Logical trap ! [Kill Em With Kindness]

Critical Point
Critical Point's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Logical trap ! [Kill Em With Kindness]

Hello !

I want to show you a nice principle of speaking(thinking) for uncovering the truth about one's toughts, more precisely to discover the origin of one's toughts if they originate from truth or from lie.

You must be carefull in constructing the logic of your toughts first. Exemple:

Can those afirmations be wrong ?

 

"The human mind belongs to correctness(logic), not god.", "Correctnes(logic) is the master of the human mind, not god"

 

Be carefull in analysing those sentances, wrong means the opposite of correct so how can those afirmations be wrong since I've reffered to the importance of correctness (importance of logic) ? Simply, I couldn't be wrong even if I've wanted to !

So, if you construct your toughts like this and see someone that tries to be against you, it's clear that he/she can't be right no mather what he/she tries to explain to you. This means that if you see some religious persone trying to contradic you, automaticlly you know it's all bullshit ! Can't be right(truth), logic does not speak against it's self ! Only something that truth is not (definition of lie) tries to speak against truth !

So, if you belive in God, and you want to see if God is truth or lie you could in theory develope a system of toughts to test this ! You could in theory have the means of seeing if this "thing" called God really exists or if it exists only in our minds and not in the real world. If you see that for beliveing in God you must speak against the importance of truth, correct, logic, than it's clear that you're trying to make something that truth, corect, logic is not, to be in your believe. Basically you're trying to foll yourself !

God has created the Universe, and God is real, but what if "Real" is the Universe ? Than does that mean that God has been created by the Universe (by the real) ?


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
I would be careful of

I would be careful of associating logic with correctness; something can be logically valid without being sound.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Critical Point

Critical Point wrote:

 

"The human mind belongs to correctness(logic), not god.",

 

In this context, the word "belonging" implies ownership. "Correctness" cannot own something. Logic cannot own something. This sentence is meaningless.  

 

 

Quote:

 "Correctnes(logic) is the master of the human mind, not god"

 

Correctness  is not the master of anything. This sentence too is meaningless.

 

The problem is that you are using metaphors. Metaphors are tools of rhetoric, not tools of logic. 

 


Critical Point
Critical Point's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Well, i didn't say it's

Well, i didn't say it's going to be easy...

To understant what I want to say requires lots of attention !

Let's say I want to build a thing in the real world, not just in my mind...so far so good, if let's say I want to build a system or a mechanism based on the principle that 1+1=9, now, can I realize this object, can I turn my dream into reality ? NO ! Reality works based on the principle that 1+1=2. So, if i want to make something real I am obligated to respect logic (correctness) 1+1=2. Why am i not allowed to build something real based on an erroneous principle ? What is this something that does not allow me to realize, to transform into something real my insane(crazy, non truth, non logical) dream (1+1=9) ? And why ?

I am asking basically here "what is a mistake, what is erroneous ?"

This is the importance of logic, of correctness, it alows us to turn something from inside our minds into something real, but only by respecting the laws of logic this is possible, otherwise we fail !

 

PS: Please excuse my english mistakes, I am from another country and is dificult for me to think into a diffrent language and translate into english exactly what I want to show you...is pretty hard even in my own language to make someone understand what I want to say because it's hard to speak of logic and the importance of it, etc, etc.

God has created the Universe, and God is real, but what if "Real" is the Universe ? Than does that mean that God has been created by the Universe (by the real) ?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Critical Point wrote: PS:

Critical Point wrote:

PS: Please excuse my english mistakes, I am from another country and is dificult for me to think into a diffrent language and translate into english exactly

 

 Fair enough. This makes sense because I think you are possibly using the wrong terms to explain what I think you mean. So let's start with just a small piece of what you are attempting to communicate.

Is what you are saying is that correct ideas have some connection to physical reality while incorrect ones don't?  


Critical Point
Critical Point's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Exactly ! You've understood

Exactly ! You've understood correctly... That's what's important, to understand what I mean, not necessarly the correctenes of the terms i'm using.

That's right, i was speaking about the connection between the mind and the phisical reality, what that is and why we need this connection.

True logically correct things exist in our minds but allso in the real world, and logically correct things that are correct only in our eyes but not in the eyes of truth exist only in our minds but can't exist in the real world, ever !

This is what separates right from wrong, true logic from false logic. So, God exists somewhere, that's for sure, but where ? Only in our minds, or in our minds and in the real world also ? Because when you're asking this question: "Is god real ?" this is what you're trying to determinate, if he exists not only in our minds but also in truth(real world), if he is real, if he is truth, not false(lie).

So, a real thing exists in both things, in our minds and in the real, but a lie(non logical, non truth) can exist only (and only) in our minds, but never in the real !

This means that if you look at yourselfe when you are trying to convince yourselfe that god is real, if you see that you're trying to move against the importance of truth, logic or correct thinking, you're trying to keep something non truth, non logical alive in you, something that can't exist in the real ! Or, that's the basic definition of fooling yourselfe !

 

PS: Again, please excuse my poor english.

God has created the Universe, and God is real, but what if "Real" is the Universe ? Than does that mean that God has been created by the Universe (by the real) ?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ergo, 'god' is imaginary

Ergo, 'god' is imaginary


Critical Point
Critical Point's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-01-01
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Ergo, 'god' is

aiia wrote:
Ergo, 'god' is imaginary

I agree, I know this, you know this, but how can you convince a "believer" that god is imaginary, with what proof ? Try to convince a priest for example to let go of God ! With what argument ? Only logic can do this somehow...but a stronger logic, something never done before. If you try to speak against God with a priest for example, his natural instinct will be to try to fight your arguments and doing so, he'll fight logic, reson, and correct thinking sayng it's all done in the name of correct thinking ! He'll fight truth saying it's all in the name of truth, he'll say "god is the truth", but if god is the truth, THEN RESPECT THE TRUTH and let go of God, but no, eyes wide shut (this is the correct term to describe those peoples) !

God has created the Universe, and God is real, but what if "Real" is the Universe ? Than does that mean that God has been created by the Universe (by the real) ?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
So what you are really

So what you are really saying is that because you have no evidence of god's existence then the idea of god is false. I have made this point before, but there are many people that see evidence of god's existence. What is problematic is that the evidence that they hold to does not fall into a scientific/empirical paradigm of reality. You need to prove that anything that is not scientific/empirical cannot exist.


Critical Point
Critical Point's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-01-01
User is offlineOffline
I totally agree with you,

I totally agree with you, we need to prove that anything that is not scientific/empirical cannot exist. But what if that prove is our very selfs, what if that prove is our very minds and the simple fact that we think, what if the prove is in the way thoughts are constructed ? Nobody has ever, EVER, analysed clearly those things within us. Why thoughts are constructed the way they are constructed, why for example you cannot belive in something that is not true, why a thing that is not true cannot exist in the real world but only inside our minds ? Why for a thing to exist in the real world (to be) is necessary to be possible first, what is this "possible", what is logic, what is "a sound thing", what does this show us ?

Maybe this is the way of confirming or infirming the existance of God, but it requires lots of studying and hard work first.

God has created the Universe, and God is real, but what if "Real" is the Universe ? Than does that mean that God has been created by the Universe (by the real) ?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You need to prove

Quote:
You need to prove that anything that is not scientific/empirical cannot exist.

There's the problem... you're asking for proof of a negative concept.  Outside of deduction and definition, this can't be done.  We can prove that there are no married bachelors, but we cannot prove that science can describe everything.

All we can do is demonstrate the infintessimally small chance that science is not capable of describing anything that actually exists.

It's a philosophical dilemma, but there's no 'good' reason for it to be an existential crisis for the average person.  The problem is, the average person doesn't know enough philosophy to understand this.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: It's a

Hambydammit wrote:

It's a philosophical dilemma, but there's no 'good' reason for it to be an existential crisis for the average person. The problem is, the average person doesn't know enough philosophy to understand this.

 

Just as problematic is that the average person doesn't really understand scientific method or empiricism. Hence all the crap for sale based on psuedo-science and even outright lies dressed up in quasi-scientific language. 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

It's a philosophical dilemma, but there's no 'good' reason for it to be an existential crisis for the average person. The problem is, the average person doesn't know enough philosophy to understand this.

 

Just as problematic is that the average person doesn't really understand scientific method or empiricism. Hence all the crap for sale based on psuedo-science and even outright lies dressed up in quasi-scientific language.

Poppycock! Why just the other day I veiwed a television advertisement for some sort of menstrual pad that sucks toxins right out of the bottoms of one's feet.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 This is why a little

 This is why a little philosophy is a bad thing.  People latch onto one of the easy to remember truthisms, like "Nothing is certain" and run with it until they have concocted their own bizarre little universe.  Since they have "philosophy" on their side, they think their opinions are as valid as anyone else.

