God and Logic: empty-headed nonsense

[haas mark]

God either exists, or he does not. I've little tolerance for those who try to straddle the fence. The Bible is either the Word of God, or it is a book of lies -- It cannot be both. Jesus is either the Son of God, or he was a lunatic and a liar -- He cannot be both. Pick a side. Choose. My choice is plain for all to see.

Heh well, he could be the Son of God and a lunatic, but not a liar. Wait a minute! Supposedly we are all Children of God, and we lie! So thusly, he COULD have been a lunatic and a liar and the Son of God! (Technically)

[Durandal]

Aren't those questions themselves illogical?

They're perfectly sensible questions to ask when someone claims that a being with whom "nothing is impossible" exists.

And what is the point of using logic to explain a being that exists on another level altogether?

Slothful assertion without evidence. You assume that God exists. Then, you assume that he exists on "another level altogether," even though, according to Christians and many theists, he can and has interacted with our world.

Logic isn't something that magically ceases to apply in a given location. It is an evaluative method for analyzing claims and data.

I know that sounds like a copout and I will get raosted, but it is true.

It is a copout. It's full of assumptions, and you're invoking a logical thought process to prove that we cannot apply that same logical thought process to the existence of God, which is both hypocritical and idiotic.

Think about it. when we are kids, we don't understand everything our parents do. A lot of times we think "they just like being mean" or "they don't love me". The truth was, they were doing something good for us( in most cases) that we didn't even realize. As we get older, we get deeper insight to the meaning of their actions. Just like as humans evolve, we get deeper insight into God's plan.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. You assume that there is a God. You assume that we can't apply reasoning methods to him just because you assume that he exists on another plane of existence, a plane of existence which you assume to exist in the first place. Then, you assume that he has a plan.

If you can't show evidence for God's existence, then your belief in him is unreasonable and irrational. Saying that we can't apply logic to your beliefs just because logic shows them to be unreasonable is a monstrous copout, so you might as well admit that your belief in God is irrational and completely unsupported.

[ElBlanco]

They're perfectly sensible questions to ask when someone claims that a being with whom "nothing is impossible" exists.

But, that question was posed by someone who wants to use logic to disprove God's existence. That is why I don't like that question.

You assume that God exists

Well.....ya. Isn't that what I am trying to prove? You also assume God doesn't exist.

Then, you assume that he exists on "another level altogether," even though, according to Christians and many theists, he can and has interacted with our world.

I don't see how they contradict.

Logic isn't something that magically ceases to apply in a given location. It is an evaluative method for analyzing claims and data.

OK. I agree. Problem is, we don't know all the evidence to give an evaluation.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

More like an analogy.

You assume that there is a God.

Ya, we stated that earlier. Isn't that the whole point of the discussion?

You assume that we can't apply reasoning methods to him just because you assume that he exists on another plane of existence, a plane of existence which you assume to exist in the first place.

No. I assert that we don't know all the facts in order to make a reasonable assumption.

Saying that we can't apply logic to your beliefs just because logic shows them to be unreasonable is a monstrous copout, so you might as well admit that your belief in God is irrational and completely unsupported.

All I know is from my personal experiences. That is all the evidence any of us ever really have. They tell me there is a God. Obviously, you haven't had enough experiences for you to reach the same conclusion.

[Patrick Degan]

All I know is from my personal experiences. That is all the evidence any of us ever really have. They tell me there is a God. Obviously, you haven't had enough experiences for you to reach the same conclusion.

The problem is that "personal experiences" are wholly subjective. They are not testable according to standards of objective existence, as the law of gravity or the velocity of light is, to name but two examples.

[ElBlanco]

All we have to document the existence of gravity is that things fall down. We experience it. There are lots of theories as to why it works this way( I like the string theory way personaly), but there is nothing conclusive. As a matter of fact, all science is is a group of theories based on experiences. Now, I am not saying "Science is evil!" and all that crap, I just think that science happens to be a tool of God.

