.

I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God.

He played basketball for Providence in the late 90's.

Here's a link (http://courtsidebasketball.deep-ice.com/shamgod.htm) that even has some video clips of God in action.

(Yes, the guy's name was really God Shamgod)

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God.

He played basketball for Providence in the late 90's.

Here's a link (http://courtsidebasketball.deep-ice.com/shamgod.htm) that even has some video clips of God in action.

(Yes, the guy's name was really God Shamgod)

no no, it'd have to be "A God Shamgod" or he's not a god. He's just named god.

And this one guy changed his name to G. O. D.

That be his first, middle, and last name...just initials...

I guess it looks really cool on a credit card.

[Yahweh]

Nope. No god, no gods, no deities, no creator, no demigod, no holy spirit, No Jehova.

In psychology, people will tend to go through a period in their life where they believe in ghosts, or psychics, or any variety of the paranormal. Of course, that usually tends to be natural, unfortunately religion is forcefed down the throat from day 1 (and living in America, you need no reason to go to church, it seems about impossible to escape religion 'round here).

I'm the type who thinks the bible should be taken allegorically, not literally (if its possible to take the bible any way but literally).

I dont happen to believe in anything paranormal, or that anything could exist without adhering to the laws of physics (thermodynamics, laws of motion, and 2 or 3 of the other common laws will pretty much debunk 90% of claims). God is often described as existing beyond physics, beyond description matter or natural phenomena, he cant exist.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
By whatever definition of god, goddess, gods, higher power, etc., you use.

I just voted no, but I think this is silly.

This is an audience that is guaranteed to vote no. :p Foo on you!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I dont happen to believe in anything paranormal, or that anything could exist without adhering to the laws of physics ...


The universe is here, and at the very early stage of the universe's formation, I've read, the laws of physics break down.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The universe is here, and at the very early stage of the universe's formation, I've read, the laws of physics break down.

Apparently, when you try to pack the universe into an infinitesimally tiny point, the answers you try to gather out of Einsteinian Physics just dont make sense. That could mean one of several things: What we know about Physics needs a little tweeking (it may be incomplete), the Big Bang theory might need a little tweeking (it may be inaccurrate... hey, I'm just throwing guesses out), etc.

There are other theories which do appear to describe the big bang. The most common one is String Theory. Of course, it might be my own ignorance of the math behind String Theory, or my own failure to grasp the concept of membranes, or maybe I really have a hard time with all those extra spatial dimensions, but the science almost sounds like science-fiction. I havent ruled out String Theory, I wouldnt think my lack of understanding behind it is any kind of reasoning to say "nah, I dont believe none of it". (I saw a Nova special on it on PBS recently, it helped me understand it much better than I could have before.)

I am also aware of Quantum Chromodyanmics (I actually found a reference to it inadvertantly after typing this), inflation, oscillation, steady-state, "ping-ponging" universe, the idea that the 4 fundamental forces could be different if the big bang occurred all over again, etc., etc., etc. (And yes, I've even considered that I might in fact be the Solipsist :p ).

Here's some information I found...
From Here (http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/jul2000/962825935.Ph.r.html):
The very first (earliest) thing we can describe with quantum chromodynamics, assuming a hot big bang model for the beginning of the universe, is a "soup" of gluons, photons, and other fundamental particles, back to a time of about 10^-43 seconds, all of them in thermal equilibrium. To go farther back than that we will need a quantum theory of gravity. But even when we do have a quantum theory of gravity there may be a limit to how far back in time we can calculate, so the question then is what was before that farthest back (or closest to the beginning) that we will eventually be able to calculate?

If you search "big bang" at the Mad Science Search Engine (http://madsci.wustl.edu/MS_search.html), you get plenty of things worth reading.

And dont forget to read the Q&A on the Bad Astrologist's website (http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/index.html).

We may never know what happened before the first 10^-43 - 10^-17 seconds of the universe, however I still wouldnt see a "god" as a necessity to account for the formation of the universe (I dont believe the formation of the universe is outside explanation of physics anyway). If I assume the existence of a hypothetical supreme being that is responsible for creating the universe, then I really havent done away with any of the questions (to explain things in terms of god is to explain exactly nothing... "god of the gaps" explanations do anything but explain...).

