Can God Defy Logic?

[Colt]

View attachment 78560​

An easy example would be an omnipotent God.
Logically an omnipotent God cannot exist.

Does this mean the existence of a God cannot be logically explained?

The omnipotence of Deity does not imply the power to do the nondouble. The power lanes of gravity originate in the eternal God, so no, he cant create a force that transcends his own.

 

[Trailblazer]

Metaphorical-not having real existence but representing some truth about a situation or other subject?
People relating it to the truth of their personal experience which can be done with any God, religious text or even fictional world like Harry Potter.

You said: "Well if we can't depend on a literal interpretation of the Bible to get the correct concept of God, what can we depend on?"
I said: "A metaphorical interpretation."

I can now understand how that does not make sense. The correct answer is that we cannot depend upon the Bible to get the correct concept of God since the truth is mixed with anthropomorphic falsities, which is why people get so confused.

 

[dybmh]

That's a long story, but basically having been a member of many different beliefs, having believed in many different Gods, asking many people about the reality of their belief and mostly coming to understand how the human mind works.
I can tell you all about God. I can tell you all about several Gods having believed in many.
Why should your God have any greater reality than anyone of these Gods I believed in along with many, many other people.
I know how easy it is for a human being to convince themselves about the existence of any number of Gods.

Now why do you think your God has any greater existence than anyone of these other Gods any number of other individuals believe in?

Well, I try to avoid making the judgement. Sometimes I do. But when I reflect on it, I regret those judgements. These judgements are intellectual evaluations based on knowledge. Similar to what you've briefly said, I also have a non-belief in knowledge of God. But it sounds like where we differ is that when I hear someone talking about their knowledge of God, I don't interpret it as literal knowledge. This is because when I have the opportunity to get deeper into what that person means, and why they're saying what they're saying, it's a feeling. Not intellectual knowledge.

I still don't understand how you justify considering everyone wrong, without knowing everyone's experiences. Maybe it's a feeling? A feeling you have about people? It sort of sounds like an evaluation based on probability combined with some assumptions about how each person's mind works?

 

[Nakosis]

Well, I try to avoid making the judgement. Sometimes I do. But when I reflect on it, I regret those judgements. These judgements are intellectual evaluations based on knowledge. Similar to what you've briefly said, I also have a non-belief in knowledge of God. But it sounds like where we differ is that when I hear someone talking about their knowledge of God, I don't interpret it as literal knowledge. This is because when I have the opportunity to get deeper into what that person means, and why they're saying what they're saying, it's a feeling. Not intellectual knowledge.

I still don't understand how you justify considering everyone wrong, without knowing everyone's experiences. Maybe it's a feeling? A feeling you have about people? It sort of sounds like an evaluation based on probability combined with some assumptions about how each person's mind works?

If you could show it somehow to be otherwise.
I've been open to it for a long time.
Just got to the point where I no longer expect it to be any different.

Whereas science continues to support the physicality of the universe.

 

[Nakosis]

You said: "Well if we can't depend on a literal interpretation of the Bible to get the correct concept of God, what can we depend on?"
I said: "A metaphorical interpretation."

I can now understand how that does not make sense. The correct answer is that we cannot depend upon the Bible to get the correct concept of God since the truth is mixed with anthropomorphic falsities, which is why people get so confused.

I simply accept I cannot separate to falsities from any truth. Other folks think they can.
I thought I could at one time too but realized I was only fooling myself.

 

[Trailblazer]

I simply accept I cannot separate to falsities from any truth. Other folks think they can.
I thought I could at one time too but realized I was only fooling myself.

I believe I can separate falsities from truth through the revelation of Baha'u'llah since He unsealed the Bible and made it understandable.

 

[Copernicus]

I believe I can separate falsities from truth through the revelation of Baha'u'llah since He unsealed the Bible and made it understandable.

But how can you separate falsities from truth on that basis? It is just another religious doctrine.

(BTW, if you've never visited Haifa, I would recommend visiting the Baha'i World Centre there. Anyone can join a free guided tour of the grounds, which my wife and I went on. We could not go in the building itself, but those who are members of the religion can do so.)

 

[Trailblazer]

But how can you separate falsities from truth on that basis? It is just another religious doctrine.

The best way to explain this is to post what Daniel 12 says and I have explained it so many times I already have it saved in several different Word documents.

Daniel Chapter 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. 13 But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible has been a big problem since the very beginning. Christians disagreed as to what the Bible meant and that is why there are so many different sects of Christianity. I believe that Christians have misinterpreted much of the Bible because they did not have the key to unlock the meaning, and that is understandable because it was prophesied in Daniel 12 that the Book would be sealed up until the time of the end, meaning nobody would really understand it.