If only they actually did know philosophy, they'd know that their loopholes have been closed off long ago, and the actual philosophical dilemmas they are referencing can't be used the way they think.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Poppycock! Why just the other day I veiwed a television advertisement for some sort of menstrual pad that sucks toxins right out of the bottoms of one's feet.

I saw those things. I just couldn't believe what I was watching. Just totally un-fucking-believable. And they will sell tons of them. 


Espresso Kid
Espresso Kid's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Critical Point wrote: I

Critical Point wrote:

I totally agree with you, we need to prove that anything that is not scientific/empirical cannot exist. But what if that prove is our very selfs, what if that prove is our very minds and the simple fact that we think, what if the prove is in the way thoughts are constructed ? Nobody has ever, EVER, analysed clearly those things within us. Why thoughts are constructed the way they are constructed, why for example you cannot belive in something that is not true, why a thing that is not true cannot exist in the real world but only inside our minds ? Why for a thing to exist in the real world (to be) is necessary to be possible first, what is this "possible", what is logic, what is "a sound thing", what does this show us ?

Maybe this is the way of confirming or infirming the existance of God, but it requires lots of studying and hard work first.



To me it looks like a search of understanding the mind and not of external objects like God(s). When you understand the role of your mind in life, the use of God(s) becomes obsolete.

To investigate anything first find out where it starts and where it ends. Then follow the process from on point to another to map the sub-processes. Do the same with each sub-process. If you´re not methodical, you´ll get lost and loose the big perspective.


Brango
Science Freak
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Critical Point wrote: Let's

Critical Point wrote:
Let's say I want to build a system or a mechanism based on the principle that 1+1=9, now, can I realize this object, can I turn my dream into reality ?

You can abstract the objects either side of the equals and attempt to re-evaluate through the abstracted principle, but this has the annoying side effect of relegating the principle out of reality and into theory.

For science, this can become an evaluating tool.

For belief, it can base an entire religion.

Either way, it is not real.

Try not to be daunted by the task of asserting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the best actor that ever lived, you have to ignore a lot less facts than you do to assert that the Earth is only 6,000 years old!


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brango wrote: You can

Brango wrote:

You can abstract the objects either side of the equals and attempt to re-evaluate through the abstracted principle, but this has the annoying side effect of relegating the principle out of reality and into theory.

For science, this can become an evaluating tool.

For belief, it can base an entire religion.

Either way, it is not real.

Speaking for science, this is not correct. Hyperbolic geometry was essentially an abstract extension of Euclidian  geometry until it was found to have real applications in  physics. Mathematics often pushes into areas of abstraction that have no apparant connection to physical reality until later when some scientist discovers how it solves a particular problem. At Isaac Newton's time, somebody working with 9 dimensional spaces would have been considered "out there". Today, higher order spaces are commonly used in cosmology. 


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Critical Point, I was

Critical Point, I was wondering what of things that "exist" in reality, like a 4 dimensinal "object", but can't exist in the mind?


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

Poppycock! Why just the other day I veiwed a television advertisement for some sort of menstrual pad that sucks toxins right out of the bottoms of one's feet.

I saw those things. I just couldn't believe what I was watching. Just totally un-fucking-believable. And they will sell tons of them.

I purchased two weeks worth of them as a gag Valentine's day gift for the girl I'm currently seeing. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I purchased two

Quote:
I purchased two weeks worth of them as a gag Valentine's day gift for the girl I'm currently seeing.

ROFL!

Please, for the love of the FSM, let us know how many boxes of chocolate you have to buy before you get laid again, ok?

 You have guts.  No doubt.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: I

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I purchased two weeks worth of them as a gag Valentine's day gift for the girl I'm currently seeing.

No shit?  Your're insane. In a good way.

What's her real gift? 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
  Hambydammit

 

Hambydammit wrote:
ROFL!

Please, for the love of the FSM, let us know how many boxes of chocolate you have to buy before you get laid again, ok?

 You have guts.  No doubt.

 I don't like to brag (I won't let that stop me, however), but testicular fortitude is an area in which I have never found myself wanting.

Suffice to say that although the girlfriend doesn't always appreciate my somewhat dry sense of humor, she does appreciate that I have it. I consider this to be similar to my feelings about her taste in cinema.

wavefreak wrote:

No shit? Your're insane. In a good way.

What's her real gift?

A pound of chocolate covered strawberries. And a very nice foot massage. Since she's currently riding the cotton pony, I dubbed the occasion "Eat-a-sweet-and-treat-your-feet-and-I'll-beat-my-meat Day".


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Since she's

Quote:
Since she's currently riding the cotton pony, I dubbed the occasion "Eat-a-sweet-and-treat-your-feet-and-I'll-beat-my-meat Day".

You're sick and twisted, but I can see how that would work to your advantage.

Good call on the chocolate, by the way.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brango
Science Freak
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Speaking

wavefreak wrote:
Speaking for science, this is not correct. Hyperbolic geometry was essentially an abstract extension of Euclidian  geometry until it was found to have real applications in  physics. Mathematics often pushes into areas of abstraction that have no apparant connection to physical reality until later when some scientist discovers how it solves a particular problem. At Isaac Newton's time, somebody working with 9 dimensional spaces would have been considered "out there". Today, higher order spaces are commonly used in cosmology. 

 

Nothing to disagree with there.

I did say however, that it "can" become an evaluating tool for science, so I'm struggling to see which part is incorrect.

Try not to be daunted by the task of asserting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the best actor that ever lived, you have to ignore a lot less facts than you do to assert that the Earth is only 6,000 years old!


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Critical

wavefreak wrote:
Critical Point wrote:

 

"The human mind belongs to correctness(logic), not god.",

In this context, the word "belonging" implies ownership. "Correctness" cannot own something. Logic cannot own something. This sentence is meaningless.

 

Quote:

"Correctnes(logic) is the master of the human mind, not god"

Correctness is not the master of anything. This sentence too is meaningless.

 

The problem is that you are using metaphors. Metaphors are tools of rhetoric, not tools of logic.

 

It's typical that a Theist would argue against logic, since most Theists are Misologists. However, for a Theist to diminish rhetoric is unique, since there is nothing but rhetoric in religion. For example, Jesus always spoke in metaphor. Are you saying that rhetoric is useless for expressing truth, or that vague language needs to be challenged?

I would argue that religious language is the most vague of all expressions. After all, you are the one who simply takes things on Faith, which is a poorly defined term if there ever was one. 

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Critical Point
Critical Point's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

This is why a little philosophy is a bad thing. People latch onto one of the easy to remember truthisms, like "Nothing is certain" and run with it until they have concocted their own bizarre little universe. Since they have "philosophy" on their side, they think their opinions are as valid as anyone else.

If only they actually did know philosophy, they'd know that their loopholes have been closed off long ago, and the actual philosophical dilemmas they are referencing can't be used the way they think.

 

 

Exactly, this is the thing that I'm afraid of...a little philosopy like "there is no absolute truth", or "it can't be done, it can't be understood", etc. You take a thing like this in your belief and it will stay with you forever, distorting the way you think and see the world.

 

I want thing to be simple and easy to understand, to be crystal clear, not so mutch bull***t that no one understands easily.

 

It's easy, there are two kinds of logic, philosophy, etc., one that is correct(sound) and others that are wrong. What is this thing that separates right from wrong, what is this "thing" that confirms or infirms a philosophy or a logic, this "thing" that determins if something is sound or not, how do we call it ? Of that "thing" I'm trying to speak of, and since this "thing" confirms or infirms a philosophy it can't be called a philosophy by definition. So, this thing can check if God is real or not, if God is only in our minds or if he/it exists beyond this boundary. Remember, a sound thing can exist in both, our minds and real world, something that is non truth, non logic, (very definition of lie) can exist only in our minds, but never in the real world.

 

Now, the fact that God has escaped this check until now is because believers disregard this "thing" as a philosophy, they don't recognize it's importance, but by definition can't be a philosophy since it determins what is philosophy and what is truth, real.

God has created the Universe, and God is real, but what if "Real" is the Universe ? Than does that mean that God has been created by the Universe (by the real) ?


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Critical Point wrote:This

Critical Point wrote:

This means that if you see some religious persone trying to contradic you, automaticlly you know it's all bullshit ! Can't be right(truth), logic does not speak against it's self ! Only something that truth is not (definition of lie) tries to speak against truth !

As an advocate of reason, I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I reject your formulation of it. There are two fatal problems for this argument:

1. Logic *does* speak against itself on a daily basis. My logic speaks against Todangst's logic speaks against Behe's logic speaks against Dawkins' logic. Whenever two people argue, logic is speaking against itself.

2. You are equating what is *logical* with what is *true*. This contradicts the ideas behind the scientific method, as well as our everyday experience. As Popper pointed out, even the most logical statement we can imagine may turn out to be false in reality. He made the point that even 2+2=4 may be false in some cases, such as when we combine two drops of water with two more drops of water- we get ONE drop, not four. When reality contradicts logic, reality wins. This is why scientists have to test ideas against reality, even when they are rigorously deduced from what is known.

