Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2016, 11:40 PM
Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
Hi all - thank you for inviting me into this group. I've had a problem for some time, and am hoping for input (and what better place to come than the "Thinking Atheist?" My problem has to do with how a majority of my friends who identify as Atheist will argue against the existence of a God and call that argument "logical," flat-out saying that there can be (and is) a LOGICAL argument against the existence of God.

Before I spin you up into a tizzy (and that's NOT what's intended here), let me explain in greater detail:

First, "logic" has four states, and ONLY four states - On/On, On/Off, Off/On, and Off/Off. Translated to an argument, that can be said to mean Right/Right, Right/Wrong, Wrong/Right, or Wrong/Wrong. Any violation of those four conditions does not constitute logic.

That said, someone may state (for example) that the Bible is touted as the "authoritative word of the Christian God." Since the Bible contains logical fallacies, then the God of the Christian Bible does not exist." I'm with you so far - but too many of my friends will then say that "this logically disproves that God exists." That's too far to carry logic; the only thing that biblical fallacies prove LOGICALLY is that the Bible cannot be the authoritative word of God.

I have no problem with people saying that there is no logical manner to prove that a god/the God/whatever exists, but by the same logic, there is no way of using logic to prove that one doesn't exist.

Philosophy, yes. Belief, yes. Choice, yes. But logic - no.

I'm happy to admit if I'm somehow wrong, but the way I see things, it is as impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being (ANY supreme being) using logic as it is to prove the existence of one.

Given this, the furthest logical argument can take a person is that a particular god does not exist as described by man. That logic CANNOT be extended to prove that no god exists. Logic, in other words, can be used to disprove a particular definition ("You're wrong,") but it cannot be used to prove a definition ("I'm right.")

How, then, can so-called "strong" Atheists say that the existence of (a god, the God, a supreme being) is a logical fallacy?

Thank you in advance for your time and contribution. I am NOT posting this to start a war. My own beliefs are not important here (neither are yours, for that matter) - the question isn't about whether or not "god" exists - it's how people think they can use pure logic to prove or disprove it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 12:55 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
Welcome to TTA.

Yes, I agree. Logic does not enter into it.

You have illogical friends.

[Image: 1657962993-DrSpockFascinating.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
20-09-2016, 01:32 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(19-09-2016 11:40 PM)mrgr8avill Wrote:  That said, someone may state (for example) that the Bible is touted as the "authoritative word of the Christian God." Since the Bible contains logical fallacies, then the God of the Christian Bible does not exist." I'm with you so far - but too many of my friends will then say that "this logically disproves that God exists." That's too far to carry logic; the only thing that biblical fallacies prove LOGICALLY is that the Bible cannot be the authoritative word of God.

I have no problem with people saying that there is no logical manner to prove that a god/the God/whatever exists, but by the same logic, there is no way of using logic to prove that one doesn't exist.

Philosophy, yes. Belief, yes. Choice, yes. But logic - no.

I'm happy to admit if I'm somehow wrong, but the way I see things, it is as impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being (ANY supreme being) using logic as it is to prove the existence of one.

Given this, the furthest logical argument can take a person is that a particular god does not exist as described by man. That logic CANNOT be extended to prove that no god exists. Logic, in other words, can be used to disprove a particular definition ("You're wrong,") but it cannot be used to prove a definition ("I'm right.")

How, then, can so-called "strong" Atheists say that the existence of (a god, the God, a supreme being) is a logical fallacy?

Thank you in advance for your time and contribution. I am NOT posting this to start a war. My own beliefs are not important here (neither are yours, for that matter) - the question isn't about whether or not "god" exists - it's how people think they can use pure logic to prove or disprove it.

Bacchus exists. I've played some of his parties.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
20-09-2016, 05:11 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(19-09-2016 11:40 PM)mrgr8avill Wrote:  Hi all - thank you for inviting me into this group. I've had a problem for some time, and am hoping for input (and what better place to come than the "Thinking Atheist?" My problem has to do with how a majority of my friends who identify as Atheist will argue against the existence of a God and call that argument "logical," flat-out saying that there can be (and is) a LOGICAL argument against the existence of God.

