Disproving god with the laws of logic

[Willamena]

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

The thing you're believing in can be real, and that's the ONLY reason to believe in it. And (perhaps more significant to this thread) it can be even more accurate and true.

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.

Conincidence??? perhaps not (or maybe )
Alice in Wonderland . . . Neo in the Matrix . . . the analogies abound in our culture.

 

[Thief]

Still disproving God?
Doesn't look like it.

 

[freethinker44]

The thing you're believing in can be real, and that's the ONLY reason to believe in it. And (perhaps more significant to this thread) it can be even more accurate and true.

With the possibility that something can be true, the possibility that it is untrue exists with equal footing. Only through critical thinking and analysis of physical evidence you begin to find truth or untruth in what you say. Once you start on that path, faith is left behind and you know for sure one way or the other.

 

[Willamena]

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.

While I humbly accept your differences, and nod that they are so, I'm confused about definition. You have faith in the things you believe not to be the truth? What's the purpose in faith, then, if it's in things that are untrue?

 

[Thief]

There it is ..Thinker.....all things empirical only.

That's why you can't believe.

 

[Willamena]

With the possibility that something can be true, the possibility that it is untrue exists with equal footing. Only through critical thinking and analysis of physical evidence you begin to find truth or untruth in what you say. Once you start on that path, faith is left behind and you know for sure one way or the other.

With the possibiliy of truth and untruth, we have taken a step back from the position that they (things) are true or untrue. We have taken a step back from both belief and faith.

 

[Willamena]

There it is ..Thinker.....all things empirical only.

That's why you can't believe.

And equally why you can . . . Thinker.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

While I humbly accept your differences, and nod that they are so, I'm confused about definition. You have faith in the things you believe not to be the truth? What's the purpose in faith, then, if it's in things that are untrue?

Well I believe in Satan, but I don't believe in a big red guy with horns that lives in hell.

When I say that Aeya, Satan, Majjaka... Other things I have faith in don't exist, I mean that they don't exist as objective entities. I have faith in the effects of my belief of the symbology, rather than faith in the objective existence of the actual entities.

If I didn't believe 100% that what I do in ritual will work then it simply doesn't.

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

The thing you're believing in can be real, and that's the ONLY reason to believe in it. And (perhaps more significant to this thread) it can be even more accurate and true.

The nonliteral truth is pointed at by other, more literal truths. That Humpty can be any of us; that we eacn are capable of experiencing his "fall"; that the God who moves across the face of the waters and composes the Wolrd lives in us.

It all depends on WHAT is it your'e believing in in the text.

 

[freethinker44]

And equally why you can . . . Thinker.

Yes, but thief likes to ignore most of a post and only point out one small thing that supports his personal views. I thought it was pretty clear that I said truth and untruth were equal before evidence.

 

[Thief]

And some people answer only that portion they care to.

What? don't we all do it?

 

[Willamena]

Well I believe in Satan, but I don't believe in a big red guy with horns that lives in hell.

When I say that Aeya, Satan, Majjaka... Other things I have faith in don't exist, I mean that they don't exist as objective entities.

Isn't that, then, a misnomer of metaphysics? They, no doubt, represent something (the "effects of symbology") that does exist (else no need for their naming).

And when you reach a point where objective and subjective merge, there is no misnomer of metaphysics, though the names and what they represent remain. The subject/object divide itself becomes the misnomer.

I have faith in the effects of my belief of the symbology, rather than faith in the objective existence of the actual entities.

If I didn't believe 100% that what I do in ritual will work then it simply doesn't.

No aguement there.

 

[Willamena]

And some people answer only that portion they care to.

What? don't we all do it?

I like you . . .wait. Were you saying something else?

 

[Thief]

Really folks...cause and effect...once again.
There are stars over head...an Earth beneath my feet.
It all came from the singularity.
God did it.

 

[freethinker44]

Objectivity and subjectivity cannot merge. They are complete opposites, if something objective leans toward subjective then it isn't objective, it becomes subjective, or actually it always was subjective just unknown as such until its subjective properties are discovered.

 

[Willamena]

Really folks...cause and effect...once again.
There are stars over head...an Earth beneath my feet.
It all came from the singularity.
God did it.

Where is the singluarity?

 

[Thief]

Sorry Williamena...
The concept has been around quite sometime.
Please take a quick look..almost any reference source will do.

 

[freethinker44]

Ok thief you are right. Cause and effect must prevail. But now that we have established cause and effect are infallable, lets take a look at them logically.

If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.

Now, logically speaking, why would god need to be an ultimate cause when an alternate sufficient cause could equally be independent of gods influence. In other words, why couldn't the big bang have created itself, and why doesn't god need a creator.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Isn't that, then, a misnomer of metaphysics? They, no doubt, represent something (the "effects of symbology") that does exist (else no need for their naming).

And when you reach a point where objective and subjective merge, there is no misnomer of metaphysics, though the names and what they represent remain. The subject/object divide itself becomes the misnomer.

The effects are very real for me. The cause, however, is not actually existant, like the way that many monotheists feel God is literally real. It is real, sure, but it's not an actual thing. It's only real in the way that my sexual encounters with supermodels are real - In my mind.

GhK.

 

[freethinker44]

With this cause and effect equation, in order prove that x is the true cause and z is not, you would need to prove the existence of x independent of cause and effect. Z being the universe itself, we already have proof of its existence, WE LIVE IN IT. This also poses the problem of proving x (god) without using z (the universe) as proof because to do so would also validate z as sufficient proof for y still leaving the need for x as a cause irrelevant. So, without using anything we know exists, can you prove that god is the true cause.