I enjoyed your OP. Interesting writeup.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: This is

Hambydammit wrote:

 This is why a little philosophy is a bad thing.  People latch onto one of the easy to remember truthisms, like "Nothing is certain" and run with it until they have concocted their own bizarre little universe.  Since they have "philosophy" on their side, they think their opinions are as valid as anyone else.

If only they actually did know philosophy, they'd know that their loopholes have been closed off long ago, and the actual philosophical dilemmas they are referencing can't be used the way they think.

I run into people like this a lot. I once had to argue with a guy who read a little (a very little) Neitzsche, and latched onto the phrase "there are no absolutes." It went on for hours, and he never did get it through his head that the sentence entails its own falsity. He built a whole little worldview around it, and for as long as I knew him he answered every difficult question by reasoning from that nonsensical idea.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


the heaven-bound high schooler (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
the bigger picture

All of that makes pretty good sense, and i completely agree that you are all correct on your knowledge of thinking over thinking, and your rationale on acceptable frames of mind, but i maybe think that you are wrong on a couple of things.

false statements that i assume most of you believe in this thread:

 

Us humans have totally got the whole knowledge thing down pat.

Our science knowledge is very complete and almost perfect.

We pretty much know everthing there is to know about ways of thinking and possibilities of the supernatural.

 

ok, so, we do have a really strong grasp on everything pertaining to mankind, being man ourselves that almost comes naturally.  but look at the big picture guys, you cant explain the unexplainable, can you?  (youre prolly going to think that is a cheesy and false sentence, but oh well).  Lets suppose for a minute that there is a God.  Would he want us to have the knowledge that he has?  would he want us to be able to see his way of thinking, or would he want us to be who he created us to be, which is dumb and confused.  please dont be mad because i am calling you dumb and confused, because remember, we are supposing for a moment that God is real, and by His standards, Einstein and Darwin and everyone else is dumb too. 

God is still real in this paragraph too, so bear with me.  He is omnipotent and omnipresent, meaning he has supreme power and is everywhere at once.  this may be debatable in itself, but really, if he is those things and we are not, i think he can comprehend a little more than our finite minds can.  back to the old 1+1=9 thing.  i gurantee you that God would not let human math get in His way of making that equation true if he so desired!  it is in this mindset then, that i can say that whatever you guys say is totally "true and rock hard firm"  is very debatable and  probably  untrue  when put into prospect with infinity.  When we are faced with infinity, we cannot grasp it, so therefore, we cannot see eye to eye with God.  He will always be omnipotent, and we will always not. 

When faced with black holes, we are at a loss to completely explain this phemomena.  We only recently discovered the quark of an atom, and also that if half of an electron is spun in circles, the other half will spin regardless of position in space.  these things can boggle the mind and prove our science and theories very false. 

So basically, what i am saying is that this whole forum is pretty much pointless when on the topic of proving the religious mindset wrong.


Tanath
Tanath's picture
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Critical Point wrote:

This means that if you see some religious persone trying to contradic you, automaticlly you know it's all bullshit ! Can't be right(truth), logic does not speak against it's self ! Only something that truth is not (definition of lie) tries to speak against truth !

As an advocate of reason, I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I reject your formulation of it. There are two fatal problems for this argument:

1. Logic *does* speak against itself on a daily basis. My logic speaks against Todangst's logic speaks against Behe's logic speaks against Dawkins' logic. Whenever two people argue, logic is speaking against itself.

No, it doesn't. Logic is the means of correct reasoning. Not all reasoning is logical. Opposing arguments don't constitute "logic speaking against itself." Opposing arguments can both be logically valid, though a valid argument only proves its conclusion if the premises are true.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

2. You are equating what is *logical* with what is *true*. This contradicts the ideas behind the scientific method, as well as our everyday experience. As Popper pointed out, even the most logical statement we can imagine may turn out to be false in reality. He made the point that even 2+2=4 may be false in some cases, such as when we combine two drops of water with two more drops of water- we get ONE drop, not four. When reality contradicts logic, reality wins. This is why scientists have to test ideas against reality, even when they are rigorously deduced from what is known.

I enjoyed your OP. Interesting writeup.

No, 2+2 is always 4. The problem with the water drops is that the concepts are not being correctly applied to the reality. A "drop of water" is technically a flawed concept. That's not really what you're adding. If you actually counted the molecules in each drop you're adding, you'd find the math holds. Sticking out tongue There is nowhere where reality contradicts logic. If it did, it wouldn't be logical then, would it?

----
Faith is not a virtue.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:I

Presuppositionalist wrote:

I run into people like this a lot. I once had to argue with a guy who read a little (a very little) Neitzsche, and latched onto the phrase "there are no absolutes." It went on for hours, and he never did get it through his head that the sentence entails its own falsity. He built a whole little worldview around it, and for as long as I knew him he answered every difficult question by reasoning from that nonsensical idea.

 

Such an ironic statement Presup! i shall note it

What Would Kharn Do?


Tanath
Tanath's picture
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-02-13
User is offlineOffline
the heaven-bound high

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

false statements that i assume most of you believe in this thread:

 

Us humans have totally got the whole knowledge thing down pat.

Our science knowledge is very complete and almost perfect.

We pretty much know everthing there is to know about ways of thinking and possibilities of the supernatural.

Can't say I'd agree with those. Not sure what you mean by "the knowledge thing." I don't think anyone is arguing that our scientific knowledge is in any way complete or perfect. As for knowing about ways of thinking, no one is claiming to know everything about that either, but there are some things we do know. I'd recommend reading an introductory book on logic. As for the supernatural, any such possibilities depend on your definition... generally speaking though, it rules itself out by definition.

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

ok, so, we do have a really strong grasp on everything pertaining to mankind, being man ourselves that almost comes naturally.  but look at the big picture guys, you cant explain the unexplainable, can you?  (youre prolly going to think that is a cheesy and false sentence, but oh well).  Lets suppose for a minute that there is a God.  Would he want us to have the knowledge that he has?  would he want us to be able to see his way of thinking, or would he want us to be who he created us to be, which is dumb and confused.  please dont be mad because i am calling you dumb and confused, because remember, we are supposing for a moment that God is real, and by His standards, Einstein and Darwin and everyone else is dumb too.

I wouldn't say we have a strong grasp on everything pertaining to humanity either. Can't explain the unexplainable? Well, obviously you don't mean literally unexplainable, so you must be talking about things not explained by the current scientific theories. The fact is, we have to look pretty damn hard to find something matching that description. Even if that weren't the case, science hasn't failed us yet. Much has been said about the "god of the gaps" mentality. Might want to google that.

Would god want us to be "dumb and confused"? Well, would he want us to remain how we are, or strive to be better? We have the capacity to reason and learn, so should be not use it? That's pretty much what science is about.

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

God is still real in this paragraph too, so bear with me.  He is omnipotent and omnipresent, meaning he has supreme power and is everywhere at once.  this may be debatable in itself, but really, if he is those things and we are not, i think he can comprehend a little more than our finite minds can.  back to the old 1+1=9 thing.  i gurantee you that God would not let human math get in His way of making that equation true if he so desired!  it is in this mindset then, that i can say that whatever you guys say is totally "true and rock hard firm"  is very debatable and  probably  untrue  when put into prospect with infinity.  When we are faced with infinity, we cannot grasp it, so therefore, we cannot see eye to eye with God.  He will always be omnipotent, and we will always not.

Omnipotence is impossible. Not even a deity could do the impossible... else it wouldn't be impossible. If you're suggesting that nothing is impossible, well... frankly that's impossible. The very assertion that nothing is impossible defeats itself, because that would mean it's impossible for there to be anything that's impossible. There's a bit of logic for you. Smiling

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

When faced with black holes, we are at a loss to completely explain this phemomena.  We only recently discovered the quark of an atom, and also that if half of an electron is spun in circles, the other half will spin regardless of position in space.  these things can boggle the mind and prove our science and theories very false. 

So basically, what i am saying is that this whole forum is pretty much pointless when on the topic of proving the religious mindset wrong.

Why would you say we're at a loss to explain black holes? First of all, present theories explain black holes fairly well. It's only at a single point that the leading theories don't work. There are alternative theories though. Regardless, scientific knowledge is a work in progress, but there's nothing wrong with that, and it certainly doesn't mean that you should try to fill in the blanks with gods (again, google "god of the gaps" ). The religious mindset isn't something to be "proved wrong". Religion has been proven inadequate/false for explaining nature, but the religious mindset is another thing. We already know how to formulate valid arguments and think logically, but the religious mindset isn't about knowing the truth. It's about satisfying psychological needs.

----
Faith is not a virtue.


the heaven-bound high schooler (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
haha

Tanath wrote:

Can't say I'd agree with those. Not sure what you mean by "the knowledge thing." I don't think anyone is arguing that our scientific knowledge is in any way complete or perfect. As for knowing about ways of thinking, no one is claiming to know everything about that either, but there are some things we do know. I'd recommend reading an introductory book on logic. As for the supernatural, any such possibilities depend on your definition... generally speaking though, it rules itself out by definition.