Before I spin you up into a tizzy (and that's NOT what's intended here), let me explain in greater detail:

First, "logic" has four states, and ONLY four states - On/On, On/Off, Off/On, and Off/Off. Translated to an argument, that can be said to mean Right/Right, Right/Wrong, Wrong/Right, or Wrong/Wrong. Any violation of those four conditions does not constitute logic.

That said, someone may state (for example) that the Bible is touted as the "authoritative word of the Christian God." Since the Bible contains logical fallacies, then the God of the Christian Bible does not exist." I'm with you so far - but too many of my friends will then say that "this logically disproves that God exists." That's too far to carry logic; the only thing that biblical fallacies prove LOGICALLY is that the Bible cannot be the authoritative word of God.

I have no problem with people saying that there is no logical manner to prove that a god/the God/whatever exists, but by the same logic, there is no way of using logic to prove that one doesn't exist.

Philosophy, yes. Belief, yes. Choice, yes. But logic - no.

I'm happy to admit if I'm somehow wrong, but the way I see things, it is as impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being (ANY supreme being) using logic as it is to prove the existence of one.

Given this, the furthest logical argument can take a person is that a particular god does not exist as described by man. That logic CANNOT be extended to prove that no god exists. Logic, in other words, can be used to disprove a particular definition ("You're wrong,") but it cannot be used to prove a definition ("I'm right.")

How, then, can so-called "strong" Atheists say that the existence of (a god, the God, a supreme being) is a logical fallacy?

Thank you in advance for your time and contribution. I am NOT posting this to start a war. My own beliefs are not important here (neither are yours, for that matter) - the question isn't about whether or not "god" exists - it's how people think they can use pure logic to prove or disprove it.

I think the key to answering your question lies in ignosticism -- the recognition that the notion of what counts as a God (and thus the question we're examining) lacks a coherent definition. A multitude of people refer to a multitude of significantly different god-concepts by exactly the same word, and it is difficult to tell which concept any particular person means by that word until we dig down into what they're saying.

What TYPE of God, exactly, are we asking about?

There's a host of "omni" attributes typically ascribed the the god of Christianity. Most of these omni-whatever attributes have logical paradoxes attached. For example, an omnipotent god cannot create a rock too big for him to lift. An omniscient god cannot know that this sentence is true. Due to these paradoxes, it is logically impossible for a god OF THAT TYPE to exist, and it is possible to be a strong atheist towards these types of god on the basis of logic alone.

But other god-concepts either lack these omni-attributes, or have them circumscribed to the degree required to avoid paradox. They are not dismissed so easily.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
20-09-2016, 05:28 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(19-09-2016 11:40 PM)mrgr8avill Wrote:  Hi all - thank you for inviting me into this group. I've had a problem for some time, and am hoping for input (and what better place to come than the "Thinking Atheist?" My problem has to do with how a majority of my friends who identify as Atheist will argue against the existence of a God and call that argument "logical," flat-out saying that there can be (and is) a LOGICAL argument against the existence of God.

Before I spin you up into a tizzy (and that's NOT what's intended here), let me explain in greater detail:

First, "logic" has four states, and ONLY four states - On/On, On/Off, Off/On, and Off/Off. Translated to an argument, that can be said to mean Right/Right, Right/Wrong, Wrong/Right, or Wrong/Wrong. Any violation of those four conditions does not constitute logic.

That is not correct. You appear to have a narrow view of what constitutes logic.
All you have done there is state a truth table for two variables.
Logic is much richer, deeper, and wider than that.

Quote:That said, someone may state (for example) that the Bible is touted as the "authoritative word of the Christian God." Since the Bible contains logical fallacies, then the God of the Christian Bible does not exist."

