Could God Exist, And Not Exist Too?

[beenherebeforeagain]

I root for no one. I take issue with flawed arguments for or against the idea. If an "strong-atheist" were to make a case I had issues with I would tear it apart just as quickly as I would for a theist. I take the position that there is no reason to believe but there is also no reason to believe in the non-existence of God. Neither has provided logical proof nor evidence.

I was asking about hockey.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I take the position that there is no reason to believe but there is also no reason to believe in the non-existence of God. Neither has provided logical proof nor evidence.

Well, I quite agree with you there. No matter which system of logic you use.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Logic is basic principles and axioms. ... Accept logic as a binding axioms to have a discussion regarding the abstract concept. The last would be to actually discuss what tool we have and proposing a new set of tools. If one can only criticize the existing set without proposing a new set they must accept there is no basis in support of or for a discussion of the concept.

Like I have said before many like to point of issues with logic then propose the view same logic they take issues with as the "new method".

Yes, logic, whether classical or non-classical, is based on principles and axioms--all of which are assumptions. The fact that there can be multiple logics, with different assumptions, and they sometimes come to similar, and sometimes dissimilar but still useful conclusions, suggests that the axioms we adopt, as well as the information and concepts we consider using those systems of logic are not binding on reality. Logic is a useful tool, but it is not reality--it is still a human concept, created by humans, to help us do certain things. Logic allows us to build what seem to be fairly accurate maps of what seems to be material reality. It also helps us reason among our many, many concepts, none of which are reality but maps of reality.

The "New Method" I am proposing is to stop thinking that logic and our concepts are reality. They are not reality, but both can be useful tools in understanding reality. Can be. When we can find evidence to work with. And historically in the sciences, as well as in law and debate, sometimes the way past a seemingly unsolvable problem is to stop trying to solve it the way we have been and to try something different. I get that you won't accept what I am proposing, because apparently to you, every form of logic collapses down to binary logic and is therefore identical to it, so no need to change the way we use logic. I'm at least willing to entertain the possibility that looking at things differently might actually be useful.

There is a very fundamental difference in where we begin our discussions: for you, I would say, the assumption is that classical logic is inviolable, even that it is an integral part of reality. I on the other hand doubt that humans can ever know for sure whether or not any assumptions we make are true or not. Pragmatically, we can try things out, find out what works here and now for us, but the assumption of universal--and perhaps beyond--application? It may be a good place to begin, but it's still just another assumption. Our basic assumptions are so different, that even though we agree that there is no reliable evidence or argument on the existence of the Monotheistic God either way, that we cannot agree on a way forward.

So, I'm done. Seriously, thank you for the great discussion. Maybe we'll discuss some other things sometime.

 

[JosephThomas]

God's non existence is called Hell. It exists outside God. You can let go of God and go there when you die. You must have an actual love of God to maintain a connection with him, or when you die, your desire to connect with something God will not offer causes an automatic disconnection.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhh yes.....cognition of the non being existence of after life.
One can't get to that point without dying,
and for sure, one can't get back.
Cognition after death is a dream of theists,
not a practicality.
~
'mud

 

[Shad]

Yes, logic, whether classical or non-classical, is based on principles and axioms--all of which are assumptions. The fact that there can be multiple logics, with different assumptions, and they sometimes come to similar, and sometimes dissimilar but still useful conclusions, suggests that the axioms we adopt, as well as the information and concepts we consider using those systems of logic are not binding on reality. Logic is a useful tool, but it is not reality--it is still a human concept, created by humans, to help us do certain things. Logic allows us to build what seem to be fairly accurate maps of what seems to be material reality. It also helps us reason among our many, many concepts, none of which are reality but maps of reality.

Well warranted and valid assumptions which have work for millennia. Many of these axioms are binding on reality since observations as the basis for the axioms is from reality.

