A genuine, non-yelling, kind and good-natured discussion of God

Defender
Theist
Defender's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2012-07-20
User is offlineOffline
A genuine, non-yelling, kind and good-natured discussion of God

Hi everyone! I'm new, and have noticed a distinct lack of Christian voice here, particularly an educated voice. I'm not that educated, but I love philosophy and logic, so I'll give it a go!

I'm not attempting to preach or convert anyone - let me make that perfectly clear. Nor do I believe its possible to reason someone into a relationship with God. I hate "religion", as it cheapens what I believe into some political or social force. I do however, believe there is a rational defense for the existence of a god.

I have been reading on this site for for weeks now, and it appears very genuine in its goal for rational exploration. Let us reason then! I am open and willing to have a rational, reasonable, discussion of deep topics. I am not going to respond to unkind, close-minded rantings or unwarranted personal attacks.

The goal of this forum is to exercise minds (mine more than any) and to get people to understand better why they believe what they do. I am not trying to "win converts" like some kind of sick game.

My next post will be soon, and much longer; "Why I believe God exists."


Defender
Theist
Defender's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2012-07-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  Forgive me for

cj wrote:

 

Forgive me for not responding to your entire post as you were responding to someone else.  This part I have to comment on.

Logic is not unchanging.  You may verify this by viewing some of the pages at Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia - http://plato.stanford.edu/  There you will note that some philosophers of previous ages are no longer believed to have valid arguments.  I particularly refer to the section on the Ontological Argument for god.  Please note the numerous criticisms of this argument and the numerous attempts at revision of said argument.

The scientific method has not changed in over a century.  Science is a process, not a fact.  And the process is pretty stable as people have worked it out to provide the most accurate, testable, verifiable, and repeatable experimentation methods.  It is true that theories change as facts are discovered through experimentation.  That does NOT mean logic rules over science, it means that we learn and we grow in knowledge.  Logic did not give you the computer to type on or the internet to browse.  Logic did not give you potable drinking water or sewer systems.  I would rather have the technology that the scientific method has brought us rather than some musty philosophy.

I give you David Hume, on metaphysics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics wrote:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

 

Hi cj! I'm sorry for not responding to you, I was pretty focused on Ktulu. I did read the answer you gave on the other forum, but I still dont understand some things. I've touched on them briefly with Ktulu.

You say that logic is not unchanging, yet the scientific method, which is based on logical inferences, is not. I don't see how you can have one without the other. Logic may not have given me water, but the pipes were certainly designed on a logical set of inferences - this pipe must lead to the next one, this one must be split in order to supply these rooms, etc. Logically, certain components are necessary in this computer. You cannot have a steel wire in place of a copper one and expect to have the same power flowing through. Logic, coupled with scientific exploration, creates technology and innovations. The two are inseparable.

Logic is unchanging, but our understanding and exploration of it are changing and relative. This is true of science as well.  

And I'm sorry for David Hume, for his quote must then, according to his definition, be put to flames.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote:Old Seer

Defender wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

You point to logic. It is apparent that biblical creation cannot happen in the world of physics. Material doesn't work that way. What's considered a material construction in biblical creation is illogical. If- there are only two things existing in the universe, material and spiritual then logic would dictate that if it doesn't work on a material basis, then it has to be a model of something spiritual.  Smiling

If material doesn't work that way, then how did it come into existence at all? Logically, matter must have been created somehow - by something. Even if a god wasnt involved, then by your definition it must have been spiritually created.

Why are you insistent on a who being the cause? If you can accept that a hurricane does not need an ocean god to cause or allow it why would the universe or evolution need a who either?

I'll tell you why, not that you will accept it. "Gods/deities/super natural" are merely the human projections(anthropomorphism) of human qualities on the world around them. They are "Dawkins moth" in the God Delusion, which I would recommend you read, along with "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger.

 

Xenophanes "If horses had gods, they would look like horses".

 

The unknowns of what came before the big bang science is working on, but whatever it is does not need a cognition anymore than a hurricane can think or needs to be invented.

Claims of non material beings are nothing but gap answers. They always have been. It was the case when the Egyptians looked up at the sun and threw in the gap that it was a thinking god. It is the same when Hindus or Muslims or you do it. Humans have always made up gods and you are no different.

 

Cognition is a emergent property of evolution, it is not magical and does not need a god to occur.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote: Hi cj! I'm

Defender wrote:

Hi cj! I'm sorry for not responding to you, I was pretty focused on Ktulu. I did read the answer you gave on the other forum, but I still dont understand some things. I've touched on them briefly with Ktulu.