 

I wouldn't say we have a strong grasp on everything pertaining to humanity either. Can't explain the unexplainable? Well, obviously you don't mean literally unexplainable, so you must be talking about things not explained by the current scientific theories. The fact is, we have to look pretty damn hard to find something matching that description. Even if that weren't the case, science hasn't failed us yet. Much has been said about the "god of the gaps" mentality. Might want to google that.

Would god want us to be "dumb and confused"? Well, would he want us to remain how we are, or strive to be better? We have the capacity to reason and learn, so should be not use it? That's pretty much what science is about.

 

Omnipotence is impossible. Not even a deity could do the impossible... else it wouldn't be impossible. If you're suggesting that nothing is impossible, well... frankly that's impossible. The very assertion that nothing is impossible defeats itself, because that would mean it's impossible for there to be anything that's impossible. There's a bit of logic for you. Smiling

 

Why would you say we're at a loss to explain black holes? First of all, present theories explain black holes fairly well. It's only at a single point that the leading theories don't work. There are alternative theories though. Regardless, scientific knowledge is a work in progress, but there's nothing wrong with that, and it certainly doesn't mean that you should try to fill in the blanks with gods (again, google "god of the gaps" ). The religious mindset isn't something to be "proved wrong". Religion has been proven inadequate/false for explaining nature, but the religious mindset is another thing. We already know how to formulate valid arguments and think logically, but the religious mindset isn't about knowing the truth. It's about satisfying psychological needs.

By saying that there are some things that you do "know," you are saying that you have thought of all the aspects or theories that you could think of that could prove your knowledge of that subject wrong.  I could say that i know that i am holding a glass of water.  That doesnt neccesarily mean that i am, in fact, holding said glass of water.  I may be able to see it, drink it, hold it, and do many other tests of its validity, but who is to say that there is not something that contradicts my "knowledge?"  If you say that that is impossible, then you contradict yourself, because you said

"I don't think anyone is arguing that our scientific knowledge is in any way complete or perfect."........"As for the supernatural, any such possibilities depend on your definition... generally speaking though, it rules itself out by definition."

Definition?  Is this definition a known fact, or is it an attempt to explain something simply by stating that it is unexplainable?  You are correct, this definition does indeed rule itself out.  (Frankly, i dont see why you saw the need to put that in there) 

"Can't explain the unexplainable? Well, obviously you don't mean literally unexplainable, so you must be talking about things not explained by the current scientific theories."

Yes, i really mean literally un-explainable.  refer the part of my previous post speaking about not being able to see eye to eye with something involving infinity.  You say that science hasn't failed us yet! (snickers).  I am only a junior in high school and i know of many ways in which science has failed humankind greatly.  an example that i only learned last week in chemistry is the european/oriental alchemists trying to make gold and fountains of youth.  It is true, these ventures were not totally pointless, as they isolated many "new" elements from the periodic table in the process.  might want to google "science failures" Eye-wink

You asked me if God would want us to be dumb and confused.  This is a rather flattering question to ask me, but it is one that i cannot answer.  I personally have no clue of the wants and/or anything else pertaining to God except what is stated in his righteously self-proclaimed Word.  I'm frankly not even sure that God has the need for wants....or the need for needs in that matter.  Basically i dont know. 

Do you know for a fact that omnipotence is impossible?  becarse if you do, you are only lying to yourself.  Another thing that is kind of off topic, but caught my attention:  does it make you feel bigger to say deity instead of God?  I am not referring to a god or a goddess here.  i dont care what you think about omnipotency in raa or zeus or athena.  I am pretty sure you knew that, though.  I just dont see why you dont want to face the confliction correctly.  sorry if i offended you, it had to get off my chest though.  Back to omnipotence.  if you can prove that... that is to say, if you can "know" that it is impossible, im pretty sure you would be God.  But I am also pretty sure that you are not, nor do you proclaim to be.  Therefore, by LOGICAL reasoning, i can say that you do not know this.  you might want to pick up a book like logic for dummies.  (a joke for your reccomendation to me)

I will not try to argue the first part of your last paragraph false, because you contradicted yourself for me.  I am not in this forum to argue against proof of God in nature, so i will skip this part as well.  I am here to discuss this "Logical Trap" for which this thread is named.  You were very righ in your last paragraph, it seems, and i think i will use your last 2 sentences to wrap up mine as well. 

"We already know how to formulate valid arguments and think logically, but the religious mindset isn't about knowing the truth. It's about satisfying psychological needs."

 


Tanath
Tanath's picture
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-02-13
User is offlineOffline
the heaven-bound high

the realitythe realitythe realitythe realitythe realitythe realitythe reality

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

By saying that there are some things that you do "know," you are saying that you have thought of all the aspects or theories that you could think of that could prove your knowledge of that subject wrong.  I could say that i know that i am holding a glass of water.  That doesnt neccesarily mean that i am, in fact, holding said glass of water.  I may be able to see it, drink it, hold it, and do many other tests of its validity, but who is to say that there is not something that contradicts my "knowledge?"  If you say that that is impossible, then you contradict yourself, because you said

"I don't think anyone is arguing that our scientific knowledge is in any way complete or perfect."........"As for the supernatural, any such possibilities depend on your definition... generally speaking though, it rules itself out by definition."

Definition?  Is this definition a known fact, or is it an attempt to explain something simply by stating that it is unexplainable?  You are correct, this definition does indeed rule itself out.  (Frankly, i dont see why you saw the need to put that in there)

The problem with what you're saying is that you're talking about empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge comes from observation and experiment. It relies on evidence. Even if a theory completely fits and explains all available evidence, it's possible for new evidence to be discovered which requires that the theory be modified. Not all knowledge is empirical though. We know how to do valid inference, via logical deduction, for instance. We know that if the premises of a valid argument are true, that the conclusion is true as well. Obviously there is the issue of demonstrating that the premises are in fact true, which is why we have the problem with empirical knowledge, but that is not to say we know nothing, or that nothing can be known.

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

"Can't explain the unexplainable? Well, obviously you don't mean literally unexplainable, so you must be talking about things not explained by the current scientific theories."

Yes, i really mean literally un-explainable.  refer the part of my previous post speaking about not being able to see eye to eye with something involving infinity.

Then what's the point of saying that? The unexplainable is unexplainable by definition. Sticking out tongue

I think you'd be hard pressed to find something that is unexplainable in principle. You mention infinity, but what about it is incomprehensible? It's a simple (if flawed) concept. We can't contemplate an infinite number of things simultaneously, but that's not because infinity is incomprehensible, it's because it's simply not possible. Infinity does not exist in reality. First of all, infinity is not a number. It's a process. A process may be numerically unlimited, but it would still be limited by time. Theoretically there's no limit to how high you (or a computer) could count, but in reality there is because counting takes time.

Regardless, to say that something is unexplainable in principle because we don't comprehend it (yet) is flawed reasoning. How many things have gone from unexplained to explained over the course of human history? There simply is no evidence that there is anything which cannot be explained even in principle. This is what I'm talking about when I say science hasn't failed us yet. It explains things, and will continue to explain things, and there is no reason it can't continue to do so until everything can be explained.

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

You say that science hasn't failed us yet! (snickers).  I am only a junior in high school and i know of many ways in which science has failed humankind greatly.  an example that i only learned last week in chemistry is the european/oriental alchemists trying to make gold and fountains of youth.  It is true, these ventures were not totally pointless, as they isolated many "new" elements from the periodic table in the process.  might want to google "science failures" Eye-wink

Technically, it's debatable whether alchemy constitutes science. Sticking out tongue The failure of a prediction to hold does not constitute a failure of science. It is a part of the process of science itself. A failure of a test or experiment constitutes evidence, which is what theories are based on.

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

You asked me if God would want us to be dumb and confused.  This is a rather flattering question to ask me, but it is one that i cannot answer.  I personally have no clue of the wants and/or anything else pertaining to God except what is stated in his righteously self-proclaimed Word.  I'm frankly not even sure that God has the need for wants....or the need for needs in that matter.  Basically i dont know.

Nor does anyone else. The bible is not evidence of what God wants. The only thing you or anyone else has to go by is reason. So ask yourself if it's reasonable to create a species with reason and intelligence, and not want them to use it.

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

Do you know for a fact that omnipotence is impossible?  becarse if you do, you are only lying to yourself.

No. I know it's impossible, because it is logically inconsistent. It is not a self-coherent concept, therefore it does not correspond with any possible worlds, and therefore by necessity it does not correspond with reality. As I said, there are some things we do know. Eye-wink

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

Another thing that is kind of off topic, but caught my attention:  does it make you feel bigger to say deity instead of God?  I am not referring to a god or a goddess here.  i dont care what you think about omnipotency in raa or zeus or athena.  I am pretty sure you knew that, though.  I just dont see why you dont want to face the confliction correctly.  sorry if i offended you, it had to get off my chest though.