That is not the logical conclusion. All that one can say is that the Bible does not appear to be authoritative or, stretching a bit, not the "authoritative word of the Christian God."

Quote:I'm with you so far - but too many of my friends will then say that "this logically disproves that God exists."

It does not.

Quote:That's too far to carry logic; the only thing that biblical fallacies prove LOGICALLY is that the Bible cannot be the authoritative word of God.

No, even that is a stretch.

Quote:I have no problem with people saying that there is no logical manner to prove that a god/the God/whatever exists, but by the same logic, there is no way of using logic to prove that one doesn't exist.

Neither is a true statement. You do not know whether either argument exists or not.

Quote:Philosophy, yes. Belief, yes. Choice, yes. But logic - no.

I'm happy to admit if I'm somehow wrong, but the way I see things, it is as impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being (ANY supreme being) using logic as it is to prove the existence of one.

You may believe that, but logic is necessary - it just may not be sufficient, i.e. evidence is required.

Quote:Given this, the furthest logical argument can take a person is that a particular god does not exist as described by man. That logic CANNOT be extended to prove that no god exists.

That is probably true.

Quote:Logic, in other words, can be used to disprove a particular definition ("You're wrong,") but it cannot be used to prove a definition ("I'm right.")

Not correct. It can be used to prove a statement; just maybe not your statement.

Quote:How, then, can so-called "strong" Atheists say that the existence of (a god, the God, a supreme being) is a logical fallacy?

A strong atheist is sure that whatever god is being claimed does not exist and can likely make a good argument for that.

Quote:Thank you in advance for your time and contribution. I am NOT posting this to start a war. My own beliefs are not important here (neither are yours, for that matter) - the question isn't about whether or not "god" exists - it's how people think they can use pure logic to prove or disprove it.

Logic is a tool and can be used or misused. Pure logic can be used to teach logic.
In the real world, logic is used to construct an argument based on evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Chas's post
20-09-2016, 05:39 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2016 05:43 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(19-09-2016 11:40 PM)mrgr8avill Wrote:  First, "logic" has four states, and ONLY four states - On/On, On/Off, Off/On, and Off/Off. Translated to an argument, that can be said to mean Right/Right, Right/Wrong, Wrong/Right, or Wrong/Wrong. Any violation of those four conditions does not constitute logic.

I'd say that's a two-bit argument but I really have no idea what you mean by logic having four states.

[Edited to remove comment that Reltzik and Chas covered better already -- I'll just leave the lame joke]

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
20-09-2016, 08:36 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2016 08:45 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(19-09-2016 11:40 PM)mrgr8avill Wrote:  Hi all - thank you for inviting me into this group. I've had a problem for some time, and am hoping for input (and what better place to come than the "Thinking Atheist?" My problem has to do with how a majority of my friends who identify as Atheist will argue against the existence of a God and call that argument "logical," flat-out saying that there can be (and is) a LOGICAL argument against the existence of God.

Before I spin you up into a tizzy (and that's NOT what's intended here), let me explain in greater detail:

First, "logic" has four states, and ONLY four states - On/On, On/Off, Off/On, and Off/Off. Translated to an argument, that can be said to mean Right/Right, Right/Wrong, Wrong/Right, or Wrong/Wrong. Any violation of those four conditions does not constitute logic.

That said, someone may state (for example) that the Bible is touted as the "authoritative word of the Christian God." Since the Bible contains logical fallacies, then the God of the Christian Bible does not exist." I'm with you so far - but too many of my friends will then say that "this logically disproves that God exists." That's too far to carry logic; the only thing that biblical fallacies prove LOGICALLY is that the Bible cannot be the authoritative word of God.

I have no problem with people saying that there is no logical manner to prove that a god/the God/whatever exists, but by the same logic, there is no way of using logic to prove that one doesn't exist.

Philosophy, yes. Belief, yes. Choice, yes. But logic - no.

I'm happy to admit if I'm somehow wrong, but the way I see things, it is as impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being (ANY supreme being) using logic as it is to prove the existence of one.

Given this, the furthest logical argument can take a person is that a particular god does not exist as described by man. That logic CANNOT be extended to prove that no god exists. Logic, in other words, can be used to disprove a particular definition ("You're wrong,") but it cannot be used to prove a definition ("I'm right.")

How, then, can so-called "strong" Atheists say that the existence of (a god, the God, a supreme being) is a logical fallacy?

Thank you in advance for your time and contribution. I am NOT posting this to start a war. My own beliefs are not important here (neither are yours, for that matter) - the question isn't about whether or not "god" exists - it's how people think they can use pure logic to prove or disprove it.

There is no god to disprove. What there are are a whole bunch of claims about gods and these can be refuted or shown to be false. There is no onus to prove that any gods do not exist. I am a strong atheist and I can say that the claims of theists about a god who enjoys metaphysical primacy over the objects of it's consciousness can not be true. I know this by means of reason validated by logic. The very concept of logic rests on reality being an objective absolute. Theism claims that reality is subjective, therefore it is incompatible with logic. It can not be true and to believe it commits one to irrationality. That's all I need to do to validate my rejection of theism. I need not refute every arbitrary claim that comes my way in order to know there is no god.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
20-09-2016, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2016 10:41 AM by mrgr8avill.)
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
I suppose my point was that the emphatic statement "there is no god (of any sort)" is every bit as much of a "belief" as "there is a god (of any sort)," as neither can be proven or dis-proven. I have no issue with someone pointing out the logical fallacies of some human-created system of worship ("you're wrong"), but that cannot be carried to "I'm right" without the same leap of faith taken by "believers." No one knows the truth, and until they do, fantasizing that the universe is empty is akin to a tribe of natives believing a helicopter of "from the Gods."

Mind you, fantasizing that the Universe is filled with a white-haired psychopath is no better. Point is NO ONE can say "I'm right" and call that fact/evidentiary/logic-based. "I'm right" is a belief (at this point in time, anyway). I find it hard to understand how some can state emphatically that they know "there is no god (of any sort)" and call that a logical/factual conclusion rather than a belief - the same sort of belief, in fact, that they find so illogical in those who "believe."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(19-09-2016 11:40 PM)mrgr8avill Wrote:  Hi all - thank you for inviting me into this group. I've had a problem for some time, and am hoping for input (and what better place to come than the "Thinking Atheist?" My problem has to do with how a majority of my friends who identify as Atheist will argue against the existence of a God and call that argument "logical," flat-out saying that there can be (and is) a LOGICAL argument against the existence of God.

Before I spin you up into a tizzy (and that's NOT what's intended here), let me explain in greater detail:

First, "logic" has four states, and ONLY four states - On/On, On/Off, Off/On, and Off/Off. Translated to an argument, that can be said to mean Right/Right, Right/Wrong, Wrong/Right, or Wrong/Wrong. Any violation of those four conditions does not constitute logic.

That said, someone may state (for example) that the Bible is touted as the "authoritative word of the Christian God." Since the Bible contains logical fallacies, then the God of the Christian Bible does not exist." I'm with you so far - but too many of my friends will then say that "this logically disproves that God exists." That's too far to carry logic; the only thing that biblical fallacies prove LOGICALLY is that the Bible cannot be the authoritative word of God.

I have no problem with people saying that there is no logical manner to prove that a god/the God/whatever exists, but by the same logic, there is no way of using logic to prove that one doesn't exist.

Philosophy, yes. Belief, yes. Choice, yes. But logic - no.

I'm happy to admit if I'm somehow wrong, but the way I see things, it is as impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being (ANY supreme being) using logic as it is to prove the existence of one.

Given this, the furthest logical argument can take a person is that a particular god does not exist as described by man. That logic CANNOT be extended to prove that no god exists. Logic, in other words, can be used to disprove a particular definition ("You're wrong,") but it cannot be used to prove a definition ("I'm right.")