You say that logic is not unchanging, yet the scientific method, which is based on logical inferences, is not. I don't see how you can have one without the other. Logic may not have given me water, but the pipes were certainly designed on a logical set of inferences - this pipe must lead to the next one, this one must be split in order to supply these rooms, etc. Logically, certain components are necessary in this computer. You cannot have a steel wire in place of a copper one and expect to have the same power flowing through. Logic, coupled with scientific exploration, creates technology and innovations. The two are inseparable.

Logic is unchanging, but our understanding and exploration of it are changing and relative. This is true of science as well.  

And I'm sorry for David Hume, for his quote must then, according to his definition, be put to flames.

 

Hm, let me sort the double negatives a little - the rules of logic do change, and new methods of applying logic are developed.  I recently had a class on discrete logic for computer science majors.  We studied various ways of determining if logical statements were verifiable.  And there are new methods and different means of analysis that were not available to Aristotle or Aquinas or Hume.  Please do spend some time on the Stanford web site.

The scientific method has been pretty stable for - I said over 100 years, but it is probably closer to 50.  Anyway, my point was that science is a process, not a particular theory.  Theories change and that is a good thing.  Without those changes, we would still be hunting with fire hardened spears. 

The examples you gave of pipes and wires is not logical - the principles behind pipes and wires are scientific and pragmatic.  Water flows downhill because of gravity.  Logic has nothing to do with this.  If you want water to go uphill, you must pressurize it.  Logic has nothing to do with this.  Copper wire conducts electricity better than steel because of the inherent properties of copper, logic has nothing to do with this. 

Come to think of it, I answered a similar question in an essay last term -

Quote:

Scientific thinking is to become aware of your biases and to avail yourself of the tools of the scientific method to try to overcome them.

Critical thinking is a set of skills for evaluating all claims in an open-minded and careful fashion.

You could say that critical thinking skills are used to help you to become aware of your biases and to decide which tools of the scientific method to apply in this instance. And therefore, they are different.

You could say that scientific thinking is the set of critical thinking skills that allows you to evaluate all claims. And therefore, they are the same.

 

Critical thinking is NOT logic, it is the application of logic to one's own thinking.  Logic is one of a set of tools you may use to evaluate scientific hypothesis.  They are separable because you can apply the scientific method without using logic.  Though you are correct in that if you were to do that your experimental results would likely be useless.

And I am reasonably certain Hume was aware of the irony.

 

FYI - the regulars on the board know, you may as well know, too.  I really am an older woman, like my avatar, Maxine.  I am 61, have been unemployed for years, have a BS in Systems Engineering, have returned to school at first majoring in Computer Science.  I have over 20 experience as IT support.  I decided I truly hate IT support, and have changed my major to psychology with some philosophy thrown in.  I am only interested in philosophy from the view point of "why people believe weird things" and how to prevent that in myself.  I am interested in social psychology and how we are influenced by our social interactions - leading to believing in weird things because everyone else seems to, so it must be right.  Logical fallacies - that we are all prone to, including me and my professors - have gotten humans in some heck of messes at one time or another.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
@DefenderPlease define your

@Defender

Please define your concept of God. This was requested at the beginning, and until you do so, the lack of definition is harming the debate.

Also, I would like you to respond to the question of why, even if your 1st argument was true, would you have any reason to believe in a specific God or God conccept? The more specific about a God you get the more logical problems crop up.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones

ThunderJones wrote:

@Defender

Please define your concept of God. This was requested at the beginning, and until you do so, the lack of definition is harming the debate.

Also, I would like you to respond to the question of why, even if your 1st argument was true, would you have any reason to believe in a specific God or God conccept? The more specific about a God you get the more logical problems crop up.

I would have to agree. Thus far, the thread has touched upon the premise of first cause and such, but I believe that Defender's definition of god is supposed to come in a later thread.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Defender wrote:Ah, I see

Defender wrote:

Ah, I see where you are coming from. However, theoretical science is made from logical inferrences based on observation. Logic and science are certainly not equal, but they most certainly are related - you cannot trust one without the other. And I realize now that I have no place here, where logic is thrown under the bus. How can we be rational and illogical at the same time? If logic is subjective, wont that make science just as subjective? You have to trust something, Ktulu.

Science is a way to explain nature by using critical thinking.  It is a pragmatic way of understanding reality.  Logic is an idealized system that humans have agreed upon.  We need to define ABSOLUTE in this context. 

"Oxford Dictionary Definition: Absolute
noun
Philosophy
a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things."

Logic exists because humans created such a system, and did not exist before humans, and will not exist after humans.  It is then relative to an observer (humans), therefore it is not absolute, but subjective. 