The "New Method" I am proposing is to stop thinking that logic and our concepts are reality. They are not reality, but both can be useful tools in understanding reality. Can be. When we can find evidence to work with. And historically in the sciences, as well as in law and debate, sometimes the way past a seemingly unsolvable problem is to stop trying to solve it the way we have been and to try something different. I get that you won't accept what I am proposing, because apparently to you, every form of logic collapses down to binary logic and is therefore identical to it, so no need to change the way we use logic. I'm at least willing to entertain the possibility that looking at things differently might actually be useful.

So your "new method" is to remove the old method and substitute it with.... nothing... Excellent plan... This allows delusion and wishful thinking as valid. That is all your "new method" is, an open floodgate in which one can propose anything while removing the method to expose the ideas as invalid and/or unsound. You can entertain whatever you wish. However you have not provided any method to evaluate an idea in order to find out if it is correct or not. Beside your method is not a method since you state no principles of methodology. The one premise you put forward is irrational and illogical view should be entertained... This does not make it a method.

There is a very fundamental difference in where we begin our discussions: for you, I would say, the assumption is that classical logic is inviolable, even that it is an integral part of reality. I on the other hand doubt that humans can ever know for sure whether or not any assumptions we make are true or not. Pragmatically, we can try things out, find out what works here and now for us, but the assumption of universal--and perhaps beyond--application? It may be a good place to begin, but it's still just another assumption. Our basic assumptions are so different, that even though we agree that there is no reliable evidence or argument on the existence of the Monotheistic God either way, that we cannot agree on a way forward.

The difference is I follow a method which is actually a method and have provided results while you have provided no method at all. Your method put logically valid and sound ideas on par with delusions and wishful thinking. The assumption is only on your part due to a lack of defined "new method".

So, I'm done. Seriously, thank you for the great discussion. Maybe we'll discuss some other things sometime.

It was not very productive since you as those that have put forward rejection of logic have repeatedly failed to provide a new method let alone a method that can produce logically valid and sound conclusions. This has been my point in defending logic this whole time as neither you nor other propose anything but a rejection of a method used for the very concept of God since the method fails to produce a valid and sound argument for God.

 

[Typist]

So your "new method" is to remove the old method and substitute it with.... nothing...

Yes, nothing is a great alternative.

This could be explained in detail, but it's become clear you're not interested in anything but adamant rejectionism, so various members are bowing out and leaving you to do what you have a right to do. It's not rational, or even polite, to push topics on you which you actually have no interest in.

However you have not provided any method to evaluate an idea in order to find out if it is correct or not.

As has been explained to you over and over, there is no evidence that "using methods to evaluate ideas to determine their truth" has accomplished anything on this topic in THOUSANDS OF YEARS of trying.

You're posing yourself as a person of reason, sincerely, but you actually have no interest in any evidence that doesn't take you where you want to go.

That's not reason. That's ideology.

No offense, but chatting with committed ideologues of any flavor get boring, becomes there's no where for the conversation to go except to an affirmation of their existing beliefs. Are you familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses? Like that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well warranted and valid assumptions which have work for millennia. Many of these axioms are binding on reality since observations as the basis for the axioms is from reality.



So your "new method" is to remove the old method and substitute it with.... nothing... Excellent plan... This allows delusion and wishful thinking as valid. That is all your "new method" is, an open floodgate in which one can propose anything while removing the method to expose the ideas as invalid and/or unsound. You can entertain whatever you wish. However you have not provided any method to evaluate an idea in order to find out if it is correct or not. Beside your method is not a method since you state no principles of methodology. The one premise you put forward is irrational and illogical view should be entertained... This does not make it a method.



The difference is I follow a method which is actually a method and have provided results while you have provided no method at all. Your method put logically valid and sound ideas on par with delusions and wishful thinking. The assumption is only on your part due to a lack of defined "new method".



It was not very productive since you as those that have put forward rejection of logic have repeatedly failed to provide a new method let alone a method that can produce logically valid and sound conclusions. This has been my point in defending logic this whole time as neither you nor other propose anything but a rejection of a method used for the very concept of God since the method fails to produce a valid and sound argument for God.

Okay, One last time: Non-classical logic IS LOGIC. Apparently not to you, however.

Now I'm done.

 

[Shad]

Okay, One last time: Non-classical logic IS LOGIC. Apparently not to you, however.

Now I'm done.

I talked about MVL a lot, never once did I say it was not logic. I pointed out the errors you, and others, have made in assume MVL is drastically different from classic logic. I talked about MVL more than those that brought it up. This is due to others not understanding MVL at all yet it never stopped them from talking about it from ignorance. Now that your strawman is dead the only thing worth of your comment is that you are unable to substantiate a new system and have tossed in the towel.

 

[Shad]

Yes, nothing is a great alternative.

This could be explained in detail, but it's become clear you're not interested in anything but adamant rejectionism, so various members are bowing out and leaving you to do what you have a right to do. It's not rational, or even polite, to push topics on you which you actually have no interest in.

When you, and others, completely fail in proposing an alternative with details of course I am going to reject it. This is your problem not mine. It is your idea, support the idea better. Unsubstantiated ideas can be dismissed for being unsubstantiated. You have failed to meet your burden and only offer floodgate speculation.

As has been explained to you over and over, there is no evidence that "using methods to evaluate ideas to determine their truth" has accomplished anything on this topic in THOUSANDS OF YEARS of trying.

Of course not. However this does not mean the system we do have should be rejected because the concept of God is not supported as sound by the very logic which the concept is based in. Doing so is special pleading and fallacious.

You're posing yourself as a person of reason, sincerely, but you actually have no interest in any evidence that doesn't take you where you want to go.

Evidence such as what? All I have seen is god of the gaps and special pleading fallacies. That and a complete lack of understanding of logic such as the proposed MVL.

That's not reason. That's ideology.

Nope, it is rejection of an idea with no support behind it or an argument for it. This is completely reasonable. Perhaps make an effort to understand concepts you bring up and provide details of a new method not based in the method just dismissed, classical logic.

No offense, but chatting with committed ideologues of any flavor get boring, becomes there's no where for the conversation to go except to an affirmation of their existing beliefs. Are you familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses? Like that.

It is sad to see when someone is reduced to personal attacks when they fail in supporting their ideas with arguments. Try better next time son. Maybe start with MVL and the OP. Let see your work when it comes to supporting the OP via MVL. I am all ears, eyes in this case.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, Shad, and it's too bad some people have to ungracious losers when they think they win a discussion.

 

[Shad]

I was asking about hockey.

Lol sorry, given the OP I thought the question was about the OP. I am a Canucks and Habs fan

 

[Shad]

Yes, Shad, and it's too bad some people have to ungracious losers when they think they win a discussion.

Being unable to substantiate the claim the concept of God needs a different form of logic without providing what that logic is not an argument. There is no winner as the defeater failed to have any merit other than acknowledging God is illogical under the current system. Thus the current system still stands. There was no new system proposed that is not part of the system they just dismissed.

There is no winner when others refuse to even play the game, ie providing reason and a method. It is non-participation. It is like saying I will win but never actually take part in the game.

 

[Typist]

Being unable to substantiate the claim the concept of God needs a different form of logic without providing what that logic is not an argument.

None of those you are referring were trying to substantiate the the God concept. Again, you are arguing against assertions of your own invention.

There is no winner as the defeater failed to have any merit other than acknowledging God is illogical under the current system. Thus the current system still stands.

Whether a god is claimed or not, or proven or not, exists or not, has nothing to do with YOUR CLAIM that human reason is binding upon all of reality. The "current system" does not stand until you PROVE it stands.

You want us to accept your claim that human reason is binding on all of reality as a matter of unexamined faith, just as you do. Sorry, not interested.

 

[Shad]

None of those you are referring were trying to substantiate the the God concept. Again, you are arguing against assertions of your own invention.