Don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I'm more concerned about how offensive other atheists are.

I'm not concerned with inflating my ego. I know I'm intelligent and all that crap. My ego doesn't need any inflating. I said deity because it has a different meaning. It's more generic than "God" or even "god." It also avoids the capitolization issue.

I'm not sure what issue you think I am avoiding though.

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

Back to omnipotence.  if you can prove that... that is to say, if you can "know" that it is impossible, im pretty sure you would be God.  But I am also pretty sure that you are not, nor do you proclaim to be.  Therefore, by LOGICAL reasoning, i can say that you do not know this.  you might want to pick up a book like logic for dummies.  (a joke for your reccomendation to me)

I take your jest in good humour, but I would again recommend you (and many others) pick up an introductory book on logic. You are committing an extremely common fallacy in your reasoning by assuming that you cannot prove a negative. The reasoning generally goes that in order to prove something doesn't exist, you'd basically have to be omnipresent and/or omniscient, otherwise you could have simply missed something. Fact is though, you can prove a negative. Square circles for instance do not exist by logical necessity. The definitions of "square" and "circle" are mutually exclusive. Mr. Atheist muttered something on here about different logics or different realities or some such, but if one were using a different logic in a different reality, the concepts wouldn't conform to the definitions of "square" and "circle." You'd be talking about something else.

 

----
Faith is not a virtue.


the heaven-bound high schooler (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
slap bracelets and the like

you are very correct.  my concepts are flawed in many ways from the viewpoint of mankind.  What i am saying, though, through my far-out and rather sketchy concepts, is that *if there is a omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God* then he is just that.  And we are just not. 

A metaphor that i thought was ingenious from the movie The Mothman Prophecies (cheesy movie) is this.

"Alexander Leek: If there was a car crash ten blocks from here, that window washer would probably see it... From where he's sitting, he can see a little farther down the road.

John Klein: I think we can assume that these entities are more advanced than us. Why don't they just come right out and tell us what's on their minds?
Alexander Leek: You're more advanced than a cockroach, have you ever tried explaining yourself to one of them? "

If you get the picture that i am trying to explain, you can see that we cannot possibly comprehend or begin to comprehend the perfection that is God.  We cannot even refer to specific points in the God mindpool to argue, seeing as how we are like the cockroaches.  There is nothing to argue about, and nothing new that i can bring to light that others havent before.  i see that it is rather pointless to argue my opinion in an athiestic forum.  (a strange idea in the first place)  I realize that pointing out flaws in anti-God ideas has never really converted anyone.  I wasnt really trying to convert anyone, but i was trying to prove myself right.  I realize that we will probably both always be stubborn and firm in our opposing viewpoints.  Sad.  I cannot say, however, that i regret having put up my argument.  It has been eye-opening to really explain my beliefs in a comprehensible way.  Also it has been interesting to hear your side of this debate. 

On another note, not necesarily to anyone in particular, i am perplexed to see that your aim is to "fix" people from believing in God.  I would say that the average Christian to debate on this site is pretty set in his/her ways, much like Tanath or myself.  How can you proclaim to do something like that?  I will never know.

As is probably evident from my crappy writing in this post, i am very tired.  I am sorry if you do not see eye to eye with something i have said.  I thank you for debating with me, tanath, although i dont really see why you did choose to debate with a teenager over an idea that neither of us are wavering on.  I bid you toodles.

myspace me www.myspace.com/swangotango Peace peace


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
A couple things,

A couple things, hi-skool.

 

1. You mention that you may believe you are holding a glass of water, but may not be.  I assume you don't believe you are holding a glass of water while typing.  What series of thoughts do you perform to conclude that you aren't holding a glass of water?  That is, what criteria do you use to determine this?  Is this the same criteria you use to assess if Jesus was God?  If not, why?  What confirmation have you had that other criteria are actually reliable?

 

2. While we have trouble explaining ourselves to cockroaches, we do a pretty good job of explaining ourselves (to a degree) to dogs and horses, etc.  We are certainly not perfect and all powerful.  If we were, I would guess we would be able to communicate perfectly with dogs.

 

Is your God so limited that he can't work out simple explanations for complex subjects and have them understood (Feynman could, btw)?  A perfect teacher is able to teach all students regardless of the students ability.  You are suggesting that your God is not a perfect teacher.

 

Worse, that he is a horrible one: that he only teaches to the people who (supposedly) know the subject and ignores the rest of the class. (Like a French teacher only focusing on the French speaking students taking the class for an easy A). That's favoritism. It's frowned upon.  But I imagine as a imaginary teachers pet you feel honored to have such attention directed your way.  Does your God hand out gold stars?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


the heaven bound high schooler (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
dunno what u mean

daedalus wrote:

A couple things, hi-skool.

 

1. You mention that you may believe you are holding a glass of water, but may not be.  I assume you don't believe you are holding a glass of water while typing.  What series of thoughts do you perform to conclude that you aren't holding a glass of water?  That is, what criteria do you use to determine this?  Is this the same criteria you use to assess if Jesus was God?  If not, why?  What confirmation have you had that other criteria are actually reliable?

 

2. While we have trouble explaining ourselves to cockroaches, we do a pretty good job of explaining ourselves (to a degree) to dogs and horses, etc.  We are certainly not perfect and all powerful.  If we were, I would guess we would be able to communicate perfectly with dogs.

 

Is your God so limited that he can't work out simple explanations for complex subjects and have them understood (Feynman could, btw)?  A perfect teacher is able to teach all students regardless of the students ability.  You are suggesting that your God is not a perfect teacher.

 

Worse, that he is a horrible one: that he only teaches to the people who (supposedly) know the subject and ignores the rest of the class. (Like a French teacher only focusing on the French speaking students taking the class for an easy A). That's favoritism. It's frowned upon.  But I imagine as a imaginary teachers pet you feel honored to have such attention directed your way.  Does your God hand out gold stars?

 

I dont know where you are getting some of the stuff you are.  i believe that you are putting some word in my mouth. 

 

for one thing, what does it matter what i think about a glass of water?  im not sure what you are proving with this question.  totally off topic and random.  and, it is obviously not the same criteria i use to assess the divinity of Jesus, simply because jesus is not palpable to me.  water is.

ok.  now for the good stuff.  i agree that if we were perfect we could do things like communicate with dogs.  i dont disagree with you.  and i also agree that we are certainly not perfect in any way. 

when did i say my God was limited.  He is the opposite of limited.  He is omnipotent.  He can understand anything.  I dont know why you would question me on something like this either.  when did i suggest that my God is not a perfect teacher?

Are you saying that God only teaches his favorite people?  this is not true.  You have grossly misconcieved the idea, here.  Jesus taught as many people as he could in the time that he was here on earth.  After that, the only true word was the Bible.  now, the Bible is available to pretty much everyone, but only some people choose to read it and believe it.  God doesnt favor the people who read it, or love them more.  But he does grant those who accept him as their ticket to salvation a way into heaven.  i dont know what skewed concepts you have about this situation, but you might have greatly benefited by a quick internet search before your post. 

speaking of posts, sorry it took so long to respond i dont regularly check this website.

i hope i have cleared up my beliefs to you.


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
the heaven bound high

the heaven bound high schooler wrote:

daedalus wrote:

A couple things, hi-skool.

 

1. You mention that you may believe you are holding a glass of water, but may not be.  I assume you don't believe you are holding a glass of water while typing.  What series of thoughts do you perform to conclude that you aren't holding a glass of water?  That is, what criteria do you use to determine this?  Is this the same criteria you use to assess if Jesus was God?  If not, why?  What confirmation have you had that other criteria are actually reliable?

 

2. While we have trouble explaining ourselves to cockroaches, we do a pretty good job of explaining ourselves (to a degree) to dogs and horses, etc.  We are certainly not perfect and all powerful.  If we were, I would guess we would be able to communicate perfectly with dogs.

 

Is your God so limited that he can't work out simple explanations for complex subjects and have them understood (Feynman could, btw)?  A perfect teacher is able to teach all students regardless of the students ability.  You are suggesting that your God is not a perfect teacher.

 

Worse, that he is a horrible one: that he only teaches to the people who (supposedly) know the subject and ignores the rest of the class. (Like a French teacher only focusing on the French speaking students taking the class for an easy A). That's favoritism. It's frowned upon.  But I imagine as a imaginary teachers pet you feel honored to have such attention directed your way.  Does your God hand out gold stars?

 

I dont know where you are getting some of the stuff you are.  i believe that you are putting some word in my mouth. 

 

for one thing, what does it matter what i think about a glass of water?  im not sure what you are proving with this question.  totally off topic and random.  and, it is obviously not the same criteria i use to assess the divinity of Jesus, simply because jesus is not palpable to me.  water is.

ok.  now for the good stuff.  i agree that if we were perfect we could do things like communicate with dogs.  i dont disagree with you.  and i also agree that we are certainly not perfect in any way. 

when did i say my God was limited.  He is the opposite of limited.  He is omnipotent.  He can understand anything.  I dont know why you would question me on something like this either.  when did i suggest that my God is not a perfect teacher?

Are you saying that God only teaches his favorite people?  this is not true.  You have grossly misconcieved the idea, here.  Jesus taught as many people as he could in the time that he was here on earth.  After that, the only true word was the Bible.  now, the Bible is available to pretty much everyone, but only some people choose to read it and believe it.  God doesnt favor the people who read it, or love them more.  But he does grant those who accept him as their ticket to salvation a way into heaven.  i dont know what skewed concepts you have about this situation, but you might have greatly benefited by a quick internet search before your post. 

speaking of posts, sorry it took so long to respond i dont regularly check this website.

i hope i have cleared up my beliefs to you.

He's not putting words in your mouth. He's asking question. Why not just answer them one by one?


the heaven-bound high schooler (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
? :(

sandwiches Sad wrote:

He's not putting words in your mouth. He's asking question. Why not just answer them one by one?

i just reviewed my previous post, sandwiches, and im pretty sure i answered every one of his questions.  and statements that i thought needed other light shed on them.  why does my assumed lack of correspondance matter to you anyway?


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
the heaven-bound high

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

sandwiches Sad wrote:

He's not putting words in your mouth. He's asking question. Why not just answer them one by one?

i just reviewed my previous post, sandwiches, and im pretty sure i answered every one of his questions.  and statements that i thought needed other light shed on them.  why does my assumed lack of correspondance matter to you anyway?

Two reasons:

1) I'm curious of the answers

2) It really pisses me off when people avoid a question by changing topic, distracting, or giving non sequiturs.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Mmm, this looks

Mmm, this looks interesting.

the heaven bound high schooler wrote:

daedalus wrote:

A couple things, hi-skool.

 

1. You mention that you may believe you are holding a glass of water, but may not be.  I assume you don't believe you are holding a glass of water while typing.  What series of thoughts do you perform to conclude that you aren't holding a glass of water?  That is, what criteria do you use to determine this?  Is this the same criteria you use to assess if Jesus was God?  If not, why?  What confirmation have you had that other criteria are actually reliable?

 

2. While we have trouble explaining ourselves to cockroaches, we do a pretty good job of explaining ourselves (to a degree) to dogs and horses, etc.  We are certainly not perfect and all powerful.  If we were, I would guess we would be able to communicate perfectly with dogs.

 

Is your God so limited that he can't work out simple explanations for complex subjects and have them understood (Feynman could, btw)?  A perfect teacher is able to teach all students regardless of the students ability.  You are suggesting that your God is not a perfect teacher.

 

Worse, that he is a horrible one: that he only teaches to the people who (supposedly) know the subject and ignores the rest of the class. (Like a French teacher only focusing on the French speaking students taking the class for an easy A). That's favoritism. It's frowned upon.  But I imagine as a imaginary teachers pet you feel honored to have such attention directed your way.  Does your God hand out gold stars?

I dont know where you are getting some of the stuff you are.  i believe that you are putting some word in my mouth. 

for one thing, what does it matter what i think about a glass of water?  im not sure what you are proving with this question.  totally off topic and random.  and, it is obviously not the same criteria i use to assess the divinity of Jesus, simply because jesus is not palpable to me.  water is.

ok.  now for the good stuff.  i agree that if we were perfect we could do things like communicate with dogs.  i dont disagree with you.  and i also agree that we are certainly not perfect in any way. 

when did i say my God was limited.  He is the opposite of limited.  He is omnipotent.  He can understand anything.  I dont know why you would question me on something like this either.  when did i suggest that my God is not a perfect teacher?

Are you saying that God only teaches his favorite people?  this is not true.  You have grossly misconcieved the idea, here.  Jesus taught as many people as he could in the time that he was here on earth.  After that, the only true word was the Bible.  now, the Bible is available to pretty much everyone, but only some people choose to read it and believe it.  God doesnt favor the people who read it, or love them more.  But he does grant those who accept him as their ticket to salvation a way into heaven.  i dont know what skewed concepts you have about this situation, but you might have greatly benefited by a quick internet search before your post. 

speaking of posts, sorry it took so long to respond i dont regularly check this website.

i hope i have cleared up my beliefs to you.

On the glass of water you have run into Moore's paradox, originally stated "It's raining outside but I don't believe that it is." Wikipedia has a decent entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox

Next, the issue of instruction. I don't like daedalus's french teacher metaphor, so I'll try and construct a better one that more closely matches the situation.

A young professor discovers a new kind of math. For some unknown reason, the professor refuses to teach the material himself and instead teaches it to his aid and tells her to teach it for him. She dutifully does this, but after a few years she is afflicted with a serious illness and knows that she will be dieing soon. The professor, still unwilling to teach in person, instructs his aid in the writing of a book on the issue.

Decades later, the book has been retranslated and reiterated by many people who do not necessarily understand its contents. The book has grown thick, many of its chapters plagiarized, lost, different chapters replaced with the assumed correct ones, and now nobody really knows for sure which chapters are the originals. The book is trusted by a lot of students, although not necessarily for good reason.

However, the professor is still alive but also refuses to teach. People send letters to the professor, but rumor has it that he only responds to a very few. Instead, people look at the book for his answers or they try to see how the professor is speaking to them from the models implied in the book. An entire group of mathematicians gather in order to interpret the book for especially willing students.

Finally, it gets to the point where no one can remember whether any significant contribution to the academic foundation was ever made by reading the book. Many older mathematical texts have been found which clearly describe all the things which the professor's book hints at. While some portion of the community disregards the book, the majority still believes in it and uses its methods to try and build rockets, airplanes, etc.

So when we ask "is the professor a good teacher," I would say no. It is clearly within the teacher's power to stop the problem before it got out of control. What motive can we ascribe to the teacher not wanting to do the sensible thing? These are some of my answers:

  1. The teacher does not care.
  2. The teacher wants their material to be corrupted.
  3. The material only seems corrupted because it is hard to read.
  4. The teacher died a long time ago and became a Chinese whisper.
  5. The teacher is embarrassed about the material.
  6. The teacher never existed in the first place, and was a fabrication of the woman who was supposedly his aid.
  7. The aid and the teacher never existed, and it was a group of students who originally created the book.

Since this is a functional metaphor, I will now return a result. If god exists then it, like the teacher, is alive but refuses to teach in a way that would be expedient. God, like the teacher, allows corruption of the original work. God, like the teacher, allows the work to be misinterpreted with sometimes disastrous results (ever try to build a plane with bad aeronautic calculations? It ain't pretty).

How many of the metaphorical teacher's motives can we ascribe to god? Of course it depends on your idea of god, but let's say that god is an omnipotent being that still obeys logic (even if only for some unknown reason, though this god could break the rules of logic). Let us also say that this god is loving. So to carry the meaning of the metaphor over:

  1. This god must care, being loving. This part doesn't work.
  2. This god may want the material to be corrupted as some kind of deeper lesson.
  3. If the material isn't corrupted, why is it hard to read? A good teacher should be clear, unless this is a lesson.
  4. It could be that there was a god, but its gone now along with all evidence of its existence.
  5. This god is probably not embarrassed, unless this god really isn't absolutely perfect and wants to cover up some past mistake to continue the illusion of perfection.
  6. This god doesn't exist, but the messenger did.
  7. Neither the god not the messenger existed.

The only one that seems valid to me is number 2 and 3. What deeper lesson could there be in the corruption of the single document which contains the message of this particular god? I don't know. Do you?

What deeper lesson could there be in having a book that is hard to read and yet supposedly necessary to avoid eternal punishment? How could anyone be held accountable for not understanding such a book when the context in which they live contradicts the nature of the book? Why this book? Why not one of the other books ascribed to different gods, some of which make a lot more sense?

When you say that only a few people choose to read it and believe it, you are running in a large circle. If it is necessary to read the bible and believe it, it seems essential that one believe before reading. The book doesn't make sense any other way. I have never heard of someone who picked up the bible, read it, and believed it without prior coercion. I have looked into it, and so far everyone who picks the book up and reads it without knowing what it is beforehand thinks it is either a joke, appallingly cruel, or nonsensical.

I think the simplest answer, the one that requires the least explanation, is "it's all a hoax."


the heaven-bound high schooler (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Dumbeldore's wool socks

inspectormustard wrote:

Mmm, this looks interesting.

 

On the glass of water you have run into Moore's paradox, originally stated "It's raining outside but I don't believe that it is." Wikipedia has a decent entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox

Next, the issue of instruction. I don't like daedalus's french teacher metaphor, so I'll try and construct a better one that more closely matches the situation.

A young professor discovers a new kind of math. For some unknown reason, the professor refuses to teach the material himself and instead teaches it to his aid and tells her to teach it for him. She dutifully does this, but after a few years she is afflicted with a serious illness and knows that she will be dieing soon. The professor, still unwilling to teach in person, instructs his aid in the writing of a book on the issue.

Decades later, the book has been retranslated and reiterated by many people who do not necessarily understand its contents. The book has grown thick, many of its chapters plagiarized, lost, different chapters replaced with the assumed correct ones, and now nobody really knows for sure which chapters are the originals. The book is trusted by a lot of students, although not necessarily for good reason.

However, the professor is still alive but also refuses to teach. People send letters to the professor, but rumor has it that he only responds to a very few. Instead, people look at the book for his answers or they try to see how the professor is speaking to them from the models implied in the book. An entire group of mathematicians gather in order to interpret the book for especially willing students.

Finally, it gets to the point where no one can remember whether any significant contribution to the academic foundation was ever made by reading the book. Many older mathematical texts have been found which clearly describe all the things which the professor's book hints at. While some portion of the community disregards the book, the majority still believes in it and uses its methods to try and build rockets, airplanes, etc.

So when we ask "is the professor a good teacher," I would say no. It is clearly within the teacher's power to stop the problem before it got out of control. What motive can we ascribe to the teacher not wanting to do the sensible thing? These are some of my answers:

  1. The teacher does not care.
  2. The teacher wants their material to be corrupted.
  3. The material only seems corrupted because it is hard to read.
  4. The teacher died a long time ago and became a Chinese whisper.
  5. The teacher is embarrassed about the material.
  6. The teacher never existed in the first place, and was a fabrication of the woman who was supposedly his aid.
  7. The aid and the teacher never existed, and it was a group of students who originally created the book.

Since this is a functional metaphor, I will now return a result. If god exists then it, like the teacher, is alive but refuses to teach in a way that would be expedient. God, like the teacher, allows corruption of the original work. God, like the teacher, allows the work to be misinterpreted with sometimes disastrous results (ever try to build a plane with bad aeronautic calculations? It ain't pretty).

How many of the metaphorical teacher's motives can we ascribe to god? Of course it depends on your idea of god, but let's say that god is an omnipotent being that still obeys logic (even if only for some unknown reason, though this god could break the rules of logic). Let us also say that this god is loving. So to carry the meaning of the metaphor over:

  1. This god must care, being loving. This part doesn't work.
  2. This god may want the material to be corrupted as some kind of deeper lesson.
  3. If the material isn't corrupted, why is it hard to read? A good teacher should be clear, unless this is a lesson.
  4. It could be that there was a god, but its gone now along with all evidence of its existence.
  5. This god is probably not embarrassed, unless this god really isn't absolutely perfect and wants to cover up some past mistake to continue the illusion of perfection.
  6. This god doesn't exist, but the messenger did.
  7. Neither the god not the messenger existed.

The only one that seems valid to me is number 2 and 3. What deeper lesson could there be in the corruption of the single document which contains the message of this particular god? I don't know. Do you?

What deeper lesson could there be in having a book that is hard to read and yet supposedly necessary to avoid eternal punishment? How could anyone be held accountable for not understanding such a book when the context in which they live contradicts the nature of the book? Why this book? Why not one of the other books ascribed to different gods, some of which make a lot more sense?

When you say that only a few people choose to read it and believe it, you are running in a large circle. If it is necessary to read the bible and believe it, it seems essential that one believe before reading. The book doesn't make sense any other way. I have never heard of someone who picked up the bible, read it, and believed it without prior coercion. I have looked into it, and so far everyone who picks the book up and reads it without knowing what it is beforehand thinks it is either a joke, appallingly cruel, or nonsensical.

I think the simplest answer, the one that requires the least explanation, is "it's all a hoax."

i wont bother to reference Moore's paradox, because it simply has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  I agree also, that your math teacher metaphor is much more complete and nearer to reality than that of the french teacher; but at the same time the difference is phenomenal.

To make it even more precise, lets say that the mathematician has known all of math for all of his life (which no one can remember when it began), and using his math, he can actually predict possible future events and outcomes and narrow them down to one outcome (which is basically seeing the future, minus the predetermination thing).  Lets also say that many people revere him to the point of life devotion, even before his aids (more than one) came to be.

now that we have pretty much given the professor a halo and a devoted army, lets play chess.

Having foresight, the teacher, who from now on will be referred to as "Teech," goes about his life loving and guiding his students, and tutors those "good" students who acknowledge his existence and want to learn from him (He cannot tutor those who dont talk to him and/or have no desire to learn math, even though he loves them just as much.).

Time goes on, and more and more students appear, and more and more want to be tutored; and Teech feels that these students could benefit from the help of an aid, so what does he do?  He takes a fresh student, teaches him all the math he knows, grows to love him like a son, and sends him out to be his personal aid.  This aid recruits a few of his friends to help him, and he teaches them only the essentials, so that they can tutor too.

Many regular students get jealous or think that they can argue with these glorified students (desciples) and even manage to corrupt one.  This reflects badly on Teech's primary aid, and he is killed.  Yes, killed.  bam.  This math draws much emotion.

So the other aids write down their information that they have obtained, and it is only the essentials.  They call it The Book of Origametry.  Teech hears of this book and reads it, and says that it is all true, however basic and not in detail it is.  Thus, the book is mass produced, and Teech knew that is was a good thing.

Years passed, and those who understood the book better took up roles as tutors, while Teech slowed his tutoring schedule.  Life went on, and did so in this manner until the present.

 

IN CONCLUSION:  The Bible, however corrupt and hard to understand one may take it to be, it is the basics of "math", and is sanctified by God himself.  And lets not forget, God knows alot more than us if he exists.  He can pretty much see the future, and that means he can see how that Book's message will affect everything in the end.  And He does love us.  So get tutored.

thanks,

HBHS


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Again, I think you've missed

Again, I think you've missed the point of metaphor. A good metaphor takes something that is hard to work out and puts it in everyday terms. Since the current topic is "is god a good teacher," it makes no sense whatsoever to include what you have written.

Does loving students have any bearing on a teacher's ability? No, a teacher can like their students and still be a bad teacher as they are not mutually exclusive.

Does the possibility of that teacher having students before affect their ability? No, they still might be a bad teacher. Having students does not a good teacher make.

Does a growth in the number of students mean that a teacher is good? No, the students could have been misled.

Does the corruption of an aid have anything to do with the teacher? No, the teacher could still be a bad teacher.

Moreover, all of these things assume that there is a teacher to begin with. You haven't created any premises which address the argument, so my metaphor stands.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
another logical paradox

I have been thinking about this paradox...

"Existence exists"...that is accepted as a todangst axiom. If God=Existence then we all pretty much agree.....but its not saying too much...like a tautology. Now everything that exists, exists as something. But God is supposed to be pure being. If God were "some thing" he would not be pure being. He would be a type of being. So technically God does not exist. If he is "no thing" you can technically say the universe came from nothing. Todangst would say that the statement "God exists" is incoherent and meaningless if you mean what I mean by God. But if you just mean God=existence its ok. So by ascribing my meaning makes it meaningless. And technically he is right. So, to say that "something has always existed" is meaningless. But thats the definition of God - the "thing" that has always existed.  So, I would say I embrace what he calls negative theology. It is irrational, incoherent, and meaningless to him....but I'm ok with that! Smiling  I do agree with him that supernatural and spiritual are "broken" concepts though and have no meaning.
 

 


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:

Again, I think you've missed the point of metaphor. A good metaphor takes something that is hard to work out and puts it in everyday terms. Since the current topic is "is god a good teacher," it makes no sense whatsoever to include what you have written.

Does loving students have any bearing on a teacher's ability? No, a teacher can like their students and still be a bad teacher as they are not mutually exclusive.

Does the possibility of that teacher having students before affect their ability? No, they still might be a bad teacher. Having students does not a good teacher make.

Does a growth in the number of students mean that a teacher is good? No, the students could have been misled.

Does the corruption of an aid have anything to do with the teacher? No, the teacher could still be a bad teacher.

Moreover, all of these things assume that there is a teacher to begin with. You haven't created any premises which address the argument, so my metaphor stands.

 

I would point out that the claim is not that God is a GOOD teacher, but a PERFECT one (since he can't do anything imperfectly).  So, once he decides to teach ALL of his students WILL learn the lesson - not could, should, or possibly but WILL. (Since once a perfect teacher decides to teach, they will do it perfectly).

Also, even a student who doesn't want to learn, WILL learn under a perfect teacher, since that theacher will make that student either want to learn, or learn despite himself.

Since it is obvious that people have not learned the lesson (as evidenced by the multiple religions, and corruptions of the same religions), then we MUST conclude that God is not a perfect teacher.  Whether he sent Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or Ayn Rand, he is NOT getting the job done.

 

(And, after all, the fact that a large percentage of the world believes in a god is immaterial.  A teacher does not spend his time trying to prove he is in front of the class - it is absolutely self-evidence to ALL students that a teacher exists.  Even Helen Keller knew her teacher existed, and she learned to speak - and he wasn't perfect.)