Think of it this way, let's assume that an alien spontaneously develops intelligence, it has no concept of logic or science and sees one round rock roll down a hill.  He attempt to explain what he/she/it is seeing, and that my friend is science.  He may eventually develop systems such as mathematics, logic and other system that are complementary and may be as ours.  For example he may have 10 fingers and design a system where 2+2=4 (base 10) or he may have 3 appendages and 2+2=11 (base 3).  Do you understand the difference and the subjectivity of such systems?

Defender wrote:

If you think a "concept" like time is misunderstood, then why go into quantum mechanics at all? If time is misunderstood, then quantum mechanic is just as poorly understood. You cannot logically make these statements. But then you dont believe in logic's ability, so this is moot.

I didn't say it was misunderstood, I said it was poorly understood.  Meaning that us, as humans, know fundamentally very little about time.  We don't know why the arrow of time is the way it is, we can only define it as a relative sequence of events.  Look up time in wikipedia when you have a chance, it's a good starting point.  The more you think about it, the more you realize how poor our understanding is.  I never said I don't believe in logic's ability, I just have a realistic view of what logic is, and more importantly, what it is not.  We use logic to describe reality within a PRE-SET subjective system.  We cannot use logic to create things into existence, or prove things into existence.  Logic deals with concepts, it has nothing to do with reality. 

Defender wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
 

I've presented quantum foam as a possible explanation, we're not at the point where my beliefs matter.  Ok, so the fabric of space-time is eternal... take your pick.  Regardless of how poor an explanation it is, it is infinitely more plausible then an undefined concept such as god.

Of course your beliefs matter - how else can I discuss with you? Your beliefs are what drives your arguments. So if you dont believe x, I can't logically argue using x.

 And I believe I have stated this before, but I shall do so in a different way. The universe (Space, Time, matter, force, energy, etc.) had a starting point. I dont believe I can be clearer. Space time, at least according to my premises, isn't eternal. And unless you can prove otherwise, it makes sense too.

And you're right - with this one argument I've so poorly presented, the idea of God hasn't blipped into the radar screen. It could very well have been the Great Green Arkelseizure.

To everyone: Its becoming clear that logic has little sway here. Please, can someone help me with the difference between rationality and logic? What are their relation, or lack thereof?

I just meant that we're not at the that point YET.  Of course my beliefs matter, but we're at the point where we're challenging your beliefs.  You haven't asked me what mine are, and the only reason I volunteered quantum foam is to make a point, not necessarily because I believe that to be the answer, 100%.  

Don't get discouraged , I respect the fact that you your attempting rational discussion.  If I come across as confrontational, it is only because I dislike extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof.  I dislike religion because it is irrational.  I LOVE inquiry, on the other hand.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
So far

Defender wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

stand by for a cosmological/anthropic/morality omelette, perhaps with a side order of empiricism's 'inability' to 'prove' itself empirically. I hear the inevitable train of motivated reasoning whistling in the distance. 

 

 

Sorry in advance, but I hear the echoing sound of a closed mind...

What other kind of reasoning is there besides motivated? Whether good, bad, or indifferent, everyones got a motive for listening (or not) to reason...

And I'll take my omlette over nothingness anyday.

 

 

 

Your arguments support my earlier suggestion. We tend to disagree with the idea that at the point empiricism runs out of puff - pre-bang or on the other side of the Hubble Constant - empiricism stops working entirely and philosophy takes flight. You'll need to work hard to convince me that the hypotheses of neo-Platonism do not ultimately make objective claims about the nature of the fundamentals of the universe and thus need to be supported by objective proofs. Rather than having closed minds Defender, we generally have an aversion to assertions that cannot be supported by testable explanations. To wit, prove to us that nothing has ever existed...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There's no doubt

Defender wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

You point to logic. It is apparent that biblical creation cannot happen in the world of physics. Material doesn't work that way. What's considered a material construction in biblical creation is illogical. If- there are only two things existing in the universe, material and spiritual then logic would dictate that if it doesn't work on a material basis, then it has to be a model of something spiritual.  Smiling

If material doesn't work that way, then how did it come into existence at all? Logically, matter must have been created somehow - by something. Even if a god wasnt involved, then by your definition it must have been spiritually created.

 

that first cause and pre-bang are compelling mysteries but it's impossible to prove that they were formed by an undefined god, with undefinable powers on the basis of an undefinable 'supernatural' template that somehow is able to influence the physics of the material universe in an undefined way. It's not as if all of us don't wrestle with same questions you struggle with Defender, it's just that at the point coherent data stops being available to us we maintain that all further propositions are unsupported hypotheses. We grant primacy to a system of knowing that does not claim ownership of ultimate knowledge and is always open to being re-made on the basis of new data. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
So far...

 so far so kalam. 