[Patrick Degan]

All we have to document the existence of gravity is that things fall down. We experience it. There are lots of theories as to why it works this way( I like the string theory way personaly), but there is nothing conclusive.

The experience of gravity is universal. It is observable in all corners of the universe, acting upon all objects, and in predictable ways. It can be measured and tested. Gravity is conclusive, even if we cannot as yet decide upon whether it is the result of space/time curvature, quantum force particles, or string interaction.

A communication from God, or any other such "personal experience", by contrast, is not universally observable, is not testable, and does not follow any rules by which other such experiences are predictable.

As a matter of fact, all science is is a group of theories based on experiences. Now, I am not saying "Science is evil!" and all that crap, I just think that science happens to be a tool of God.

Science is the attempt to explain rationally the phenomena which are universally observed. It is a tool of reasoning intelligence. It is an assumption that it is any other sort of means for manipulation of the world by an arbitrary being —which seems to be what you are inferring with that last statement.

[Priesto]

Man can't understand what GOD IS in general,that's an individual quest.Most knowledge given to man is from God, God gave us reasoning skills to make choices.God's thinking is not ours,that's sayed in the Bible.
Jesus is the physical manifestation of God for us, but I think you've heard enough of me.

True this, it is not necessary that man knows exactly what logic is, either. But knowledge is NOT given by God; knowledge is given by parents. And even then, knowledge wasn't given to Adam and Eve by God (unless you want to go roundabout), it was given to them by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Most knowledge was given to man by God.I didn't say all knowledge was given by God.Not all knowledge is necessary to know.God gave man knowledge to make the telescope, to treat the body, and so forth.He gave knowledge to man so he can understand the stars.That's what I mean if you didn't understand.The tree of knowledge did not give Adam and Eve the ability to think for themselves so it's not important.

[Priesto]

Just a quick point, everything in this world is not "logical". You make it seem as if man has full understanding of the world, which he does not. How can man with limited knowledge define logic as a whole? The mechanics of the way we see things is so man can form conclusions and think for himself, if things were not in an order, how can we then form fact or gain knowledge?

I'm not sure if this was one point with intended support or five half-points with nothing of value.

1) Why do you say that everything is not logical? As far as I can tell, there is a logical *explanation* for everything in the world. Even if someone thinks or does something illogical, there's still a logical (albeit often psychological or medical) reason that they said/did it.


2) Why in the name of all piss and vinegar are you suggesting that people with limited knowledge of the universe are unable to define logic? I'm going to graciously assume, however, that you meant to suggest that without knowing everything, we cannot form logical explanations for everything. 'So?' would be the appropriate answer to that point, followed by, 'and if we don't have the knowledge or know how to detect, measure, or monitor your god or his activities, how do you conclude that we can rationalize his existance? On the word of a few uneducated peasants from an illiterate, semi-unimportant nation two millennia and more gone? Or are you just saying that you have no choice but to flounder around in a cushioning morass of illogical beliefs while martyring yourself to the mockery from the rest of us?'

I say that because no one person can understand everything he or she sees.Science can only offer theorys.If we truly understood things, there would be no need for theories.What we are raised up to believe, may not correspond with whatyou observe.Therefore you'd easily dismiss it.But who says that because it makes no sense to you, that it is then illogical and has no validity? Science means knowledge, not unlimited knowledge.Everything makes sense if you truly understand it.So that is basically what I mean.

Your lack of knowledge says that God can be measured.Your lack of knowledge says the Bible is a bunch of stories with no value.I see the state of the world and I read the Bible, how can you not see the bible holds in it the very events that are unfoldinging in the wolrd? If you go by his word, it will come to pass.That is proof in itself.But the main thing is that God manifests himself only before those who are worthy.I have no choice? If you want to believe the earth rotates on an axis and is held by something other than God, go ahead.If you want to believe there's such thing as coincedence, that's fine too.But seek and you shall find.If you seek the truth, it will be revealed unto you.Or you can accept theories presented unto you by science.I don't lean on man to explain to me why things are the way they are.A corrupt man will never find truth, he can only form deception.