[fishbob]

Nah.

And attending church is the ultimate role playing game.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
By whatever definition of god, goddess, gods, higher power, etc., you use.

I voted "no" already, but what did I vote "no" about?

I can easily refute the cosmic sugar daddy. What kind of God allowed all that bad stuff?

The God types can say, the one that exists, He's just not the cosmic sugar daddy!

At that I've not refuted the notion that the universe was willed into existence. What about the evil bastard theory?

I have no use for that hypothesis! :p

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

What kind of God allowed all that bad stuff?


Or how about that: 'bad' (and for that matter, 'good') are artificial human concepts, mere constructs. 'Good' and 'bad' are meaningless to God.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Or how about that: 'bad' (and for that matter, 'good') are artificial human concepts, mere constructs. 'Good' and 'bad' are meaningless to God. [/B]

As a counter-point, how about the idea that "God" is a human concept, and is meaningless to reality?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

As a counter-point, how about the idea that "God" is a human concept, and is meaningless to reality?

That is certainly a very real possibility, although it doesn't really come in to play I believe if by 'God' one means some type of higher power or force.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Actually, Tai, it still comes into play if you mean some higher power or force, since there is the real possibility that everything is merely a random occurance and therefore no force acts upon nature (excluding nature itself).

If this is the case, then the idea that a higher power exists is still a human concept and irrelavent to reality, since reality will continue to exist without the higher power.

[MRC_Hans]

I voted no, despite my basic agnostic stance. This is because I have yet to see a useful definition of God. Thus asked categorically whether God exists or not, I must take reference in the definitions that exist and answer: No, no such God exists.

Hans

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


no no, it'd have to be "A God Shamgod" or he's not a god. He's just named god.



He's "God" the same way Bill Smith is "Bill."

Since the original post said by whatever definition, so there you go, a link with convincing evidence that God exists. I guess he's not omnipotent as he never excelled in the NBA.

[El Greco]

As Jules Renard put it:

"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't"

:cool:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


The universe is here, and at the very early stage of the universe's formation, I've read, the laws of physics break down. [/B]

I think you need to read something different, the expression of LOP changes at very high temperatures and at scales below the plank limit.

There is some evidence that the LOP might change as the universe progressed from the big band statrting to play.

But that is like saying, "the laws of physics break down at the edge of a black hole", the LOP are a human analogy that approximates the Wat Things Are. So they are limited to begin with, but by definition the forces of the universe don't just unravel and go 'poof', they go through changes but they are stii What Are.

[plindboe]

The Cambridge dictionary says this:

---
2 someone who is very important to you, whom you admire very much, and who greatly influences you:
His most devoted fans think of Elvis Presley as a sort of god.
---

My God is Ennio Morricone.

*Whistles the theme from "The good, the bad and the ugly"*

[plindboe]

I don't think there is a god, but can't vote "No", since it's stupid with such a certain answer, when we really can't tell for sure. It would have been better if the options had been something like:

---
Yes, I know there is a god.

I think there is a god.

Uncertain if there is a god.

Don't think there is a god.

No, there is no god.

Planet X is God.
---

In that one, I would have voted "Don't think there is a god", and I believe the majority would vote the same. The present poll kinda distorts people's actual views.

Make a new poll. :p

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Or how about that: 'bad' (and for that matter, 'good') are artificial human concepts, mere constructs. 'Good' and 'bad' are meaningless to God. [/B]

People are suffering. Nothing "artificial" about that. And that by me is evil. I go by my intuition on this and no apologies for not being able to "prove" it.

If a concept is meaningful to humans, it must necessarily be meaningful to He who willed the universe into existence, even if He holds it of no importance. Assuming (as I do not) that the universe was willed into existence.

I think I can refute the particular claims of various religions.

There is no chosen people. Nobody died for my sins. Muhammad was an obvious charlatan. etc.

The universe had a definite beginning in time. That has been proven scientifically to my satisfaction.