 I think we can all agree that we prefer working within a logical framework,  so let's underscore that and move on. The problem you have still to sort out, Defender is that even if we accept your first cause argument, you havent defined what that first cause is.  If you say god, then the next thing you have to do is relate that to your religion, otherwise we might all just swap your First cause god with 'physics'.  I'd like to move on to this stage of the discussion if that's ok..  Plenty of threads on The cosmological argument and kalam already.  Very interested to hear how you present this,  thanks. 

 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Science & Logic

Defender wrote:
Unobservable states are untestable, and therefore cannot be proven scientifically. And as for the relationship between Science and Logic, they are not equal - Logic rules over science. Scientific ideas change, logic does not. Logic is a philosophical discipline, not a scientific one. But the fact is, that logic precedes, and supercedes science. Logic is not tied to a physical entity like science, and will apply even when the physical is not present.
The scientific method supersedes and "rules over" logic. When we only had logic that is all that could be used. But the scientific method rooted out our logical biases. We are not entirely rational as is easily demonstrated. Hawking's in his books has pointed out how Newton and Einstein became uncomfortable with their own scientific theories. It counteracted their views on either absolute Time or absolute Space. So, even the best minds are subject to bias. That is why the scientific method is probably the best humanity will ever come up with. When the scientific method and logic disagree I happily go with the former. Logic really has no boundaries and limited consensus. But a repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable theory can always be challenged and in time consensus forms.

One other thing, I don't believe the "Big Bang" is scientific fact but on the edge of human knowledge. It is based on a few facts such as the expanding universe, but not only is it a singularity, foreign to anything we see today, but also we are limited by the speed of light to only see so far back in time. It was only 100 years ago we realized that there were other galaxies beyond our own. We like the ancients have still have a limited view. They could see the dome above us. With scientific advancements we can only see things that have reached us by the speed of light. It is possible we are still just looking at a dome but only out just so far. I think the "Big Bang" isn't solid enough to place lots of confidence in it or try to finagle it into a proof for God.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones

ThunderJones wrote:

@Defender

Please define your concept of God. This was requested at the beginning, and until you do so, the lack of definition is harming the debate.

Also, I would like you to respond to the question of why, even if your 1st argument was true, would you have any reason to believe in a specific God or God conccept? The more specific about a God you get the more logical problems crop up.

My gut tells me not to rush this. Why press the debate? If the foundation is not solid then defining a god becomes unnecessary. As you know the leap from "there is a god" to "this is THE god" is a very large gap. There are a number of other theist who you can argue with on that.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

@Defender

Please define your concept of God. This was requested at the beginning, and until you do so, the lack of definition is harming the debate.

Also, I would like you to respond to the question of why, even if your 1st argument was true, would you have any reason to believe in a specific God or God conccept? The more specific about a God you get the more logical problems crop up.

My gut tells me not to rush this. Why press the debate? If the foundation is not solid then defining a god becomes unnecessary. As you know the leap from "there is a god" to "this is THE god" is a very large gap. There are a number of other theist who you can argue with on that.

Hey, you guys are the main ones taking part in this, so handle it however you want. I am just curious as to Defender's more specific beliefs.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

@Defender

Please define your concept of God. This was requested at the beginning, and until you do so, the lack of definition is harming the debate.

Also, I would like you to respond to the question of why, even if your 1st argument was true, would you have any reason to believe in a specific God or God conccept? The more specific about a God you get the more logical problems crop up.

My gut tells me not to rush this. Why press the debate? If the foundation is not solid then defining a god becomes unnecessary. As you know the leap from "there is a god" to "this is THE god" is a very large gap. There are a number of other theist who you can argue with on that.

I just want to be clear on this.  I use logic in everything that i do, I just want to make sure that Defender is not a believer simply because logic tells him to believe.  In other words, logic would also shred the argument to pieces.  Logic, like all other man designed systems, is tautological.  If you define something as being possible within a system, and then use the system's predefined laws to prove it, one shouldn't be surprised of the outcome.  Consider mathematics.  You have a base 10 system telling you that 2+2=4.  It would seem as an absolute until you consider what you are actually saying.  You are saying that given a base of 10 symbols 0-9. when putting two and two together you get four.  The same could not be said for a base 3.  4 doesn't exist in base 3. It goes from 0-2.  2+2=11 (read as 1 and 1, meaning one 3 and one 1).