Note that Dan 12:13 says "at the end of the days.” This chapter is about what will happen at the time of the end, when Christ returns.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Baha’is believe that the 2,300 years came in 1844 and the book was unsealed by Baha’u’llah. That math is explained in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL

Unsealing the Book means we can now understand what much of the Bible means that could never be understood before by reading the Baha’i Writings.

(BTW, if you've never visited Haifa, I would recommend visiting the Baha'i World Centre there. Anyone can join a free guided tour of the grounds, which my wife and I went on. We could not go in the building itself, but those who are members of the religion can do so.)

Is there a reason why you were interested in the tour? Were you just sightseeing?

I have been a Baha'i since 1970 abut I have ever been on pilgrimage to the Baha'i World Centre. My late husband who was a Baha'i went on pilgrimage back in the 1960s, as he was 10 years older than me and had been a Baha'i a lot longer. Sadly, I will probably never go on pilgrimage unless I get remarried and marry a Baha'i because I could never travel that far alone. I know my limits.

 

[Copernicus]

Is there a reason why you were interested in the tour? Were you just sightseeing?

I have been a Baha'i since 1970 abut I have ever been on pilgrimage to the Baha'i World Centre. My late husband who was a Baha'i went on pilgrimage back in the 1960s, as he was 10 years older than me and had been a Baha'i a lot longer. Sadly, I will probably never go on pilgrimage unless I get remarried and marry a Baha'i because I could never travel that far alone. I know my limits.

We took a cruise that stopped there and had most of the day to wander around Haifa. The tour was one of the free things suggested in a guide book, and we really enjoyed it. The guide was not actually Baha'i herself, but she was employed by the Centre and gave us a lot of information on the religion. I'd recommend it to anyone who visits Haifa.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was thinking of Abbott's Flatland and imagining a polygon asking a line segment:

{ P } Can God create a figure too tall to look over?​

To which the line segment responded:

{ L } Tall?​

 

[dybmh]

If you could show it somehow to be otherwise.
I've been open to it for a long time.
Just got to the point where I no longer expect it to be any different.

Whereas science continues to support the physicality of the universe.

My question was not about god, it was about people. Why do you dis-believe people? All people? I understand the non-belief in god. I don't understand why it's more pronounced when people are considered?

Here, let me quote it again.

Ok, my life experience lead me to non-belief in God, not disbelief.
What I disbelieve is that any human knows anything about God despite many claims otherwise.

You made a distinction between non-belief and dis-belief. I don't understand that and I would appreciate knowing more about that distinction. Why is it applied globally to all humans? Why is the lack of belief more certain with humans? ( hopefully I'm understanding the difference between non- and dis- )

 

[Nakosis]

My question was not about god, it was about people. Why do you dis-believe people? All people? I understand the non-belief in god. I don't understand why it's more pronounced when people are considered?

Here, let me quote it again.

You made a distinction between non-belief and dis-belief. I don't understand that and I would appreciate knowing more about that distinction. Why is it applied globally to all humans? Why is the lack of belief more certain with humans? ( hopefully I'm understanding the difference between non- and dis- )

Ok well I'll restate it. If you or anyone can show some quantifiable reason why I should believe they know anything about God, I'll listen.
So far no one has provided any reason for me to believe they know anything about God.

 

[dybmh]

Ok well I'll restate it. If you or anyone can show some quantifiable reason why I should believe they know anything about God, I'll listen.

That sounds like non-belief, which would be equivilant to your non-belief in God. This all sounds like very typical rational atheism. I guess my confusion is still with the distinction between dis-belief and non-belief. And, it could be MY issue, my minsunderstanding.

I'd like to undertand the distinction between what you have described as non-belief in God/god/gods, and the dis-belief in ANY person's knowledge of God/god/gods?

Are both coming from "I have no reason(s) to believe... "? Or is there something else which defines the non-belief compared to the dis-belief.

Maybe breaking this into multiple questions will help me:

1) Dis-belief, if I understand, is the more certain/confident/probable than the non-belief, and, because of this, the burden to overcome this is steeper than non-belief? Dis-belief > Non-belief?

2) If so, what has developed the steeper burden to overcome the lack of belief in ANY human's knowledge?

3) Also if I understand #1 correctly, and you are describing the dis-belief as "I don't have any reason(s) ..." How would you describe the non-belief? Would it be something like "I don't have any reason(s), but ..."?

Do you see where I am confused?

So far no one has provided any reason for me to believe they know anything about God.

