Do you believe in God?

[firedragon]

ETA: The answer to your question is beneath @George-ananda's name.

Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Didn't you understand what a sound argument is? What is this correspondence you keep repeating? This is a strawman. And I will not engage with that any more Mikel. Thank you for the discussion. Cheers.

The correspondence theory of truth.

 

[Muffled]

I’m a mathematical logician by profession.

But I often have difficulty following the proofs of people who are smart enough to use pure logic to prove things about non-mathematical stuff.

Sometimes, it seems like there are missing steps that nobody is telling me about.

I believe the concept of God is illogical. There is nothing in this world that one can reason from to form Him. At best we can reason that creation has a creator since man is creative.

 

[firedragon]

I believe the concept of God is illogical.

K. Cheers.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Nope. I explained it.


This is a strawman.

You are making very general statements about handwaving.

But without the specifics, it is difficult for me to understand what it is you are talking about.

 

[Spice]

Even though most of this thread is far over my head in understanding, I have to commend the participants as that it has generally been very civil and quite enjoyable to follow.

Namaste

 

[firedragon]

You are making very general statements about handwaving.

But without the specifics, it is difficult for me to understand what it is you are talking about.

Your statement I responded to in essence was "handwaving" because it raises concerns about the rigor of certain logical arguments without providing detailed analysis or specific instances to show the problem. This could leave a person with a general sense of doubt but without the necessary information to fully understand or evaluate the issue. If you go back and read your comment I responded to you might understand with this information. Thanks.

 

[HonestJoe]

Can you provide a research on that? Any statistics or actual data on it? I ask since you are generalizing to all religions.

Thanks.

No, it was an expression of personal opinion based on experience and general knowledge. As I pointed out in the sentence you conveniently cut from the quote though, it is essentially the definition of religion. If someone is engaging in a truly open and honest logical assessment, they're not really following a religion and if they're limiting the study on the basis of any religion-based assumptions (such as it just being a question of their God existing or not), they wouldn't be applying fully open logic.

As I said, religious people can and do engage in honest theological debates (at least as honest as anyone else), but anything under the auspices of a specific religious organisation is clearly open to conscious or subconscious bias, especially when it conveniently happens to to confirm and support all of their existing beliefs.

After all, you mention that religions have presented logical reasonings, but can you think of any which have presented or supported logical reasoning that directly contradict their fundamental beliefs?

 

[firedragon]

Even though most of this thread is far over my head in understanding, I have to commend the participants as that it has generally been very civil and quite enjoyable to follow.

Namaste

You know it's always awesome to have Hindu's participating in this kind of discussion because Hindu's are generally not a proselytizing type of group and we don't see them as much. Thank you so much for your participation. (Excuse me for assuming you are indeed Hindu).

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Your statement I responded to in essence was "handwaving" because it raises concerns about the rigor of certain logical arguments without providing detailed analysis or specific instances to show the problem. This could leave a person with a general sense of doubt but without the necessary information to fully understand or evaluate the issue. If you go back and read your comment I responded to you might understand with this information. Thanks.

I’m not understanding this at all.

Did you even bother to click on any of the links I provided?

I can’t even make any sense out of what you are saying, here.

Something about your predictions of the behavior of other people not in this conversation with a “general sense of doubt” (whatever that means) who didn’t bother to click on the links that I provided?

This is all very vague and generalized, and don’t even seem to even involve me.

 

[Spice]

You know it's always awesome to have Hindu's participating in this kind of discussion because Hindu's are generally not a proselytizing type of group and we don't see them as much. Thank you so much for your participation. (Excuse me for assuming you are indeed Hindu).

I'm a little of everything and constantly in development. These types of discussions give me "something to chew on" as the old folks used to say. Oops, that would be me now! LOL

 

[firedragon]

No, it was an expression of personal opinion based on experience and general knowledge.

Oh okay okay. No problem.

As I pointed out in the sentence you conveniently cut from the quote though, it is essentially the definition of religion. If someone is engaging in a truly open and honest logical assessment, they're not really following a religion and if they're limiting the study on the basis of any religion-based assumptions (such as it just being a question of their God existing or not), they wouldn't be applying fully open logic.

Brother. In the past, many many religious discussions, scholarly work, philosophical work on religions, and even scripture has engaged with logic. Extensively. So I disagree with this assertion with all due respect. There are volumes of work maybe you should get your hands on.

As I said, religious people can and do engage in honest theological debates (at least as honest as anyone else), but anything under the auspices of a specific religious organisation is clearly open to conscious or subconscious bias, especially when it conveniently happens to to confirm and support all of their existing beliefs.

You seem to just mistrust them by default. That mistrust is irrelevant.

After all, you mention that religions have presented logical reasonings, but can you think of any which have presented or supported logical reasoning that directly contradict their fundamental beliefs?

Everyone will have their biases, but to dismiss them with that presumption without taking an argument as the main point of discussion but the person's biases by itself is the definition of an ad hominem argument. That's exactly what you have done so far.

 

[firedragon]

Did you even bother to click on any of the links I provided?

