Do you believe in God?

[danieldemol]

Counter refutation for what?

Counter refutation to this;

Are you a pantheist? If not that's a refutation of your God argument right there in my view. If so it would be an internal contradiction as parts of the universe are more merciful than the whole indifferent universe making your God less merciful than things Islam generally doesn't want worshipped (such as a parent for example) in my view.

And if your God argument is refuted (which at this point I believe we can successfully say it is) then your God argument is logically unsound or put another way using shorthand, we may say your argument for God is illogical.

 

[firedragon]

I have asked about people you personally know, as in people that you have met in person

Well, I have met many mate. But if I give you names there is no point. And if I say I have met some famous person in person, this is being an anonymous forum, there is no point. It's like spelling out someone's resume. I have seen people do that. One guy claims to have a Phd in mathematics while also claiming that a paradox is reality. It's absurd to do that.

So go speak to the people I gave you. That's the end of this conversation.

 

[firedragon]

Are you a pantheist?

No.

And if your God argument is refuted

Which argument?

 

[Koldo]

Overturning slavery.

This is considered an advancement in Catholicism.

And many other religions these days, as well, I would think.

Thanks for the example. But is this a result of philosophical or theological advancement?

Either way, this will serve as an illustrative example. How do you determine whether a philosophy that supports slavery is inferior to one that does not?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The book was for you to understand logical fallacies. You calling them "internet logic". And I did give you a book. If you think giving you a book is to buy it and mail it to you then you are sadly mistaken. Find it.

Why would you expect a professional logician to be interested in a book when you can’t even quote the page where it claims that religion is not a team sport? (Recall that this rather inoculate statement is the statement which you referred to as an ad hom.)

Do you suggest books on plumbing fallacies to professional plumbers without giving them a page number? They’re not going to read the whole book just to find the page you are referring to, either.

 

[Koldo]

Well, I have met many mate. But if I give you names there is no point. And if I say I have met some famous person in person, this is being an anonymous forum, there is no point. It's like spelling out someone's resume. I have seen people do that. One guy claims to have a Phd in mathematics while also claiming that a paradox is reality. It's absurd to do that.

So go speak to the people I gave you. That's the end of this conversation.

What conversation? You have been dancing around the question so hard, without ever providing an answer, that this became a prom.

 

[firedragon]

What conversation? You have been dancing around the question so hard, without ever providing an answer, that this became a prom.

Ciao.

 

[firedragon]

Why would you expect a professional logician to be interested in a book when you can’t even quote the page where it claims that religion is not a team sport?

Strawman.

 

[danieldemol]

No.

Then your God is refuted as the material realm fits the necessary existent in my view.

Which argument?

Are you aware that by clicking on the person's name at the top of the quote you can scroll back to the post they were responding too? Because you only have to do it 2 or 3 times to know the argument I was refuting was the argument Wajib al-wujud or the Necessary Existent.

By showing that the material realm fits that (to which you replied "I know"), I've demonstrated your God to be unnecessary.

 

[Koldo]

Ciao.

Next time around, at least take me out to dinner if you want to dance.

 

[Spice]

You are assuming that something formed the early universe. Assuming your conclusion is illogical in my view. It may have been formed or it may have simply been there for all time.

And there we have The Mysteries.

For me, I cannot get my head to wrap around the theory of a finite universe that has no beginning or end. I only see that as infinite.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Thanks for the example. But is this a result of philosophical or theological advancement?

Either way, this will serve as an illustrative example. How do you determine whether a philosophy that supports slavery is inferior to one that does not?

Of course it is.

 

[Spice]

Ah, so what you mean by 'advance' is 'expand'.
I agree that philosophy and theology keep expanding every day. But I don't call that advancing per se.

Emergentism, for example, is not an advancement when compared to dualism. It is just a different model.

I feel it advances as the tribalism we are still mostly divided in, loses the violence.

 

[Quagmire]

I was asking myself this question earlier this afternoon; "Do I still believe in God"?

Strange to be thinking that way. I'm a theist so therefore I believe in God, but I think I'm the kind of person who needs a steady stream of little miracles to occur in order for my belief to qualify as an actual part of me, rather than just an intellectual acknowledgment of an aspect of my identity.

I believe in God, as in a cosmic consciousness that interacts with the world and in some manner or shape cares about us and what goes on down here, but I've lost some of my emotional attachment or involvement in that belief since I got off the road,

 

[danieldemol]

And there we have The Mysteries.

For me, I cannot get my head to wrap around the theory of a finite universe that has no beginning or end. I only see that as infinite.

So your claim that God is logical is based on an inability to understand a certain possibility?

So what happens if (hypothetically) the physical realm happens to have eternally existed for example? Then your need for a God would not be logically provable in my view.
On the basis of what evidence do you rule that out, because I can't see how God is logical without being able to rule that out.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

How do you determine whether a philosophy that supports slavery is inferior to one that does not?

Is this a difficult philosophical issue these days in your religion?

Some religions must find philosophy easier than you do.

As a mathematician, I think philosophy is hard.

But even I can figure this one out.

If it seems like a close call to you, perhaps that is cultural.

The fact is that they were able to figure this out 500 years ago, and you’re still struggling with the concept.

Is it possible that your theology and philosophy needs to advance to the early 1500s?

 

[firedragon]

I was asking myself this question earlier this afternoon; "Do I still believe in God"?

Strange to be thinking that way. I'm a theist so therefore I believe in God, but I think I'm the kind of person who needs a steady stream of little miracles to occur in order for my belief to qualify as an actual part of me, rather than just an intellectual acknowledgment of an aspect of my identity.

I believe in God, as in a cosmic consciousness that interacts with the world and in some manner or shape cares about us and what goes on down here, but I've lost some of my emotional attachment or involvement in that belief since I got off the road,

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts brother.

 

[Spice]

So your claim that God is logical is based on an inability to understand a certain possibility?

So what happens if (hypothetically) the physical realm happens to have eternally existed for example? Then your need for a God would not be logically provable in my view.
On the basis of what evidence do you rule that out, because I can't see how God is logical without being able to rule that out.

I don't believe you'll find me ever saying "that God is logical."

God is ineffable. Incomprehensible. The Mysteries of our existence.

 

[Koldo]

Is this a difficult philosophical issue these days in your religion?

Some religions must find philosophy easier than you do.

As a mathematician, I think philosophy is hard.

But even I can figure this one out.

If it seems like a close call to you, perhaps that is cultural.

The fact is that they were able to figure this out 500 years ago, and you’re still struggling with the concept.

Is it possible that your theology and philosophy needs to advance to the early 1500s?

You seem to be mistaking common sense for philosophy. I think you would be very annoyed if you ever studied philosophy since it questions even things that would be regarded as obvious by ordinary people.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You seem to be mistaking common sense for philosophy. I think you would be very annoyed if you ever studied philosophy since it questions even things that would be regarded as obvious by ordinary people.

What does your culture and religion find so difficult about the question of slavery?

And why did your culture and religion end up 500 years behind the times?

Was it a philosophical failure?

Or a failure of common sense?

A lot of bloody wars could have been avoided had the philosophers been smarter.