Sure, everything at this point would/should be in the form of: "This is my god concept, and it's not illogical, and I believe it because..."

It's just a concept. And perhaps there's a valuable discussion about the logic/illogic and a valuable discussion of those reasons whether or not they have merit.

But I don't think there's any good way to demonstrate that the god concept is correct, that the individual's knowledge of god is correct.

Any test could be a false positive, and any failure could be a false negative. Maybe-maybe there's a test for divinity. But I think that's outside the scope of knowledge about God/god/gods.

 

[Nakosis]

That sounds like non-belief, which would be equivilant to your non-belief in God. This all sounds like very typical rational atheism. I guess my confusion is still with the distinction between dis-belief and non-belief. And, it could be MY issue, my minsunderstanding.

I'd like to undertand the distinction between what you have described as non-belief in God/god/gods, and the dis-belief in ANY person's knowledge of God/god/gods?

Are both coming from "I have no reason(s) to believe... "? Or is there something else which defines the non-belief compared to the dis-belief.

Maybe breaking this into multiple questions will help me:

1) Dis-belief, if I understand, is the more certain/confident/probable than the non-belief, and, because of this, the burden to overcome this is steeper than non-belief? Dis-belief > Non-belief?

2) If so, what has developed the steeper burden to overcome the lack of belief in ANY human's knowledge?

3) Also if I understand #1 correctly, and you are describing the dis-belief as "I don't have any reason(s) ..." How would you describe the non-belief? Would it be something like "I don't have any reason(s), but ..."?

Do you see where I am confused?



Sure, everything at this point would/should be in the form of: "This is my god concept, and it's not illogical, and I believe it because..."

It's just a concept. And perhaps there's a valuable discussion about the logic/illogic and a valuable discussion of those reasons whether or not they have merit.

But I don't think there's any good way to demonstrate that the god concept is correct, that the individual's knowledge of god is correct.

Any test could be a false positive, and any failure could be a false negative. Maybe-maybe there's a test for divinity. But I think that's outside the scope of knowledge about God/god/gods.

It means I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a God.
A God could very well exist.
However I see no reason to trust any of the claims people make about God.
A lot of claims made by Christians aren't even supported by the Bible. Not that I see the Bible as having any authority either.
Just another set of folks making claims about a God they have no evidence for.

If there is a God I simply accept that this entity is unknowable and since God is unknowable there are no beliefs about God that can be know to be true. Therefore one should not have any beliefs about God because you cannot know whether they are correct.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It means I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a God.
A God could very well exist.
However I see no reason to trust any of the claims people make about God.
A lot of claims made by Christians aren't even supported by the Bible. Not that I see the Bible as having any authority either.
Just another set of folks making claims about a God they have no evidence for.

If there is a God I simply accept that this entity is unknowable and since God is unknowable there are no beliefs about God that can be know to be true. Therefore one should not have any beliefs about God because you cannot know whether they are correct.

The problem is this. If you by truth in effect mean objective evidence as the only standard for claims, then you have also excluded in effect good/bad and useful/useless.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is this. If you by truth in effect mean objective evidence as the only standard for claims, then you have also excluded in effect good/bad and useful/useless.

Fair enough, lies and false claims can be useful to certain people.

 

[dybmh]

It means I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a God.
A God could very well exist.
However I see no reason to trust any of the claims people make about God.
A lot of claims made by Christians aren't even supported by the Bible. Not that I see the Bible as having any authority either.
Just another set of folks making claims about a God they have no evidence for.

If there is a God I simply accept that this entity is unknowable and since God is unknowable there are no beliefs about God that can be know to be true. Therefore one should not have any beliefs about God because you cannot know whether they are correct.

I suppose I kind of understand. Maybe. Thank you.

Here's the thing, some of these things people say about god could be correct, without a person "knowing" it. For example, I say God is absolutley omnipotent. I don't know it. But that's my claim. Most of the other theists in this thread seem to be saying, No, god is not absolutely omniponent. If God exists, One of us is going to right. It's either one or the other.

And this can be expanded to all god concepts, and all god beliefs. At a certain point, law of averages, someone out there is going to have some correct beliefs about God/god/gods, if God/god/gods exists. And so, isn't it likely that if God/god/gods exist, then it's likely at least one person knows something true about God/god/gods. About. Not direct intimate knowledge. But knowledge about God/god/gods.

This is a logical chain. If God/god/gods exist, and there's a lot of god concepts, and some of these concepts are binary mutually exclusive properties, and there's many many people with these god concepts, then someone MUST have at least one correct piece of knowledge about God/god/gods. The weak point is at the beginning. The rest of the chain is solid. It all goes back to the belief or lack of belief in God/god/gods.