I cannot disprove the proposition that the universe was willed into existence. I just don't believe it anymore. It is an unnecessary hypothesis.

But I can't prove I'm right.

Conceivably it may ultimately be a testable hypothesis, but not with our current knowledge.

There are two hypotheses that work, "there is no God" and "God is an Evil Bastard". For the time being, I choose the former, waiting on further evidence.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


The universe is here, and at the very early stage of the universe's formation, I've read, the laws of physics break down. [/B]

There is no indication that the actual "laws of physics" break down at the universe's formation.

Now, it may be that our current understanding of the laws of physics do not handle the formation of the universe, but that is a failure of our understanding, not of the laws of physics themselves.

The laws of physics are what they are, regardless of whether we know them or not.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


There is no indication that the actual "laws of physics" break down at the universe's formation.

Now, it may be that our current understanding of the laws of physics do not handle the formation of the universe, but that is a failure of our understanding, not of the laws of physics themselves.

The laws of physics are what they are, regardless of whether we know them or not.

Yeah OK, but what is your position on whether or not there is a God (or some gods)?

The laws of physics do not prevent there from being millions of war deaths in Africa. If it were happening in Europe it would be called a 'World War'.

The media are tending to ignore it. The USA in Iraq is sexier. They are not entirely ignoring it, because I am able to know about it, but what's on the front page?

Either there is no God, or He's an Evil Bastard. I choose the former because it is a more comforting philosophy. But I think I'm right.

Multiple gods is just silly.

Who willed the universe into existence? Somebody or nobody? Answer!

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Suddenly


He's "God" the same way Bill Smith is "Bill."

Since the original post said by whatever definition, so there you go, a link with convincing evidence that God exists. I guess he's not omnipotent as he never excelled in the NBA.

Yep he's "God", but not "A God"

wink wink :D

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


There is no indication that the actual "laws of physics" break down at the universe's formation.

Now, it may be that our current understanding of the laws of physics do not handle the formation of the universe, but that is a failure of our understanding, not of the laws of physics themselves.

The laws of physics are what they are, regardless of whether we know them or not.

I thought tai was joking, big time. Can't tell with him sometimes though.

:p

[Iamme]

I don't know if there is one or not. What if you HAD to bet all your money and your life on this question. You have to absolutely answer it, with a certainty. *I* am certain...that I am uncertain.:D

It's quite amazing to me how it all works like some watch. That it just could do this, with no reason or plan. That it just is...because it is.

You could look at JUST the universe and say, "That ain't THAT special. I see order AND chaos, combined." Something you might expect, if there is perhaps no God.

But once you turn on the microscope and look at our solar system and our earth, it becomes rather vexing as to whether or not all this is...just because it is.

It's rather peculiar that the distance and size of the earth, moon and sun are such to create a perfect eclipse. Then enter the realm of our earth itself. That it just so happens to have a built-in radiation shield. That it just so happens that gasses don't go flying off into space. That there is a rain cycle. That water keeps running in rivers long after there is no rains. (Like it magically is like a perpetual motion machine).That it is temperate. That snowflakes are beautiful. And so are flowers. (Is there any sense to have a beautiful flower if there is not a beholder?) Fragrences. Are seed bearing fruits and nuts, that we eat, totally necessary JUST for germination? Seriously try to answer that. Ever eat a juicy peach. Is all that pulp/juice necessary, unless 'something' knew it was to be eaten? That our bodies decided it needed hydrocloric acid in our stomach, and yet our bodies are not consumed. Tear ducts. Eyes. Doctors/hospitals. The harmony between bacteria and enzymes...and ourselves. That there happened to be oil in reserves buried in the ground so that someone like us could make machines that could use the oil, which keeps the machines from burning up AND provides the fuel for their running at the same time. That both water expands when it gets cold...luckily. That there happens to be undderground aquifers that allow us to drill for water, and hit it, when there is no lakes or rivers nearby. That there just so happens to be ingredients on this earth that not only allow us to clothe in rock materials and eat rock materials (which wouldn't be too impressive)...but we have all that's necessary, and we just so happened to evolve the brains to make cement, steel, plastic, foils, wraps, glass, cables, rubber, wood products...have radio signals, microwaves, electricity, have detection devices, (sonar, x-rays, ultra sound, sophisticated elctronic gadgets), drugs, antidotes, ant'venoms...it's an endless array of complex things that this earth JUST SO HAPPENS to have on or within it...and it JUST SO HAPOPENS that some creature like us came along and has learned (and is still learning/finding ways) ways of utilizing everything that there is. I mean, we can make glasses and contacts for ourselves, and hearing aids, and...anyway.
And then we have mysteries to be entertained by, and to be able to pick any number of thousands of things we may desire to do. (That we just aren't like some living, breathing oyster in some permanent oyster bed).

IS all this just chance? That it is, just because it is? QUITE remarkeable, if so.

So if there is a God that was this powerful...how come he hasn't revealed himself, er, more appropriately I should ask...why can't/ doesn't he communicate with us, outside of an ancient text that was written by man (SUPPOSEDLY inspired by God). Why didn't JESUS when he was on earth, explain to the disciples, how he did it? How come Jesus didn't write a new testament in his own hand? How come Jesus ministry was only 3 years, with a lot of unanswered questions. How come animals and plants die just because man sinned (the supposed reason for man's death). The Bible seems suspect, at best.

But does this mean automatically that if the Bible is not told quite correctly that there is no GOD. And, if there IS a God, and the Bible is false, regarding sin/man's salvation/eternal life...then what difference is it whether or not you believe in this God, if this"God" allows both 'good'man and 'bad' man to breathe the same air, and to live out our days...and then it's back to dust, only? 'Believing' in God then would hold no reward nor condemnation. So what is the sense.

And many a people have gone to their graves pondering the very stuff that I write of, including the likes of people even like Einstein....with no satisfactory answer.

[BroodingSkill]

I got your GOD right here

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

People are suffering. Nothing "artificial" about that.


Sure, but you and I, and all people, are the ones making that distinction.

It is like when you look at a turd at say "Icky!", but then a dung beetle comes along and says "Dinner!".


If a concept is meaningful to humans, it must necessarily be meaningful to He who willed the universe into existence,


I don't understand how that follows.


The universe had a definite beginning in time. That has been proven scientifically to my satisfaction.


What if time is cyclical? I'm not exactly sure what that means specifically, but it is something that I've read.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by plindboe
It would have been better if the options had been something like:
(snip)

The present poll kinda distorts people's actual views.

Make a new poll. :p

There needs to be a new derigatory term for those people who are always found in a thread saying "the poll really shoulda been done like this..." ;)

My view: Just cope with the choices and make (or don't) a choice. Polling on an informal internet discussion board ain't exactly science. :)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Actually, Tai, it still comes into play if you mean some higher power or force, since there is the real possibility that everything is merely a random occurance and therefore no force acts upon nature (excluding nature itself).


I'm not entirely sure of that. By power or force, I think those people are saying that it is part of nature. I don't see how randomness would remove that. Powers and forces can act at random.

[Dancing David]

Lamme:

Nice post, what you are talking about has an answer but I am afaid that it is a rather dry one.
{Personaly I think that life is a marvel}

You are talking about the contingent nature of the evolution of life.

The earth is very cool, the water, the atmosphere, the placement of the aarth, all that wow, perfectly suited for our form of life.

Out of all the gin joints in all the world, she had to walk into mine.
-Rick

Funny thing about it, life probably evolved on this planet, and so it is adapted to those conditions exactly.

Take similar conditions someplace else, and I think that similar things will happen, but the life thier will be adapted to that planet.

So we can all sit here going wow, knowing that we are in the place that we are meant to be. Cool.

I think it a wonder that the universe is so vast and so deep and so detailed, and that I a speck on a crust of a tiny pepple can live, is a wonder.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What if time is cyclical? I'm not exactly sure what that means specifically, but it is something that I've read. [/B]

So the same stupid thing keeps happening an infinite number of times? I'd rather believe that the Evil Bastard willed us into existence in order to torment us. But only once.

[evildave]

Does it really matter whether or not?

Even if one exists, is there any reliable information about its policies, wishes, etc., and could we ever trust another human to relay them to us?

Fraud exists. Insanity exists.

Whose word shall you take? Jesus' word? Muhammad's word? Moses' word? Budda's word?

Actually for all these cases, it's only really the word of third parties who recorded what they claim to have happened, and then filtered through generations of editing and translation.

Of course, you could join a cult and take some nut job on a compound's word. At least you'll get that SECOND or THIRD hand.

And if God manifests in some manner to any of you personally, don't expect ME to take your word for it when you start telling us your fairy stories. I recommend you get yourself a compound and start trolling college campuses for depressed kids for believers.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

So the same stupid thing keeps happening an infinite number of times?


Time could be cyclical but the events might be different.

[Ratman_tf]

I voted 'yes', but my definition of god is a omnipotent, utterly malevolent diety who lets us believe he's kind and good so that our eternal suffering after we die is that much sweeter to him.

I find that just a plausible as an omibenevolent diety...

[BillyJoe]

There are two things I don't get about people who believe God.

Firstly, there is a type of person who looks at the mysteries of the universe that can't be explained and finds "God" a comforting answer. But the mystery doesn't disappear. It just gets re-labelled. They are left with having to explain "God" and hence nothing really is gained.

Secondly, there is a type of person who rejects all the religious mumbo jumbo surrounding this question but still believes there is a God. Their conception of God does not include belief in an afterlife, which is the implication of most religious interpretations of God. So where is the kick back for believing in God for these people?

God is unnecessary.

I voted no just as I would have if the poll had asked "do you believe in faeries?"

BillyJoe

[Dorian Gray]

Why was there no choice for believing in godS plural? Death to all the infidel monotheists!

[Iamme]

DancingDavid---Evolution is ONE thing. But having the evolved species happen to find and create out of it, all the necessary stuff to get us out into space itself, where we can behold things further...and look back at ourselves, is quite a wonder, that seems beyond chance.

Like I said, even with evolution, an organism can remain alive and multiply, without "living", like we have been able to do.(living being: Mobile, create, make products to use for necessity and plenty for just enjoyment and for no other reason, etc.) An oyster that has finally committed itself to it's permanent oyster bed is an example of this.

To go from a starry "hell" (our sun...and the stars that pepper the universe), to having an earth with water (which is like the opposite of fire), and the wonders which abound, seems quite remarkable.

[El Greco]

Don't know about a god, but there certainly is a Goddess. And Her name is Sophie (http://lavender.fortunecity.com/foxybrown/490/).

[Iamme]

El Greco---Her mouth is too triangular shaped for me. But she's great from the neck down.:D

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Iamme
Her mouth is too triangular shaped for me

This is a blasphemy and you should be stoned to death

Thou shall not use Sophie's name in vain

[Mr Sensible]

God is a myth created by man in order to perpetuate his own immortality. We desperately want something more than our very brief time on this earth. Therefore we are psychologically compelled to make up this being. The human race needs to grow up and come to terms with the fact that this life is all there is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I dont happen to believe in anything paranormal, or that anything could exist without adhering to the laws of physics [/B]

This is meaningless because how could you know this? Two possibilities:

a) You could say something doesn't exist because it contravenes physical laws. But this is question begging of the worst type.

or

b) It is logically impossible for something to exist which contravenes physical laws. But this again is quite clearly ludicrous. For a kick off you would need to say physical laws couldn't conceivably have been any different from what they are.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


People are suffering. Nothing "artificial" about that. And that by me is evil. I go by my intuition on this and no apologies for not being able to "prove" it.


There are two hypotheses that work, "there is no God" and "God is an Evil Bastard". For the time being, I choose the former, waiting on further evidence.

How little suffering should there be in order for it to be compatible with an all-loving, omnipotent, omniscient God?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by El Greco
Don't know about a god, but there certainly is a Goddess. And Her name is Sophie (http://lavender.fortunecity.com/foxybrown/490/).

Oh... my... Yahweh!

Absolutely beautiful :).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Mr Sensible
God is a myth created by man in order to perpetuate his own immortality. We desperately want something more than our very brief time on this earth. Therefore we are psychologically compelled to make up this being. The human race needs to grow up and come to terms with the fact that this life is all there is.

Perhaps, but there are religions that don't hypothesize an afterlife.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is meaningless because how could you know this? Two possibilities:
Dichotomy?

a) You could say something doesn't exist because it contravenes physical laws. But this is question begging of the worst type.

Its not begging the question, things cannot exist outside of physical laws, its logically impossible.

Example of logical impossiblity:
I clear off a table, I put an apple on it. Then I grab another apple, I put it next to the other. All together, I have 72 apples.

Another example:
I roll an apple across a table. The apple gets to the end of the table, then flies up into the ceiling (no outside forces were acting upon the apple).

Another example:
A figureskater begins spinning. She draws her arms closer to her sides, as she does, she slows down to a near stop. Then she extends her arms again and her rotation increases again.

None of those events can happen, they are described beyond described as existing beyong "physical law".

or

b) It is logically impossible for something to exist which contravenes physical laws. But this again is quite clearly ludicrous. For a kick off you would need to say physical laws couldn't conceivably have been any different from what they are.

The "physical laws" are constant, what we know of them is not. There are fundamental differences...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is meaningless because how could you know this? Two possibilities:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dichotomy?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) You could say something doesn't exist because it contravenes physical laws. But this is question begging of the worst type.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Its not begging the question, things cannot exist outside of physical laws, its logically impossible.



Nope. I'm afraid not.



Example of logical impossiblity:
I clear off a table, I put an apple on it. Then I grab another apple, I put it next to the other. All together, I have 72 apples.



No that isn't logically impossible.



Another example:
I roll an apple across a table. The apple gets to the end of the table, then flies up into the ceiling (no outside forces were acting upon the apple).



No that's not logically impossible either.



Another example:
A figureskater begins spinning. She draws her arms closer to her sides, as she does, she slows down to a near stop. Then she extends her arms again and her rotation increases again.



Nope again :)



None of those events can happen, they are described beyond described as existing beyong "physical law".



They can't happen because they are physically impossible, not logically impossible. :)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They can't happen because they are physically impossible, not logically impossible. :)

The first example demonstrated a logical impossibility. (i.e 1 + 1 = 72)

The second example was physical impossiblity, logically impossible depending on how you look at it. (i.e. Apple defies gravity without means of propulsion).

The third example was a physical impossiblity. (i.e. It contradicted the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum)

:)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh


The first example demonstrated a logical impossibility. (i.e 1 + 1 = 72)

The second example was physical impossiblity, logically impossible depending on how you look at it. (i.e. Apple defies gravity without means of propulsion).

The third example was a physical impossiblity. (i.e. It contradicted the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum)

:)

No Yahwah, none of them are logically impossible. Simply because it is logically necessary that 1 + 1 = 2, doesn't logically necessitate that adding 1 apple to another apple will equal 2 apples.

[Schizobunny]

I personally think god was something that was created so people could feel same and have reason so I chose no. Both the Bible and the Quaran contradict themselves way too much for me to believe something like that, but I am not sure about other religious books, because I haven't read them or read about them very much, but I am pretty sure they contradict themselves too.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No Yahwah, none of them are logically impossible. Simply because it is logically necessary that 1 + 1 = 2, doesn't logically necessitate that adding 1 apple to another apple will equal 2 apples.

If there is ever a situation where you can put 1 apple next to another apple, and have anything but 2 apples, I'll give you money (think 6 digits). :p

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Schizobunny
I personally think god was something that was created so people could feel same and have reason so I chose no. Both the Bible and the Quaran contradict themselves way too much for me to believe something like that, but I am not sure about other religious books, because I haven't read them or read about them very much, but I am pretty sure they contradict themselves too.

There are plenty of websites you can find that will list bible contradictions. Here are a few:

Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) (I personally dont hold that website in high regard but its worth a read)

Freedom From Religion - Contradictions List (http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html)

Bible Errancies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html)

This is a list of a few common Christian arguments that you are bound to come across (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html).

Google searches will give you plenty more websites. :)