Logic vs. Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2017, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 07:45 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 12:40 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  Virtually every statement in the initial post is wrong. I will go through them.

The law of identity isn't a law of logic at all. In fact it is an axiom of Plato-based thought.

The idea that reality contains truth independent of perspective is another (different) axiom from Plato, and relates to the correspondence theory of truth.

Theism does not require that God is a form of consciousness. Only Christianity has this requirement. Classical Judaism limits definitions of God to negatives (what God isn't) and Ash'arite (current) Islam rejects any attempt to ascribe properties to God other than his unlimited power.

The idea that God can change things (like heal the sick) doesn't conflict with the law of identity. I mean medicine can heal the sick. So?

I personally reject Plato, reject the law of identity, reject the correspondence theory of truth, and don't consider God to be a form of consciousness. If Atheists wish to debate, they should try to use more rigorous reasoning.

"I am who am" is not a negative. It's a positive claim of being and Yahweh certainly is depicted as a conscious deity in the OT.
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high."

So you cooked up your own little definition of a god. How quaint.
That's not how language works, and you're not a theist in any conventional sense of the word. I can name a rock "god" and say I believe in it. That doesn't make me a theist.

But finally someone else here who also loves the ethic in the OT. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" I say.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Thumbsup

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-03-2017, 07:51 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(05-03-2017 08:42 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Don't we all want that cushioning?

In fact, isn't that the whole point of civilisation (as opposed to barbarism)?

Reality is very hard to tolerate and ultimately cannot be endured ... it's just that the comfort blanket that religions offer is a fallacious cushion.

Consider
Well yes, that is only human, but it's my view that even the cushioning of civilization, which at least has some utility, is still a deflection from reality, and it's wise to understand its limitations and how ... thin ... it is. We had a 3.5 hour power outage here a couple of weeks ago, and it was comical how my wife and I rushed to get as much work done as we could before our backup power died and the Internet went dark ... and then how we just sat around waiting for life to start up again.
(05-03-2017 08:42 PM)DLJ Wrote:  And if Fallacious Cushion isn't a band name already, it bloody well should be!
Yes
Lol ... agreed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
06-03-2017, 09:38 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 07:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
"I am who am" is not a negative. It's a positive claim of being and Yahweh certainly is depicted as a conscious deity in the OT.
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high."

So you cooked up your own little definition of a god. How quaint.
That's not how language works, and you're not a theist in any conventional sense of the word. I can name a rock "god" and say I believe in it. That doesn't make me a theist.

But finally someone else here who also loves the ethic in the OT. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" I say.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Thumbsup

I agree that it truly amazes me when people talk about Old Testament morality. I guess they figure we didn't read it, ourselves. It was a barbaric time and the rules of a barbaric, patriarchal theocracy are appalling by post-Enlightenment standards, almost across the board, with the exception of a few moral concepts that are ubiquitous across every culture (such as prohibition of murder).

My personal favorite is Deuteronomy 25:44-46...

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

(Bold emphasis my own, of course.)

Even more appalling to me is when apologists try to cover this up by pointing to the previous verses, which cover the "not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly" bit, as if the more lenient Indentured Servitude rules applied to verses 44-46. Dodgy

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-03-2017, 10:49 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 02:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  So God has no will? That would seem to contradict God having a plan. It was not its will to create it just did it mindlessly. Genesis says that god spoke and, poof, the universe came into existence but now you're telling us that God's words had no will behind them. Interesting.

God spoke in a figurative sense, and speaks less and less through time. As I said, God is personified just to explain ideas. And yes, poof, the universe came into existence with the big bang.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 10:53 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 02:52 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 02:37 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  You are just ridiculing what you don't understand (unfortunately a common practice among atheists). What communication does is to produce mental resonance based on the shared aspects of minds. If 2 minds had nothing in common, then they couldn't communicate.

I understand just fine. What the hell is a "mental resonance". Oh that's right, you can't tell me since this idea of yours has no objective meaning. There you have it folks, right from the horses mouth. Truth has no objective meaning. It corresponds to what's in one's mind. A is not A but it is whatever is in the mind of an individual. You can't get more subjective than this and it is an explicit affirmation of the primacy of consciousness.

This is your brain on theism.

Thank you for illustrating my bolded point. You don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I am saying, so I am not going to waste my time explaining more to you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:03 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  God spoke in a figurative sense, and speaks less and less through time. As I said, God is personified just to explain ideas.

So the thing you are calling "god" is not an agent, correct? It's just another label for natural forces and events?

If so, I fail to see the utility in attaching a label that carries so much additional baggage. It not only doesn't help clarify what you mean but rather serves to obfuscate it. I accept that the universe exists and that there are forces that operate within it but see no advantage to calling any of that "god".

Quote:And yes, poof, the universe came into existence with the big bang.

Perhaps. The universe as we understand it appears to have a beginning there but whether it was an actual beginning or some kind of phase transition or result of some other process is an open question.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
06-03-2017, 11:05 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 07:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "I am who am" is not a negative. It's a positive claim of being and Yahweh certainly is depicted as a conscious deity in the OT.
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high."

"I am who am" (actually "I will be who I will be") is not positive, but intentionally ambiguous, rejecting definition. The rest describe actions, not attributes. Here is more discussion on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology


Quote:So you cooked up your own little definition of a god. How quaint.
That's not how language works, and you're not a theist in any conventional sense of the word. I can name a rock "god" and say I believe in it. That doesn't make me a theist.

Excuse me for independent thought. I realize that independent thought offends atheists, but (serious) theists have no problem with my view. In fact the only people who I can an intelligent conversation with conservative Mennonites, Muslims, and a few other people who follow the Old Testament.


Quote:But finally someone else here who also loves the ethic in the OT. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" I say.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Thumbsup

This is actually common is rising cultures. The Roman Republic basically had the same rule.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:10 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 09:38 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  My personal favorite is Deuteronomy 25:44-46...

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

(Bold emphasis my own, of course.)

Even more appalling to me is when apologists try to cover this up by pointing to the previous verses, which cover the "not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly" bit, as if the more lenient Indentured Servitude rules applied to verses 44-46. Dodgy

Slavery (servitude) was common at that time, and the Old Testament just regulates it, never endorses it. The Old Testament addresses the issues of its time, but always in the right direction. For example servants are protected from excessive abuse. The Old Testament rules are considerably better than the American rules for slavery just 200 years ago.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:15 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 02:17 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 02:14 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So... Consider ... how do you tell when people's minds 'Over lap', I wonder?

That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that people with a lot in common do tend to share a lot of truth. And this is one of functions of religion, to provide a shared narrative and shared rituals and experiences to provide a shared basis of truth.

Um... my question to further our mutual understanding is irrelevant? or.. some other aspect of the question is irrelevant? Consider

I think we need to better develop an understanding of each others words/terms. Yes

Thumbsup

(06-03-2017 02:37 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 02:29 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  That's a good question since he affirms that ideas in the mind have no correspondence with anything in reality and thus have no objective meaning and therefore are impossible to communicate. I guess mental telepathy is the only option.

You are just ridiculing what you don't understand (unfortunately a common practice among atheists). What communication does is to produce mental resonance based on the shared aspects of minds. If 2 minds had nothing in common, then they couldn't communicate.

So.. our mutually agreed upon sounds (Words) create a 'mental resonance' based on 'Shared aspects of minds'? Consider

Could you perhaps expand upon these definitions I've put in the ' ', please?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:18 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:03 AM)unfogged Wrote:  So the thing you are calling "god" is not an agent, correct? It's just another label for natural forces and events?

That depends on how one defines "agent". If consciousness is not required, then natural forces qualify as agents.


Quote:If so, I fail to see the utility in attaching a label that carries so much additional baggage. It not only doesn't help clarify what you mean but rather serves to obfuscate it. I accept that the universe exists and that there are forces that operate within it but see no advantage to calling any of that "god".

The God concept has tremendous utility. What it says is that there are unified, consistent forces acting across time and space. This concept makes inductive reasoning the only valid means of finding truth about the world. And it means that one has to respect the consistency of forces even if one doesn't understand the details of the forces.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: