God and logic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2012, 01:42 PM
RE: God and logic
Basically when you can start to add, you can start to use premise + premise = conclusion.

I'd say logic is an emergent property of math applied to language.

With that said, humans came up with math, logic, etc....

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 01:50 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2012 07:07 PM by Rahn127.)
RE: God and logic
Matthew, I'm sure you also want to give time to my rabbit creation story as well.
I mean you have to wonder about the purpose of the carrot and why we all weren't born in a garden, just as the first carrot was.
It's a mystery really.

Genesis was based off of the original garden creation of the rabbit.
To truly discover the meaning of all life, you really have to dig down to the root of it all.
This is why it makes so much sense for the godly rabbit to be the creator of all existence.
The entire universe spread out just like a garden. You see blooms in the gamma ray bursts and old stars providing new soil for life to emerge.

The rabbit is an awesome rabbit.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
21-08-2012, 03:12 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2012 03:16 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: God and logic
(21-08-2012 09:30 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Both replies boil down to argument (b), which is that god does not have to be logical. As I've said, it's irrational to claim to know anything about such a deity, one that, according to the "human concept", as you put it, refutes it's own existence, one that cannot be grasped by a human mind, one that does not have to make any sense at all.

Example: "God farted, which caused the universe to come into existence and then he destroyed it again and that's why we are butterflies."

One problem is with "be logical". Logic doesn't apply to physics.

Also, like I said, you have to think about it like quantum mechanics. I have never heard of anyone who claims to be able to understand quantum mechanics fundamentally, but I know a great deal of people who would claim to know things about it. You can't use a construct that we use to understand things, take concepts that we make up, and apply it to physics, expecting things to work out any way you can imagine.

Think of a logical paradox like the Barber paradox: The barber is a man in town who shaves those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves.

If the barber does shave himself, then the barber (himself) must not shave himself.
If the barber does not shave himself, then he (the barber) must shave himself.

It doesn't refute it's own existence, according to the human concepts, the human concepts are just contradictory by the essence of the human concepts. The only thing that doesn't make sense is the bundling of concepts that by their essence do not make sense when bundled together. I'm not talking about ideas like omniscience and omnibenevolence either. I'm talking about concepts within those that some people like to come up with that don't actually apply to anything in reality.

And I'm not arguing with you on it being irrational to think you know things about God either; I am an atheists. I just think that for a different reason. It has more to do with what Chas was talking about: complete lack of evidence, specifically in regards to the natural order of things being able to be suspended and God actually giving a shit about people. I'm not sure, but I think both of those would have to be the case for people to even have faith, or believe, that something is an attribute of a God, if that God existed in the first place. At least they would have to believe those things were true.

(21-08-2012 10:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 10:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

No I didn't. You said that because there is no evidence "logic and reason lead us to conclude that no gods exist." They don't. The fact that there is no evidence is irrefutable, but logic and reason don't tell us IF no evidence THEN no existence.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Why, yes they do. They don't provide proof, they provide us a reasonable conclusion. A reasonable person concludes that the lack of evidence that should reasonable be there is sufficient as evidence for non-existence. Not proof, reasonable conclusion.

This is pragmatic, not mathematic.

I don't think you understand what he is trying to say.

It doesn't provide you with a reasonable conclusion of "no existence".

It only provide you with reason to assume "no existence".

You are left with a belief and not fact/truth/knowledge.

On a practical level, I kind of get exactly what you are saying, but he is right in saying, "logic and reason don't tell us IF no evidence THEN no existence".

You can't confuse what you believe to be the case in reality, including the way things appear to be, with what actually is the case in reality. Things could quite possibly be extremely different from the way that it would be very reasonable to assume.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 04:28 PM
RE: God and logic
Reverse the logic and it is more clear.

"There is no evidence for X; therefore, it is reasonable to believe that X."
This is not rational, reasonable or logical.

Theists have been using the "Can't prove it ain't so" line for as long as we have recorded human history.

"God says that non-believers should be killed", claims the theist.
"We will kill them as soon as you prove that god exists and has commanded this", replies the atheist.
"No, God is a given and atheists have to prove that god didn't command this", so says the theist.

Who wins the argument? The theist is making the claim of knowledge and that action should be taken based on this knowledge. As the theist cannot prove the claim, the action cannot be justified. It is not up to the atheist to claim that a god did not command this, nor that this god does not exist. The claim that god does not exist is the default position based on no proof to the contrary.

It's just so simple. Why complicate the argument.
The entire burden or proof is on the theist.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thomas's post
21-08-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: God and logic
(21-08-2012 03:12 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  One problem is with "be logical". Logic doesn't apply to physics.
Actually, it does.

(21-08-2012 03:12 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Also, like I said, you have to think about it like quantum mechanics. I have never heard of anyone who claims to be able to understand quantum mechanics fundamentally, but I know a great deal of people who would claim to know things about it. You can't use a construct that we use to understand things, take concepts that we make up, and apply it to physics, expecting things to work out any way you can imagine.
Logic is being used in quantum mechanics as well (see above). Furthermore, where do you see the parallels between quantum mechanics and a faith-based belief?

(21-08-2012 03:12 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I'm not talking about ideas like omniscience and omnibenevolence either.
Then we were talking about two different things. As stated in the OP, I was talking about the attributes of god specifically.

(21-08-2012 03:12 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  And I'm not arguing with you on it being irrational to think you know things about God either; I am an atheists. I just think that for a different reason. It has more to do with what Chas was talking about: complete lack of evidence, specifically in regards to the natural order of things being able to be suspended and God actually giving a shit about people. I'm not sure, but I think both of those would have to be the case for people to even have faith, or believe, that something is an attribute of a God, if that God existed in the first place. At least they would have to believe those things were true.
I'd agree with that. Yes

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 09:13 PM
RE: God and logic
(20-08-2012 12:30 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Who or what created that laws of logic that god is bound by? Consider

Rather than to give the theist's answer (as I did before), I ought to give a good atheist answer, one that still rebuts the premise of this question.

Aristotle created the laws of logic. A = A, for instance, because he said it does. Someone else could have created an axiom that read "A <> A" if he or she wanted to, but we wouldn't value logic in that case because it wouldn't explain the world very well. Consider astrology, for example -- just because it doesn't give an accurate description of the world doesn't mean that nobody uses it for that purpose. But I think we all understand that logic is a lot closer to the truth, and it didn't have to be that way (like astrology), but it is.

But who cares who created the laws of logic? It seems that your original argument was an attempt to disprove God, but it doesn't. It makes an implied assumption that "logic" existed before God, therefore He isn't the origin of everything. But if you take the theist assumption that God existed in a void, there is no use for logic. Nothing is "greater than" or "less than" another thing because God is the only thing. Nothing follows another thing because there's no time. Nothing belongs to a set of properties because those don't exist either. I'm not saying that God existed, and I'm certainly not going to start arguing for the existence of timeless voids, but what I am saying is that a Christian can reject this idea that logic pre-existed before God... and if it didn't, it's compatible with the idea that God created an existence where logic applies.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: God and logic
(21-08-2012 09:13 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(20-08-2012 12:30 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Who or what created that laws of logic that god is bound by? Consider

Rather than to give the theist's answer (as I did before), I ought to give a good atheist answer, one that still rebuts the premise of this question.

Aristotle created the laws of logic. A = A, for instance, because he said it does. Someone else could have created an axiom that read "A <> A" if he or she wanted to, but we wouldn't value logic in that case because it wouldn't explain the world very well. Consider astrology, for example -- just because it doesn't give an accurate description of the world doesn't mean that nobody uses it for that purpose. But I think we all understand that logic is a lot closer to the truth, and it didn't have to be that way (like astrology), but it is.

But who cares who created the laws of logic? It seems that your original argument was an attempt to disprove God, but it doesn't. It makes an implied assumption that "logic" existed before God, therefore He isn't the origin of everything. But if you take the theist assumption that God existed in a void, there is no use for logic. Nothing is "greater than" or "less than" another thing because God is the only thing. Nothing follows another thing because there's no time. Nothing belongs to a set of properties because those don't exist either. I'm not saying that God existed, and I'm certainly not going to start arguing for the existence of timeless voids, but what I am saying is that a Christian can reject this idea that logic pre-existed before God... and if it didn't, it's compatible with the idea that God created an existence where logic applies.

I do not see how his argument is attempting to disprove God. The argument is specifically targeting the Christian deity's attributes and qualities.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 09:31 PM
RE: God and logic
(21-08-2012 09:20 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I do not see how his argument is attempting to disprove God. The argument is specifically targeting the Christian deity's attributes and qualities.

The first lines were definitely "targeting the Christian deity's attributes and qualities". I only think his second paragraph, where he asked that question that I addressed, made such an attempt. But I could be wrong. I'm not a psychic, so I can only make an educated guess as to what someone's intentions are if they aren't explicitly stated.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 09:34 PM
RE: God and logic
(21-08-2012 09:31 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 09:20 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I do not see how his argument is attempting to disprove God. The argument is specifically targeting the Christian deity's attributes and qualities.

The first lines were definitely "targeting the Christian deity's attributes and qualities". I only think his second paragraph, where he asked that question that I addressed, made such an attempt. But I could be wrong. I'm not a psychic, so I can only make an educated guess as to what someone's intentions are if they aren't explicitly stated.

It is a valid question about the limitations of the deity's characteristics.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 09:36 PM
RE: God and logic
If you describe and define god as a non-existent entity, ie: doesn't reside in the universe, has no material presence, no visible presence, can't be detected, then by definition, aren't you saying god doesn't exist ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: