Disproving god with the laws of logic

[Willamena]

How can logic of the natural world and of our own human capacity, disprove something that is supernatural and something that is God and who isn't restricted to our laws?

I'd use the word "ingenuity" rather than "capacity"; otherwise, I agree with the question.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

It was never my burden to disprove God.

It's never anybody's burden to DISPROVE anything, that isn't how it works. If you wanted to make affirmative claims about God, the burden of proof would be on you.

GhK.

 

[Thief]

I did that.
For yet another repeat...faith... by definition need not be proven.
But if your going to use logic to disprove God....you gotta take the faith with it.
I see no logical cause to surrender faith.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I did that.
For yet another repeat...faith... by definition need not be proven.
But if your going to use logic to disprove God....you gotta take the faith with it.
I see no logical cause to surrender faith.

That is because you obviously don't understand how logic works. I accept faith as a valid excuse to believe anything you want, but claiming it as truth based on any other system (Such as logic) requires you to use that system to back your claim.

Faith is a nice easy system. I believe strongly enough that it exists, therefore it exists.
Logic is more difficult.

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

That is because you obviously don't understand how logic works.

Well, I'd say it's a mutual misunderstanding of logic.

Edit: And faith.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Well, I'd say it's a mutual misunderstanding of logic.

Please, oh educated one, tell me where i'm going wrong.

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

Please, oh educated one, tell me where i'm going wrong.

You seem to think that faith stands in contrast to logic.

That thing that we cannot know but do believe (faith) need not stand in contrast to logic:

1 Socrates is a man.
2. Socrates uses logic.
3. Therefore, a man uses logic.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

You seem to think that faith stands in contrast to logic.

That thing that we cannot know but do believe (faith) need not stand in contrast to logic:

Sorry you must have misunderstood what i'm saying. What i'm saying is that I accept faith as a valid reason for belief in anything, and I don't feel that you should have a burden of proof to yourself (That is, if you want to believe something you should be able to). However, if you're trying to convince me of a matter of faith, it isn't enough to say 'Well I believe it so therefore it is truth', and neither is it enough to say 'Well I believe it. Go on, prove me wrong'. It doesn't work like that as you well know.

1 Socrates is a man.
2. Socrates uses lgoic.
3. Therefore, a man uses logic.

Your argument appears sound. What does it have to do with your point?

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

I did that.
For yet another repeat...faith... by definition need not be proven.
But if your going to use logic to disprove God....you gotta take the faith with it.
I see no logical cause to surrender faith.

i will frubal you (so if you see ten-thousand coming your way, don't be surprised.)

 

[Willamena]

I accept faith as a valid excuse to believe anything you want, but claiming it as truth based on any other system (Such as logic) requires you to use that system to back your claim.

That would be where your logic fails. If (such-and-such) is a valid excuse, how is it excused from truth?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

That would be where your logic fails. If (such-and-such) is a valid excuse, how is it excused from truth?

Oh no, don't get me wrong... If you can't prove something when it comes under scrutiny then you're only deluding yourself. I don't feel that faith is a GOOD reason for belief in something, but I have nothing wrong with somebody going 'You know what? I don't know why your argument contradicts my belief, but I believe that there is a way around it and therefore I still hold my belief'.

I don't think it IS an excuse from the truth. But people can believe what they want without somebody like me breathing the words 'Logic' and 'Proof' down their neck every ten seconds.

It's when they try to tell me that i'm wrong and they're right and i'm going to burn in hell with incubi doing unspeakable acts on parts of my anatomy for eternity... That's when I start asking for a better reason than faith.

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

What i'm saying is that I accept faith as a valid reason for belief in anything,

Yeah: that's what I don't understand. You admit the possbility of beleiving in things that you do not believe.

and I don't feel that you should have a burden of proof to yourself (That is, if you want to believe something you should be able to).

So if they DO believe it, then it's okay they to believe that?

Some would regard that as "having no moral system."

Just to be clear: my own moral system dictates that no one has a burden of proof, unless the ghosts/vampires/warewolves/zombies are really afer them.

However, if you're trying to convince me of a matter of faith, it isn't enough to say 'Well I believe it so therefore it is truth', and neither is it enough to say 'Well I believe it. Go on, prove me wrong'. It doesn't work like that as you well know.

Granted; and so I think that trying to convince someone else of truth is moot. Truth (not unlike "god") appears to each of them. I do, however, see zero reason not to believe in their faith. Faith is dependent upon a truth that need not be ours.

I do agree that "proving wrong" is a falacious assertion, for either side.

Your argument appears sound. What does it have to do with your point?.

It demonstrates a logical thing that we cannot know to be the case.

 

[Willamena]

Oh no, don't get me wrong... If you can't prove something when it comes under scrutiny then you're only deluding yourself. I don't feel that faith is a GOOD reason for belief in something, but I have nothing wrong with somebody going 'You know what? I don't know why your argument contradicts my belief, but I believe that there is a way around it and therefore I still hold my belief'.

Do you have the same problem when you use faith? What about the faith that there is someday some way of "getting around it"? Aren't you still deluding yourself?

I don't think it IS an excuse from the truth. But people can believe what they want without somebody like me breathing the words 'Logic' and 'Proof' down their neck every ten seconds.

How does this diifer from an excuse? You excuse their beliefs; we believe things that are true. Your belief that this is true is faith.

It's when they try to tell me that i'm wrong and they're right and i'm going to burn in hell with incubi doing unspeakable acts on parts of my anatomy for eternity... That's when I start asking for a better reason than faith.

/me looks up incubi . . . would it seriously be a bad thing to burn in hell with them? Okay, maybe if you're not female . . .

Seriously, there is a better reason to believe, and its name is nonliteralism.

 

[freethinker44]

Could you explain nonliteralism in more detail please.

 

[Willamena]

Could you explain nonliteralism in more detail please.

Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall. . .
Humpty-Dumpty had big fall. . .

All the king's horses, and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty together again.

Literally: Some big egg-person sat on a real wall, and when he fell off he broke, causing some confusion amongs soldiers as to how to put him back together.

Nonliterally: The subject portraying the egg-person is figurtively sitting on a wall, and any fall he makes, that results in a shattering of the illusion in place when he held reign, constitutes his demise.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

It demonstrates a logical thing that we cannot know to be the case.

And that thing is...
That Socrates was a man?
That Socrates used logic?
That men can use logic? (I hope that's not what you meant )

GhK.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm not sure how that would be a better reason to believe in anything though.


A little off topic. Its interesting you would use humpty dumpty, I was just reading an article about humpty dumpty and word meanings yesterday. It was an article looking at lewis carrolls alice in wonderland story and how humpty dumpty kept changing the meanings of words to suit what he was saying leaving his monologue vague and interpretive.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Do you have the same problem when you use faith? What about the faith that there is someday some way of "getting around it"? Aren't you still deluding yourself?

My faith is a little different from regular faith, so it's not exactly the same. My faith only works on the premise that I know it not to be the truth. It's very complicated but it works, or so I believe.

And yes, I agree, you would.

How does this diifer from an excuse? You excuse their beliefs; we believe things that are true. Your belief that this is true is faith.

I don't understand what you're saying sorry...

/me looks up incubi . . . would it seriously be a bad thing to burn in hell with them? Okay, maybe if you're not female . . .

I'm a straight guy. It really WOULD be a bad thing

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

And that thing is...
That Socrates was a man?
That Socrates used logic?
That men can use logic? (I hope that's not what you meant )

GhK.

Door #3 is the winner. But with a twist: "that Socrates used logic." It generalizes, speaking to the case of all men, not their capability or capacity. But most importantly, it can be claimed even by someone with no knowledge of Socrates at all.

Here's your colour TV. . . . *hands it over*

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Door #3 is the winner. But with a twist: "that Socrates used logic." It generalizes, speaking to the case of all men, not their capability or capacity. But most importantly, it can be claimed even by someone with no knowledge of Socrates at all.

Here's your colour TV. . . . *hands it over*

Yay *watches TV* AWW MAN I HAVE TO TUNE THIS THING!?

Seriously though... Your arguement doesn't show that all men are able to use logic. It is the truth and we can show it to be the truth (If you want to go and about over 3 billion men... That's a different story). Even without literally finding out that every man could use logic, it is not the case that it is logically implausible that men use logic (No sexist jokes allowed), but it is also not the case that all men ARE able to use logic.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say... It could be very much like saying:
Socrates was Greek
Socrates had discussions with Plato
Therefore all Greeks had discussions with Plato.

We can conclude that the third line of the argument is not implied by the previous two lines of the argument (Unless you think that conflation is a suitable technique to construct a valid argument).

GhK.