Strawman. It was never about proving God. Read what I posted. Not once did I say prove God, I said prove the current method is false and prove a new method that works. Take your own advice since it applies to you not anything I said.

Whether a god is claimed or not, or proven or not, exists or not, has nothing to do with YOUR CLAIM that human reason is binding upon all of reality. The "current system" does not stand until you PROVE it stands.

You want us to accept your claim that human reason is binding on all of reality as a matter of unexamined faith, just as you do. Sorry, not interested.

I said logic is binding as it is the very tool we use as a basic of understanding reality. If something can exist and not exist this is illogical, law of non-contradiction.

The current system stands is it has works for centuries and continues to do so. This is proof the system works. I have no need to prove a system works which already works in reality. Rather it is your burden to prove otherwise since yoyu claim the system is not applicable to God or reality. Provide your work to substantiate your claims.

Do you exist or do you not exist? If yes to either then one law is validated. Do you have an identity which separate you from another human? If yes then you have validated another law. Do you think, have emotions, etc? You have validated the philosophy of the mind.If one of these principles fails then previous ideas become false. If something can both exist and not exist than a basic contradictions has no meaning for every other conclusion we have made.

Seems clear that this system works, now prove that it does not work. I am all ears.

 

[Typist]

Being unable to substantiate the claim the concept of God needs a different form of logic without providing what that logic is not an argument..

 

[Shad]

Do you have reading comprehension issues or is English not your primary language?

"Being unable to substantiate the claim the concept of God needs a different form of logic without providing what that logic is not an argument.."

I put the part in bold you seem to not understand or do not read. You only provide proof of one of the above questions or that your are incompetent. Take your pick

 

[Typist]

You're a faith based believer Shad, just like the Jehovah's Witnesses, posing as a laser sharp reasoner, the standard forum atheist fantasy pose.

You haven't proven that human reason is binding on all of reality, but like a Jehovah's Witness, you just keep asserting your faith over and over again.

Apologies, a waste of time. I wish you luck in finding others to do this dance with.

 

[Shad]

You're a faith based believer Shad, just like the Jehovah's Witnesses, posing as a laser sharp reasoner, the standard forum atheist fantasy pose.

You haven't proven that human reason is binding on all of reality, but like a Jehovah's Witness, you just keep asserting your faith over and over again.

Apologies, a waste of time. I wish you luck in finding others to do this dance with.

No, I provided a simple experiment which can be used to confirm or deny 3 basic principles I put into question. Faith does not do this. Try again, maybe put in some effort especially when you try to quote someone.

Again switching from logic to reason. You seem to be at a level of incompetence in which you can not tell the difference. I have repeatedly told you the two are not the same. Logic assess reasoning not the other way around. Reasoning can be and has been flawed. Logic provide a method to identify these errors and to correct these errors.

All red heads are dumb (Z is A)
Bob is a red head (Y is Z)
Therefore Bob is dumb. (Y is A)

This would be a logic based form based on deduction as to the reason why Bob is dumb. However is Z is false then the conclusion is false. Logic trumps reason as reasoning is based on flawed data. Logic is internal, reason is external. We need the internal mechanic to understand the external observations. Logic are the rules, reason is the game.

 

[Aiviu]

God "could" exists as a non-existence inside of you? Then you will exist as a non-existence inside of God when you "are" in his existence. Will you remember who you are? Lets assume you are dead; Do God had remembered himself when he exists as a non-existence inside of you? Use any logic and imagination, think as far to the stars and sink in a black hole to nothing and back. If you can not feel anything. If something inside of you can't reach to you. I am sorry, but thats from all answers, the only one which can be given to you. If you believe of not is not the question. Its if you worship his creation - life - then you will 'know' reps. FEEL if you will be in existent inside God. ... no angel, no church, no signs, no wisdom, no creature, no family, no garden, no tree, no... and nothing at all... but you and god. Will you remember? Do you need yourself when you will be release to the light? No you wont be aware but just feel. Does it endures? No one "KNOWS" it.