Point is, a system can only prove that within it's own frame of reference something is true.  All systems are subjective because they are man made constructs.  Simply because a system produces a certain truth, it does nothing to reality.  Proving that god is possible logically, doesn't mean that god exists.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nicely put

Ktulu wrote:

ex-minister wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

@Defender

Please define your concept of God. This was requested at the beginning, and until you do so, the lack of definition is harming the debate.

Also, I would like you to respond to the question of why, even if your 1st argument was true, would you have any reason to believe in a specific God or God conccept? The more specific about a God you get the more logical problems crop up.

My gut tells me not to rush this. Why press the debate? If the foundation is not solid then defining a god becomes unnecessary. As you know the leap from "there is a god" to "this is THE god" is a very large gap. There are a number of other theist who you can argue with on that.

I just want to be clear on this.  I use logic in everything that i do, I just want to make sure that Defender is not a believer simply because logic tells him to believe.  In other words, logic would also shred the argument to pieces.  Logic, like all other man designed systems, is tautological.  If you define something as being possible within a system, and then use the system's predefined laws to prove it, one shouldn't be surprised of the outcome.  Consider mathematics.  You have a base 10 system telling you that 2+2=4.  It would seem as an absolute until you consider what you are actually saying.  You are saying that given a base of 10 symbols 0-9. when putting two and two together you get four.  The same could not be said for a base 3.  4 doesn't exist in base 3. It goes from 0-2.  2+2=11 (read as 1 and 1, meaning one 3 and one 1).

Point is, a system can only prove that within it's own frame of reference something is true.  All systems are subjective because they are man made constructs.  Simply because a system produces a certain truth, it does nothing to reality.  Proving that god is possible logically, doesn't mean that god exists.  

 

It's easy to forget from our perspective that the systems, templates and laws we consider inviolate universal decrees are expressions of human brains. Still, like TJ I wouldn't mind to get a bit more of a feel for the nature of Defender's theism. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey KTULA

Hey,

I would love to. The absolute maxim that is said there is no absolutes, absolutely

Do you deny your own motto? Or are there probably no absolutes all of a sudden?
----------------
Some content in this post was deleted for slinging ad hominems in the kill 'em with kindness forum, where such behaviour is not tolerated.
~Vastet

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey,

I would love to. The absolute maxim that is said there is no absolutes, absolutely

Do you deny your own motto? Or are there probably no absolutes all of a sudden? lol

How convenient KTULA.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Let's go Jean, I made a new thread, please fill in the blanks so we can continue the argument without douche-jacking this thread.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey KTULA

----------------
Some content in this post was deleted for slinging ad hominems in the kill 'em with kindness forum, where such behaviour is not tolerated.
~Vastet

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 320
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:  If you define

Ktulu wrote:

  If you define something as being possible within a system, and then use the system's predefined laws to prove it, one shouldn't be surprised of the outcome.  Consider mathematics.  You have a base 10 system telling you that 2+2=4.  It would seem as an absolute until you consider what you are actually saying.  You are saying that given a base of 10 symbols 0-9. when putting two and two together you get four.  The same could not be said for a base 3.  4 doesn't exist in base 3. It goes from 0-2.  2+2=11 (read as 1 and 1, meaning one 3 and one 1).

Point is, a system can only prove that within it's own frame of reference something is true.  All systems are subjective because they are man made constructs.  Simply because a system produces a certain truth, it does nothing to reality.  Proving that god is possible logically, doesn't mean that god exists.  

 

I like this a lot. If we were to find an isolated culture who did have a such a unique system of counting, it's really in no way inferior, and fully capable of doing what our system does. But their system could arrive at the same conclusions by slightly different means. What this would do, though, is strengthen the legitimacy of the conclusions.

Your last point is spot on too. Proving that god is possible logically is easy. Any argument beyond that is greatly flawed. If your god is actually provable, your god would have to be detectable. If you say he's undetectable, then he is indeed unprovable. If you say he is detectable, you willingly accept the burden of proof, after which point you must concede that you can't back it up. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This is the kill 'em with

This is the kill 'em with kindness forum. If you cannot post without insulting people, then don't post here at all. Jean.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1513
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re:: Jean Jean Jean

 Jean Chauvin  .. please never leave . . .


vBlueSki
atheist
vBlueSki's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-12-10
User is offlineOffline
Hello sir!

To be honest, I could never be a Christian because I tend to think more optimistically hahaha. Like it'd be hard for me to live this life thinking so many people are going to hell. And I don't think I'd like eternal paradise. I see nothing wrong in just dying. It's far less complicated and makes you want to enjoy life here as much as you can.

Eternity wouldn't be much of an experience.