[haas mark]

Man can't understand what GOD IS in general,that's an individual quest.Most knowledge given to man is from God, God gave us reasoning skills to make choices.God's thinking is not ours,that's sayed in the Bible.
Jesus is the physical manifestation of God for us, but I think you've heard enough of me.

True this, it is not necessary that man knows exactly what logic is, either. But knowledge is NOT given by God; knowledge is given by parents. And even then, knowledge wasn't given to Adam and Eve by God (unless you want to go roundabout), it was given to them by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Most knowledge was given to man by God.I didn't say all knowledge was given by God.Not all knowledge is necessary to know.God gave man knowledge to make the telescope, to treat the body, and so forth.He gave knowledge to man so he can understand the stars.That's what I mean if you didn't understand.The tree of knowledge did not give Adam and Eve the ability to think for themselves so it's not important.

Oh? Well it seems to me that they weren't thinking at all before the Tree of Knowledge! From what I understand, Man did not think for himself until having eaten fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. But if you're willing to argue this, that's fine with me.

[Spoonist]

I say that because no one person can understand everything he or she sees. Science can only offer theorys.

Science can offer more than theories. It can offer results.
If I have a theory about how you can create a computer, then that theory is proven if I in fact create a functional computer.
That is results.
If I theorise about atoms and molecules and state that pure water is H2o then that theory is proven if I can seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen.

Science uses theories to create technology. Technology is fact, hence science creates facts.

If we truly understood things, there would be no need for theories.

Of course.

What we are raised up to believe, may not correspond with whatyou observe.Therefore you'd easily dismiss it.

Oh, the irony hurts.

But who says that because it makes no sense to you, that it is then illogical and has no validity?

Noone. (Strawman).
You are discussing/debating this issue. For us to have a meaningful exchange of views and opinions we will stick to the rules. The rules of a discussion/debate are always based upon logic. (All social rules of interaction are based on logic assumptions). If you will not comply to logic, then there is no point of you trying to discuss this issue.
So it is up to you to show me (and the others) the logic behind your views. If you make the statement that there is no logical explanation and that it is an emotional decision then I will respect that (even though others won't).

Science means knowledge, not unlimited knowledge.

Again noone claimed that it did.
"Only a fool will claim that he knows the whole truth"

Everything makes sense if you truly understand it.So that is basically what I mean.

That is what everyone means. It is a common view that if you understand something then it makes sense...

Your lack of knowledge says that God can be measured.

Nope, that is the claim of all churches. Hence the term divine miracles.

Let me explain:
Either God(s) interacts with our world in ways that we can notice. Miracles, healing, stigmata, etc. If God(s) does interact there should be evidence of this interaction. Hence a measuring of the interaction.
Or God(s) does not interact with this world in ways that we can notice. If God(s) doesn't interact then God(s) is irrelevant.

Now most religions claim that God(s) interacts with our world.
In the case of christianity it is a widespread belief that prayers are beneficiary, that healings occur if you believe, that followers are rewarded both in this world and the next.

Now this is where atheists asks where is the evidence of such an interaction.
See? Atheists does not ask you to measure the height and weight of God. Atheists are asking you to measure the claims of the church that God(s) is interacting with the world.

Your lack of knowledge says the Bible is a bunch of stories with no value.I see the state of the world and I read the Bible, how can you not see the bible holds in it the very events that are unfoldinging in the wolrd?

Now you have turned biblical on us.
First point, in the bible it is claimed that God interacts in a measurable way with humans. There is fire and brimstone, there is burning bushes, there are killings of all firstborn etc.
Second point, you are claiming that the events of today was predicted by the bible? Now I've read the bible cover to cover and in it's literal translation there are only predictions about prophets and about the end of the world. Neither is evident in the events of today.
Third point, the bible is full of stories with values, who claimed that it wasn't? The only difference is the emotional response to those values.