That's why I don't understand the distinction between the non-belief in God/god/gods, and the more pronounced dis-belief in people's knowledge about God/god/gods. Logically they should be the same.

No? If not why not?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suppose I kind of understand. Maybe. Thank you.

Here's the thing, some of these things people say about god could be correct, without a person "knowing" it. For example, I say God is absolutley omnipotent. I don't know it. But that's my claim. Most of the other theists in this thread seem to be saying, No, god is not absolutely omniponent. If God exists, One of us is going to right. It's either one or the other.

And this can be expanded to all god concepts, and all god beliefs. At a certain point, law of averages, someone out there is going to have some correct beliefs about God/god/gods, if God/god/gods exists. And so, isn't it likely that if God/god/gods exist, then it's likely at least one person knows something true about God/god/gods. About. Not direct intimate knowledge. But knowledge about God/god/gods.

This is a logical chain. If God/god/gods exist, and there's a lot of god concepts, and some of these concepts are binary mutually exclusive properties, and there's many many people with these god concepts, then someone MUST have at least one correct piece of knowledge about God/god/gods. The weak point is at the beginning. The rest of the chain is solid. It all goes back to the belief or lack of belief in God/god/gods.

That's why I don't understand the distinction between the non-belief in God/god/gods, and the more pronounced dis-belief in people's knowledge about God/god/gods. Logically they should be the same.

No? If not why not?

No, not knowledge in the classical sense of justified true belief. Rather such a person just happen to have the belief part of a justified true belief, but not the rest.

 

[dybmh]

No, not knowledge in the classical sense of justified true belief. Rather such a person just happen to have the belief part of a justified true belief, but not the rest.

Not so fast. It could be true and It could be justified.

 

[Nakosis]

I suppose I kind of understand. Maybe. Thank you.

Here's the thing, some of these things people say about god could be correct, without a person "knowing" it. For example, I say God is absolutley omnipotent. I don't know it. But that's my claim. Most of the other theists in this thread seem to be saying, No, god is not absolutely omniponent. If God exists, One of us is going to right. It's either one or the other.

I have believed a lot of things since whenever I started believing stuff. Not everything I believed in my many years of believing things could be tested by those that could I found out later I was wrong. Maybe 90%. So 10%, and that's being generous, my beliefs were right. Usually because I based it as least partially of information and evidence I was somehow able to verify. So as far as what you believe to be true, I don't see were we are justified in placing much faith in.

And this can be expanded to all god concepts, and all god beliefs. At a certain point, law of averages, someone out there is going to have some correct beliefs about God/god/gods, if God/god/gods exists. And so, isn't it likely that if God/god/gods exist, then it's likely at least one person knows something true about God/god/gods. About. Not direct intimate knowledge. But knowledge about God/god/gods.

Or all of them could be 100% wrong. What we humans know about the universe is very limited. We don't have the knowledge to make any educated guess. From this position, one guess/belief about God is as good or bad as any other guess. Reality or whatever the truth is could be something that no human has ever imagined before. Because of our limited understanding of the universe, we may not even be capable of imaging what the actual "truth" is. To me I see it like being blind in the middle of the universe and trying to hit a spec of dust a billion light years away with a bow and arrow.

This is a logical chain. If God/god/gods exist, and there's a lot of god concepts, and some of these concepts are binary mutually exclusive properties, and there's many many people with these god concepts, then someone MUST have at least one correct piece of knowledge about God/god/gods. The weak point is at the beginning. The rest of the chain is solid. It all goes back to the belief or lack of belief in God/god/gods.

That's why I don't understand the distinction between the non-belief in God/god/gods, and the more pronounced dis-belief in people's knowledge about God/god/gods. Logically they should be the same.

No? If not why not?

For reasons stated above, no one need necessarily have actual knowledge about God. Far more likely that no one, regardless of how many people have tried shooting at it have been able to hit that dust spec with no knowledge of which of an infinite number of directions to aim in nor how far away it actually is.

Perhaps a bow and arrow isn't even the right tool to make the attempt. IMO, we have to start with what we know we can verify to the best of our ability to verify and build on that. Not try to hit a target at some unknown direction/distance away with tools we don't is even capable of hitting it.

However, let me put it a different way.
I can tell you all you need to know about God. I've have had several conversation with God. God has given me visions to explain reality to me. I even know how something came from nothing. I asked God to show me and they did.

While I've no reason to intentionally lie to you as I don't care whether you believe me or not.
Why should you believe anything I tell you?