 

 

 

In fact, Helen Keller is a great example. In the beginning, she didn't want to be taught, and it was unlikely she would learn to speak.  However, she did - because he was a good teacher.

 

Think of "Stand and Deliver", a teacher in the Projects teaches (most) of his students so that they are able to graduate.

 

However, God can't get it right no matter how many prophets he sends.  Perhaps he should stop sending substitutes and do his job?

 

 

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
the heaven-bound high

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:
it even more precise, lets say that the mathematician has known all of math for all of his life (which no one can remember when it began), and using his math, he can actually predict possible future events and outcomes and narrow them down to one outcome (which is basically seeing the future, minus the predetermination thing).  Lets also say that many people revere him to the point of life devotion, even before his aids (more than one) came to be.

now that we have pretty much given the professor a halo and a devoted army, lets play chess.

Having foresight, the teacher, who from now on will be referred to as "Teech," goes about his life loving and guiding his students, and tutors those "good" students who acknowledge his existence and want to learn from him (He cannot tutor those who dont talk to him and/or have no desire to learn math, even though he loves them just as much.).

This is not true.  A PERFECT teacher would know EXACTLY what to do to get people to talk to him.  If he feels it important for them to learn his math - especially if it will affect their everliving souls - he is also honor-bound to go to those kids homes and hunt them down until he gets them to learn the lesson.

 

Remember, "Teech" isn't just a Good teacher, he's a PERFECT teacher - that is - he doesn't fail and none of his students do.  (And, it is presumed that God doesn't play favorites and just has "his students" and then there are "those other ones that I'm not responsible for".)

Quote:
Time goes on, and more and more students appear, and more and more want to be tutored; and Teech feels that these students could benefit from the help of an aid, so what does he do?  He takes a fresh student, teaches him all the math he knows, grows to love him like a son, and sends him out to be his personal aid.  This aid recruits a few of his friends to help him, and he teaches them only the essentials, so that they can tutor too.
Again, God should not be limited by the number of people.  A PERFECT teacher could teach the World, and even babies and the insane.

 

Perhaps you feel your God is limited because Humans are limited?

 

Quote:
Many regular students get jealous or think that they can argue with these glorified students (desciples) and even manage to corrupt one.  This reflects badly on Teech's primary aid, and he is killed.  Yes, killed.  bam.  This math draws much emotion.
Again, and again, this does not depict a PERFECT teacher, it depicts a fallible and limited one.

Quote:
So the other aids write down their information that they have obtained, and it is only the essentials.  They call it The Book of Origametry.  Teech hears of this book and reads it, and says that it is all true, however basic and not in detail it is.  Thus, the book is mass produced, and Teech knew that is was a good thing.

A PERFECT teacher doesn't let other people teach his lesson plan. A PERFECT teacher is never absent, never has or lets a student drop out, or walk away from the lesson without having learned it entirely.

 

Quote:
Years passed, and those who understood the book better took up roles as tutors, while Teech slowed his tutoring schedule.  Life went on, and did so in this manner until the present.

You are simply describing a mildly average teacher, not a PERFECT one.

 

The irony is that the Mathmatics books written by the Greeks and Arabs are more clear, true and universally learned than anything a "god" was supposed to have said.  Almost EVERYONE knows 1+1=2. 

 

In "Teech's" book, his students can't even agree on whether homosexuals should be accepted or killed, or if divorce is OK or not, etc....

 

Quote:
IN CONCLUSION:  The Bible, however corrupt and hard to understand one may take it to be, it is the basics of "math", and is sanctified by God himself.  And lets not forget, God knows alot more than us if he exists.  He can pretty much see the future, and that means he can see how that Book's message will affect everything in the end.  And He does love us.  So get tutored.

thanks,

HBHS

 

Notice the bold parts: these are just assertions.  Like claiming: "Microscopic invisible Aliens live on Neptune".  It is as if your history teacher tells you "the US made the Moon in 1999" and you accept it as true, and since your teacher sucks, she never gave you the skills to find out if she was telling the truth or not.

Note that you are saying these lessons are hard to understand.  How do you know?  Do you understand them?  If not, why not?  If so, how do you know?  How would you know if oyu were right if the teacher didn't tell you what you were supposed to be looking for in the first place?

 

And why are they hard to understand?

 

 Remember, not only did God create the knowledge (the "math&quotEye-wink, the curricula, the lesson plan and the school building, he also created the students (allegedly). (Did he make students that he know would never learn his important lesson? That's mean.)

 

My Math is good enough to notice this doesn't add up.  Is yours?

 

 

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


the heaven-bound high schooler (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
youre forgetting

wow, many objections there.  most can be quelled by reminding the people unhappy with my metaphor that God gave us the power of free will, and, thus, relinquishing His absolute power over our actions and decisions.  In doing so,  He destroyed all hopes of leading us to perfection.  This is why people cant decide over homosexuality, divorce, etc. 

the last argument is correct.  that God himself sanctified his word (which is the work of humans) is completely faith oriented.  one cannot see eye to eye on this when one has faith and the other does not.  It is true though, that there is a little more evidence on this than there is on aliens on neptune or moons being made in 1999.

the Bible is hard to understand.  For one, it was written in languages i do not know and roughly translated to a speak that is foreign and not of this era.  This adds to the strain of getting a meaning out of scripture.  Also, many texts are puzzling anyway, speaking in metaphor that may not be applicable in today's societies-Revelation being a leading book in this category. 

my math adds up just fine, because of my extra variable called faith.   <-- wow that sounds so cheesy lol!


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
the heaven-bound high

the heaven-bound high schooler wrote:

wow, many objections there.  most can be quelled by reminding the people unhappy with my metaphor that God gave us the power of free will, and, thus, relinquishing His absolute power over our actions and decisions.  In doing so,  He destroyed all hopes of leading us to perfection.

Free will doesn't even enter into the equation. What you're saying is a bit like telling children not to steal cookies from the cookie jar, punishing them by sending them to an orphanage, and parenting by word of mouth. Free will or not, it's the worst possible way to teach what should be the most important lesson. . .which is what? This idea of a god is like a kid that builds a huge sand castle full of sand-men and says "PRAISE ME!" Then, when he looks at the sand-men he didn't model into bowing poses, he says "I'LL SHOW YOU NOT TO DEFY ME!" and kicks mud over them.


the heaven-bound high schooler (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
If ANSWER /= TOPIC Then SUBROUTINE A EndIf.

inspectormustard wrote:

Free will doesn't even enter into the equation. What you're saying is a bit like telling children not to steal cookies from the cookie jar, punishing them by sending them to an orphanage, and parenting by word of mouth. Free will or not, it's the worst possible way to teach what should be the most important lesson. . .which is what? This idea of a god is like a kid that builds a huge sand castle full of sand-men and says "PRAISE ME!" Then, when he looks at the sand-men he didn't model into bowing poses, he says "I'LL SHOW YOU NOT TO DEFY ME!" and kicks mud over them.

what?  no.  not only is this totally not what were talking about here, and wrong as well. 

i used free will as an answer to the previous questions, not as an answer about how God teaches us lessons.  He gave us free will because he loves us, not because we need taught anything.  He didnt want a bunch of mindless zombies running around worshiping him.  He wants us to choose to love him, because he deserves it. 

Where does the orphanage come in?  is it earth?  havent we always been on earth?  God doesnt parent us.  He is essentially out Father, yes, but He doesnt order us around.  He laid out some ground rules.

How does He kick mud over the people who defy Him?  What has God ever done unfairly to you?  i was disappointed in this post, because it only slightly reflects on the topic previously being discussed.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:Free

inspectormustard wrote:

Free will doesn't even enter into the equation. What you're saying is a bit like telling children not to steal cookies from the cookie jar, punishing them by sending them to an orphanage, and parenting by word of mouth. Free will or not, it's the worst possible way to teach what should be the most important lesson. . .which is what? This idea of a god is like a kid that builds a huge sand castle full of sand-men and says "PRAISE ME!" Then, when he looks at the sand-men he didn't model into bowing poses, he says "I'LL SHOW YOU NOT TO DEFY ME!" and kicks mud over them.

This is interesting because it points to a classic problem in christianity. We blame God for creating those he know will not choose him. There is no answer to the great calvinism/armenianism debate except that Gods wants as many to be saved as possible. The classic argument is that God knows what you are going to do and must keep your level of belief in check with your level of action. If you truly did believe and choose not to follow, your punishment would be worse than not believing at all. He is trying to minimize your punishment given that you dont want to submit to change to be prepared for heaven. And even though heaven and hell seems binary, the experiences people will have there will be tailored to each person. Faith is a continuum. People always have to choose whether to take the next step in this life. The old joke is that heaven and hell are the same place because to be forced to serve God would be more of a hell than hell. So if there is a separate hell its actually the best place to be if you dont want to serve God. BTW I'm not arguing for infinite punishment/torture for finite sins, etc. I think Gods judgments will somehow be fair.