If you go by his word, it will come to pass.That is proof in itself.

True. If the seven seals would be broken then that would be proof.

But the main thing is that God manifests himself only before those who are worthy.

True again. The fact that God does not manifest should be an alarming point to all christians who does not follow the laws of the covenant.

If you want to believe the earth rotates on an axis and is held by something other than God, go ahead.

Are you actually claiming that the earth does not rotate around it's axis?

If you want to believe there's such thing as coincedence, that's fine too.

This is actually a theistic debate.
Either there is free will or there is predestination.
All of the major denominations of christianity today are in favor of free-will. Hence the sinners are punished part.
If there is free will there will be coincidence.

But seek and you shall find.If you seek the truth, it will be revealed unto you.Or you can accept theories presented unto you by science.

This is a false dilemma.
Western science was founded by christians. Usually priests even.
Science and Faith are not mutually exclusive. It is ignorant to claim that they are and an insult to all scientists who are believers.

Please stop making blanket statements to enforce your view.

To go one step further, it is an insult on the creator not to explore the fundaments of the Universe. Such a creator would also have created the laws of physics to control the creation.
You are turning away from the creation by not studying it. Do you really think that is what your God would have wanted?

I don't lean on man to explain to me why things are the way they are.

Now you are insulting preaching as well. Is there no end to your ego?
Of course you will lean on man to explain things.
Remember that all the prophets where men, not leaning on them for explanations are blasphemy.

A corrupt man will never find truth, he can only form deception.

True. Go read the bible again then go and find a mirror.

[Nick]

They're perfectly sensible questions to ask when someone claims that a being with whom "nothing is impossible" exists.

But, that question was posed by someone who wants to use logic to disprove God's existence. That is why I don't like that question.

The question is not used to disprove God's existence. Disproving God's existence is an impossible task. The questions are used to debunk the notion of a being "that can do anything" - self-contradictory requests cannot be achieved by anything, no matter how powerful.

You assume that God exists

Well.....ya. Isn't that what I am trying to prove? You also assume God doesn't exist.

No we don't. We observe the world around us, recognise that God is an unecessary term when it comes to understanding the physical world, and hence dispense with the concept.

We're comfortable with that, and it is the only approach supported by the objective evidence. However, no-one ever said that your personal belief has to completely justifiable on the basis of external observations - it just has to refrain from contradicting them.

Then, you assume that he exists on "another level altogether," even though, according to Christians and many theists, he can and has interacted with our world.

I don't see how they contradict.

They don't contradict - but your assumptions include your conclusions, and hence provide no additional explanatory power beyond simply stating your assumptions.

Logic isn't something that magically ceases to apply in a given location. It is an evaluative method for analyzing claims and data.

OK. I agree. Problem is, we don't know all the evidence to give an evaluation.

Correct. This is where Occam's Razor comes into play. God is an undefined term, that provides no additional capacity to explain the physical evidence - hence the rational approach is to discount the possibility of his existence, and form judgements based on things we can observe.

You assume that there is a God.

Ya, we stated that earlier. Isn't that the whole point of the discussion?

Durandal is just pointing out that if you are assuming your conclusion, then no logical argument can add weight to your position

You assume that we can't apply reasoning methods to him just because you assume that he exists on another plane of existence, a plane of existence which you assume to exist in the first place.

No. I assert that we don't know all the facts in order to make a reasonable assumption.

The facts that we do have can be explained satisfactorily without introducing the concept of God. Hence, the existence of God is not supported by the objective evidence.

Saying that we can't apply logic to your beliefs just because logic shows them to be unreasonable is a monstrous copout, so you might as well admit that your belief in God is irrational and completely unsupported.

All I know is from my personal experiences. That is all the evidence any of us ever really have. They tell me there is a God. Obviously, you haven't had enough experiences for you to reach the same conclusion.

Precisely Durandal's point. You believe because you believe - it feels right to you. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but the only objective conclusion concerning belief in God is "Humans have a tendency to invent spirits and other explanations for things in the world which they do not understand, and also to provide a sense of purpose to their lives and to give a defined meaning to their existence".

That is, the objective evidence indicates that humans have a natural disposition towards a subjective belief in the supernatural. Like most human traits, this characteristic has both genetic and environmental components - but its a real characteristic.

And the fact is, if believing in God gives you more energy for life, makes you feel better, lets you function more effectively, and makes you a generally nicer person to be around - then go for it. When it comes to dealing with our own instincts, sometimes the rational course is to let ourselves be irrational!

[jegs2]

Priesto, you may be better off simply stating that Christianity is a faith-based religion. Most of your posts appear to point in that direction.

[Nick]

I say that because no one person can understand everything he or she sees. Science can only offer theorys.

Science can offer more than theories. It can offer results.
::snip::

Ooh, very nicely done - a few novel approaches I hadn't seen before! This is Priesto, though, so it is just going to bounce off his impenetrable skull.

[qoute]
Western science was founded by christians. Usually priests even.
Science and Faith are not mutually exclusive. It is ignorant to claim that they are and an insult to all scientists who are believers.
[/quote]

Interesting idea I read about one of the reasons why Western science ended up overtaking Chinese science, despite the early Chinese lead.

The Chinese philosophers/religions generally took a very holistic approach - they saw things as a whole, and attempted to understand them as a whole. Hence, the idea of taking things apart to see how they worked never really occurred to Chinese scientists.

In the West, however, you had a culture dominated by the JCI triumvirate. And the centre of the belief system, you had this God who was fond of making laws. And if he made laws for humans, then why not laws for the universe?

And so, the hunt for the laws began. Eventually, the scientists realised that, the more they found out about the laws, the less there was for God to do. Until finally they came to the realisation that Occam's Razor basically called for dispensing with the idea of God altogether!

[Lagmonster]

I say that because no one person can understand everything he or she sees. Science can only offer theorys.

Define 'scientific theory'. Once we have done this, we can proceed. This is only fair. You cannot be expected to argue against something you do not understand, right?

As for the rest of your reply, here's the problem that people have with it: It says nothing of substance. Your arguments all boil down to:
1) What I say is true because I believe it is (I'm going to assume you know what's wrong with that) and,
2) What I say is true because I read it in the Bible - at which point I ask you one thing: Can you tell me WHY you think the Bible is more authoritative than other religious texts produced thousands of years ago...without saying either "Because I beleive it" or "Because the Bible says it is"?

[neoolong]

Nick, another reason that the Chinese failed to keep their lead in science is that the dynastic system of government became very weak and corrupt. Internal problems coupled with exterior enemies gave very little time to continuing scientific pursuits.

[Spoonist]

->Neoolong & Nick

This is the most accepted theory why europe had a technological boom.
Competition.
Because Europe was a diverse and warring region there never tended to be stability and no significant leader or country in power.
So to get the edge on each other it became the ones who accepted change and new items that prospered and won wars. Even among merchants etc.

China and asia had reached an era of stability without constant warfare. They also had a strong hierarchy. This does not encourage change.

Remember that most of the technology that euope used to colonize the world during the 16th century had been discovered long ago by the chinese empire. The difference was the application of tech in new fields.

Also the logical assumption is that when asia gets it's act together again, they will again dominate the world.

[neoolong]

->Neoolong & Nick

This is the most accepted theory why europe had a technological boom.
Competition.
Because Europe was a diverse and warring region there never tended to be stability and no significant leader or country in power.
So to get the edge on each other it became the ones who accepted change and new items that prospered and won wars. Even among merchants etc.

China and asia had reached an era of stability without constant warfare. They also had a strong hierarchy. This does not encourage change.

Remember that most of the technology that euope used to colonize the world during the 16th century had been discovered long ago by the chinese empire. The difference was the application of tech in new fields.

Also the logical assumption is that when asia gets it's act together again, they will again dominate the world.

I never typed on European technology, but for the Chinese they did have a lot of problems that hindered their development. The dynastic system was never actually strong for very long because of the corrupt officials that were under the emperor. They were more concerned with their own position and needs to actually promote growth in China.

It is true that the application of technology was different. However, the assumption that Asia will dominate the world in technology when they get their act together is probably incorrect. Unless you are grouping certain countries togethere with the most developed ones.

Ach, going off topic.

[Slartibartfast]

They're perfectly sensible questions to ask when someone claims that a being with whom "nothing is impossible" exists.

But, that question was posed by someone who wants to use logic to disprove God's existence. That is why I don't like that question.

No, in the particular context of this thread it was meant to show that if there was a God, he has to abide to logic as well.

You assume that God exists

Well.....ya. Isn't that what I am trying to prove? You also assume God doesn't exist.

No, we're saying that just because you assume that he exists doesn't mean that he does. The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove that something exists, not that it doesn't.

Then, you assume that he exists on "another level altogether," even though, according to Christians and many theists, he can and has interacted with our world.

I don't see how they contradict.

The altogether kinda gives it away. If he can interact with "our level" it means he has to exist on our level to some extent. Plus it's nothing more than an assumption.

[Durandal]

ElBlanco: See the term "circular logic."

[Darth Wong]

Most knowledge was given to man by God.I didn't say all knowledge was given by God.Not all knowledge is necessary to know.God gave man knowledge to make the telescope, to treat the body, and so forth.He gave knowledge to man so he can understand the stars.That's what I mean if you didn't understand.The tree of knowledge did not give Adam and Eve the ability to think for themselves so it's not important.

Do you know why people think you're an idiot, Priesto? It's because a conventional argument consists of JUSTIFYING your claims, rather than simply stating them as fact. You have no idea how to argue, so you simply spout dogma and act confused that we don't mindlessly accept it the way you did as a child.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
Most knowledge was given to man by God.I didn't say all knowledge was given by God.Not all knowledge is necessary to know.God gave man knowledge to make the telescope, to treat the body, and so forth.He gave knowledge to man so he can understand the stars.That's what I mean if you didn't understand.The tree of knowledge did not give Adam and Eve the ability to think for themselves so it's not important.

You are going to be royally screwed when Budda comes to you in a vision and says that you are wrong and Christ is a figment of your imagination.

[Nick]

->Neoolong & Nick

This is the most accepted theory why europe had a technological boom.

I said one of the reasons - not the only reason Anyone who has read Guns, Germs & Steel gets a reasonable handle on a few possible reasons as to why China's early lead evaporated.

The reason why that point about the holistic approach was interesting is because it meant that the inquiring minds that helped weaken the Western church were deflected onto different patterns of thought. A mechanistic view of the universe must seem quite alien to someone schooled primarily in Chinese philosophy!

Ach, going off topic.

Hehe - this is the main reason why I avoided the _main_ proposed reasons for why Chinese tech stagnated (geography, lack of selection pressure, centralised control even more effective than that of the Catholic Church preventing the questioning of dumb opinions).

Like most large scale human events - a complex combination of causes leading to a rather complex situation

[Spoonist]

Sigh, I was expecting an answer to that post, it took some time to make.

Well, that is one of my problems if I argue too much noone will listen...

->Nick
I think they will theorize about the rise of europe for another millenia.

It's never easy to point out a single reason when it comes to human politics. Usually it's a simplification to be able to write something in the history books.
Bot it's fun to theorize...

[neoolong]

Nick, I know the cause of events are usually complex. I just wanted to make sure you knew, in the interests of knowledge. Whatever, just a side note.

[Nick]

neoolong, spoonist:
No worries - like you say, it's an interesting topic. . .

Right. No more. End of tangent. I promise!