How, then, can so-called "strong" Atheists say that the existence of (a god, the God, a supreme being) is a logical fallacy?

Thank you in advance for your time and contribution. I am NOT posting this to start a war. My own beliefs are not important here (neither are yours, for that matter) - the question isn't about whether or not "god" exists - it's how people think they can use pure logic to prove or disprove it.

Nope. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient.

The universe have been proven to be fundamentally "non-intuitive".
Logic is useful but not sufficient, (by itself).
Is it "logical" that there is no fundamental reference point in spacetime ?
Is it "logical" that electrons go through both slits in the double slit experiment ?
Is Quantum Mechanics "logical" ?

You need evidence. Logic alone proves nothing.
There is no coherent definition of the word "god" ... so "proving" it is meaningless.
Theologically speaking, there are no proofs of anything either. If you have proof of something, you need no faith.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-09-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(20-09-2016 05:11 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 11:40 PM)mrgr8avill Wrote:  Hi all - thank you for inviting me into this group. I've had a problem for some time, and am hoping for input (and what better place to come than the "Thinking Atheist?" My problem has to do with how a majority of my friends who identify as Atheist will argue against the existence of a God and call that argument "logical," flat-out saying that there can be (and is) a LOGICAL argument against the existence of God.

Before I spin you up into a tizzy (and that's NOT what's intended here), let me explain in greater detail:

First, "logic" has four states, and ONLY four states - On/On, On/Off, Off/On, and Off/Off. Translated to an argument, that can be said to mean Right/Right, Right/Wrong, Wrong/Right, or Wrong/Wrong. Any violation of those four conditions does not constitute logic.

That said, someone may state (for example) that the Bible is touted as the "authoritative word of the Christian God." Since the Bible contains logical fallacies, then the God of the Christian Bible does not exist." I'm with you so far - but too many of my friends will then say that "this logically disproves that God exists." That's too far to carry logic; the only thing that biblical fallacies prove LOGICALLY is that the Bible cannot be the authoritative word of God.

I have no problem with people saying that there is no logical manner to prove that a god/the God/whatever exists, but by the same logic, there is no way of using logic to prove that one doesn't exist.

Philosophy, yes. Belief, yes. Choice, yes. But logic - no.

I'm happy to admit if I'm somehow wrong, but the way I see things, it is as impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being (ANY supreme being) using logic as it is to prove the existence of one.

Given this, the furthest logical argument can take a person is that a particular god does not exist as described by man. That logic CANNOT be extended to prove that no god exists. Logic, in other words, can be used to disprove a particular definition ("You're wrong,") but it cannot be used to prove a definition ("I'm right.")

How, then, can so-called "strong" Atheists say that the existence of (a god, the God, a supreme being) is a logical fallacy?

Thank you in advance for your time and contribution. I am NOT posting this to start a war. My own beliefs are not important here (neither are yours, for that matter) - the question isn't about whether or not "god" exists - it's how people think they can use pure logic to prove or disprove it.

I think the key to answering your question lies in ignosticism -- the recognition that the notion of what counts as a God (and thus the question we're examining) lacks a coherent definition. A multitude of people refer to a multitude of significantly different god-concepts by exactly the same word, and it is difficult to tell which concept any particular person means by that word until we dig down into what they're saying.

What TYPE of God, exactly, are we asking about?

There's a host of "omni" attributes typically ascribed the the god of Christianity. Most of these omni-whatever attributes have logical paradoxes attached. For example, an omnipotent god cannot create a rock too big for him to lift. An omniscient god cannot know that this sentence is true. Due to these paradoxes, it is logically impossible for a god OF THAT TYPE to exist, and it is possible to be a strong atheist towards these types of god on the basis of logic alone.

But other god-concepts either lack these omni-attributes, or have them circumscribed to the degree required to avoid paradox. They are not dismissed so easily.

Like the hymn "My Father is Omnivorous."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Born Again Pagan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: