The Illogical God: Omnipresence (Part 4)

This should wrap up the series quite nicely.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF_AOzi1AGg

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YYVPGwk0ac

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMCZNKy8wWM

THIS is part 4.

Or the playlist (which is a bit more convenient):
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=68823A409E7DEB37

SOURCES---

Veritas48's video where he defines omnipresence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV-q-5Du3Kk

Veritas48's video used at the end:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKwblmae5GE
His video was part of a really good discussion with TheoWarner concerning the place of logic in Christianity. You can veiw their entire discussion here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D98B21EA09EF35C0

Telemantros's video used at the end:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70oOEaZgr8k
(Taken slightly out of context, perhaps - hopefully not too much!)

DawahFilms's video used at the end:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdMrkuj5-54
(This video is just pure crazy.)

OTHER STUFF---

My twitter:
http://twitter.com/antybu86

My blogtv:
http://www.blogtv.com/people/antybu86

Category:

Education

Tags:

• illogical god
• omnipresence
• everywhere
• part 4
• timeless
• spaceless
• immaterial
• transcendent
• veritas48
• science
• nature
• logic
• reason
• build me up
• antybu86

[ReligionInTheBin]

@Queer

You completely missed his point or intentionally constructed a straw-man.

All the maker of this video is saying is that it is useless to attribute certain phenomena or gaps in science to god when you already believe god operates at every level everywhere in the universe.

"You assume that God works independently of science.God works THROUGH science"

This is a nonsensical statement to make. Science is a method,maybe you mean "nature"?.. It's also by definition impossible to falsify

[ispaniola]

@ashraghil

Circular reasoning, tautologies and arbitrary unsupported claims like "god.. is able to and does and did whatever it wants for reasons we will never fully understand" are an easy way to believe anything you want, argue until you refute yourself and then just walk away saying that it is not logical (for humans) and cannot be understood anyway.

Well, you finally agree then because that's exactly what atheists (and this video) say: god is illogical, believing in it is unreasonable :)

[halflifeproductionz]

I could understand if god put nature in motion, although when theists add that god is omni-whatever it starts getting confusing and doesn't make any sense.

[DaToNyOyO]

@antybu86 Might've know. Bummer.

Cheers!

[antybu86]

@DaToNyOyO Oh, I read it maybe 6 months ago. Lame book - filled with arguments from ignorance. He's not convinced by the scientific explanation for X, therefore X must be caused by a god. That's basically how the entire thing goes.

[DaToNyOyO]

@antybu86 Message me if you think it's worth a read, please. No point both of us potentially wasting our money, right? :P

[dookdawg214]

Creating unnecessarily does not mean he's imperfect. There could be a deeper meaning, or he could just be having fun making weird designs.

[solinari399]

A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory

[solinari399]

If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning

[07Aristotle]

Your conclusion hinges on god having a ''job'' left to do, which would imply non-omnipotence. This would lead to a contradiction on necessary characteristics of an infinite being.God's ''job'' would imply incompleteness, incompleteness would imply nature, nature would indeed be the ''job''. God ''doing'' a ''job'' would hence require nature, for if there was no nature god would necessarily have no ''job''. If nature exists because of god then, therefore, ''jobs'' or nature follow necessarily.

[TSteverse]

Great music choice at the end lol

[thePhantomFrank]

@officialtheowarner Dr. Dawkins didn't avoid it. Then you say I was quite happy to forward you these emails from theoisafatso-drama-queen-shith­ead. And so when I say And they don't disagree that much at all, now you're practically dodging what I wrote. I'll post EXACTLY what I wrote previously. Typical.