No. I generally do not follow links. So I apologize for that. I look for the participants argumentation. Since you have a different approach, I shall stop engaging. Thank you for the discussion so far. Cheers.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I'm a little of everything and constantly in development. These types of discussions give me "something to chew on" as the old folks used to say. Oops, that would be me now! LOL

That happens.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If any philosophical arguments convinced people, I'm sure Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" (they are called proofs, whether or not they were intended as proofs; I think they were intended more as characterizations or explanations) would be near the top. The few problems that have been suggested to me were not fatal to the overall presentation.

All of Aquinas's "Five Ways" fail at a pretty fundamental level: all of them jump to "and we call this 'God'" as the last step.

If the rest of the arguments were sound (which they generally aren't), the best conclusion that could be justified is "therefore at least one thing that is consistent with God exists." They all need additional work to eliminate other explanations besides God.

I have not read Al-Ghazali’s complete text, but I have been told that his very different strategy has likewise proved itself convincing.

Looks like he gave us the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which, as I've pointed out, isn't even an argument for God) and his versions of the teleological argument, argument from contingency, argument from morality, and an argument from his own personal experiences.

Some of this may have been novel at the time he wrote it, but it all strikes me as stuff that's been thoroughly refuted.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No. I generally do not follow links. So I apologize for that. I look for the participants argumentation. Since you have a different approach, I shall stop engaging. Thank you for the discussion so far. Cheers.

I don’t feel responsible for what information others do or don’t seek.

All I can do is try to present the information and make it available.

It’s not my job to tell you what to think.

I don’t read the textbook to students in my classes, either.

 

[firedragon]

I don’t feel responsible for what information others do or don’t seek.

All I can do is try to present the information and make it available.

It’s not my job to tell you what to think.

I don’t read the textbook to students in my classes, either.

Ciao.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The "h"? Mate. I don't know transliteration. I just write in English as it is pronounced in the language. If you wish to remove the h, remove it and understand what it says.

I've listened to numerous lectures by various swamis and gurus and have never heard 'advaita' pronounced with a 'th' sound (or 'vedanta' for that matter).

"Vedanta" means "end of the Vedas" or Veda+Antha. and refers to the philosophical teachings that come at the conclusion of the Vedic texts, specifically the Upanishads. So a specific school of Vedantic philosophy that's non-dualism.

Advaitha refers to the philosophical concept or principle of non-dualism, which asserts the fundamental oneness of reality. In a broader sense, Advaitha can be understood as the idea that there is no separation between the Atman and the Brahman.

At least that's how I understand it.

I've never made or heard the distinction before now. Usually when I hear 'advaita,' it's just an abbreviated version of 'advaita vedanta.' While nondualism as a philosophy is growing in popularity in the West that isn't technically considered 'advaita' per se, I'm unaware that the concept you describe above as "Advaitha" having any distinction from Advaita Vedanta.

But thank you for your explanation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Actual religious people who believe in a God in a religious forum are the minority.

They may be in the minority on an open discussion board, but they are the majority among people welcome to participate. So the question becomes, why are they underrepresented here? I'd say that many believers are uncomfortable arguing with educated, skilled debaters who disagree with them. They're overmatched and they know it.

So which theists do participate? We have the educated, theistic humanists, who are not overmatched by the atheists. We have the Dunning-Kruger set who are blissfully unaware that they are overmatched. And we have the martyrs, who are happy to be overmatched and to suffer publicly for their god.

Belief in God could stem from logical reasoning.

The only sound position possible for a skilled empiricist and critical thinker is agnostic atheism. There is no sound or valid argument that ends with, "therefore, God."

Well, the God revealed in the biblical scriptures says,
“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the Lord,
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool”

Is that how your god "reasons"?

Belief in God based on reason and logic? Is there a reason not to? Is it truly more reasonable and logical to reject higher power concepts?

It is for me. I left Christianity because it didn't make sense and the cognitive dissonance that arises when one agrees to suspend disbelief to test the religion and its claims got worse with time, not better.

By default, I turned to atheism, and being a critical thinker, an empiricist, and a morally healthy member of society, atheistic humanism was inevitable. With time, however, I was glad of that transition not just because humanism wasn't Christianity, which was a good enough reason at first, but because of the positive benefits that mindset afforded.

As I read these threads year after year, I see the problems I left behind and am grateful that they're a thing of my religious past. I no longer think about sin and hell. I no longer feel watched and judged by a cosmic parent. I can be myself and not worry about how I am representing Christ. I am no longer subjected to Abrahamic pessimism and nihilism. I have no problem understanding why there is suffering in the world, and there is no Satan or principle of evil in my world anymore, just some malicious people.

So the benefit wasn't limited to leaving a bad marriage so-to-speak, but included all that came from remarrying wisely. It reminds me of my decision to expatriate, which was initially just to leave a toxic culture, but led to finding something positive

 

[Koldo]

Absolutely. There is nothing "new" but much undiscovered and people do make discoveries. Maybe not a first, but if a previous epiphany is unknown, then it is a discovery for them.

Calling it a discovery is a stretch though. Otherwise, we would get into a situation where people are discovering the opposite of what someone else just did.