Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Let us use a little logic here. How can you see that which, by definition, is infinite and therefore includes or envelopes the unicorn?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Logic vs Religion
- Thread starter guilo
- Start date
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
If you're using "God" to represent all that is, then that's a different story. It's kind of impossible to deny all that there is. To me that stretches the idea a little too far. Then, why not just call it "All that exists". there's no need for the word "god" there.
On the other hand, if you mean that a God such as the Christian one exists and lives in everything that exists, then I would think there would be some evidence to point directly to Him, which would also help to separate Him from the other versions.
I know I made the statement a little simple, but it was to prove a point. There's a little more to it than I stated, but when you throw in "evidence of the unicorn", it works better.
Charity
Let's go racing boys !
hey there mball just wanted to tell you that your logic is mythical just like your unicorn....... Unicorns were real in biblical days, but they were wild oxen.
Really the unicorn you know the one with the one horn thingy are mythical...
Now I'll bet you are gonna tell me that my Bible is mythical too aren't you?
:slap: Oh by the way I'm just giving you a rough time, just being a Bad Girl.....Be nice to me this if the first time I have had fun today....
Just couldn't resist teasing you, but the facts about unicorns are true... I am enoying the comments you all make
Have a good night
RedRain, Starfish
RedRain, you are very close to being right as rain when you observe: "Asserting that THERE IS NO GOD is similar to asserting that THERE IS A GOD. [Because] You cannot know that something does not exist...".
(Capitalization is mine -Andy.)
Starfish puts it another way:
"So if theism lacks sufficient evidence, wouldn't it follow that it doesn't mean it's not true, just that there was insufficient evidence to proclaim it true?"
I wish every theist would read both your comments and the following answer. It might clear up some of the confusion on this topic.
(I will provide the shortest possible answer to serve its purpose. None of the following is my opinion. Indeed, in some cases I am paraphrasing from articles I have researched to ensure my impartiality. It is information easily verifiable by the reader, and I would encourage this research.)
First, the rules of Logic and Science require a basis (deductive or inductive respectively) for making an assertion, or it must be disclaimed as invalid or false. An assertion, without proper evidence, is not accepted as "valid" in Logic or "true" in Science. That is the most fundamental requirement that defines and ensures critical thought. In layman terms it means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. Deny this and you abandon critical thought, logic and science.
Next, it follows and it must be presumed that the onus for evidence rests only upon the person making the assertion, the assertion in this instance, that a god exists. Note that the mere mention of ones belief in God serves (logically) as an assertion that a god exists.
IMPORTANT POINT: Is the Atheist making an assertion when he says "God does NOT exist"? This is a very common and understandable confusion. A person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. Rejecting the assertion that "X is the case" by replying "No, X is NOT the case" is not making an assertion. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Be sure you understand that the person rejecting the original assertion is off the hook, as they should be. To further drive the point that it is not the Atheist who is making the assertion, ask yourself why would an Atheistwho is by definition of the word "A-Theist" an "anti-theist" one day proclaim to the world IN ABSENCE OF ANY INITIAL CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY that "Hey, there is no god". Undeniably, indeed logically, the Atheist's position is not a proclamation, but a rejection of an assertion already made. (Very strictly speaking, the Atheist's rejection should take the form "It is not the case that your assertion 'god exists' is true", instead of the form "God does not exist". But I'm splitting thin hairs.)
To avoid this whole situation some Theists will declare that their personal experience is justification to themselves. (MoonWater has stated this as her position on this forum.) This quaint variety of solipsism seeks refuge in the comforting notion one's own sense of truth and reality is sufficient to "know" the truth. But if we grant that one's private experiences and thoughts are enough to substantiate these subjective truths, then the same must be allowed to hold true for others. This invites the inescapable conclusion that two people with opposite "truths" are both correct. Farewell to science, logic and rationality!
Carl Sagan once asked, What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire, and can never be found... and no dragon at all? Sagan concluded that such an unprovable assertion is indistinguishable from being plain false. The point being, that there is no truth to claims for a god's existence, since these claims are as unsubstantiated and nonsensical as Sagan's forever hidden dragon. There is no use in even asserting such empty statements, and every reason to reject them as false, or worse, meaningless. This does not preclude that such creatures, fire-breathing or divine, might exist (perhaps near the North pole...Ho Ho Ho). But amid the embarrassing void of evidence to warrant a reasonable person to assign any amount of truth to such assertions, we are obliged by the rules of reason to reject them as false.
RedRain, you are very close to being right as rain when you observe: "Asserting that THERE IS NO GOD is similar to asserting that THERE IS A GOD. [Because] You cannot know that something does not exist...".
(Capitalization is mine -Andy.)
Starfish puts it another way:
"So if theism lacks sufficient evidence, wouldn't it follow that it doesn't mean it's not true, just that there was insufficient evidence to proclaim it true?"
I wish every theist would read both your comments and the following answer. It might clear up some of the confusion on this topic.
(I will provide the shortest possible answer to serve its purpose. None of the following is my opinion. Indeed, in some cases I am paraphrasing from articles I have researched to ensure my impartiality. It is information easily verifiable by the reader, and I would encourage this research.)
First, the rules of Logic and Science require a basis (deductive or inductive respectively) for making an assertion, or it must be disclaimed as invalid or false. An assertion, without proper evidence, is not accepted as "valid" in Logic or "true" in Science. That is the most fundamental requirement that defines and ensures critical thought. In layman terms it means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. Deny this and you abandon critical thought, logic and science.
Next, it follows and it must be presumed that the onus for evidence rests only upon the person making the assertion, the assertion in this instance, that a god exists. Note that the mere mention of ones belief in God serves (logically) as an assertion that a god exists.
IMPORTANT POINT: Is the Atheist making an assertion when he says "God does NOT exist"? This is a very common and understandable confusion. A person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. Rejecting the assertion that "X is the case" by replying "No, X is NOT the case" is not making an assertion. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Be sure you understand that the person rejecting the original assertion is off the hook, as they should be. To further drive the point that it is not the Atheist who is making the assertion, ask yourself why would an Atheistwho is by definition of the word "A-Theist" an "anti-theist" one day proclaim to the world IN ABSENCE OF ANY INITIAL CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY that "Hey, there is no god". Undeniably, indeed logically, the Atheist's position is not a proclamation, but a rejection of an assertion already made. (Very strictly speaking, the Atheist's rejection should take the form "It is not the case that your assertion 'god exists' is true", instead of the form "God does not exist". But I'm splitting thin hairs.)
To avoid this whole situation some Theists will declare that their personal experience is justification to themselves. (MoonWater has stated this as her position on this forum.) This quaint variety of solipsism seeks refuge in the comforting notion one's own sense of truth and reality is sufficient to "know" the truth. But if we grant that one's private experiences and thoughts are enough to substantiate these subjective truths, then the same must be allowed to hold true for others. This invites the inescapable conclusion that two people with opposite "truths" are both correct. Farewell to science, logic and rationality!
Carl Sagan once asked, What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire, and can never be found... and no dragon at all? Sagan concluded that such an unprovable assertion is indistinguishable from being plain false. The point being, that there is no truth to claims for a god's existence, since these claims are as unsubstantiated and nonsensical as Sagan's forever hidden dragon. There is no use in even asserting such empty statements, and every reason to reject them as false, or worse, meaningless. This does not preclude that such creatures, fire-breathing or divine, might exist (perhaps near the North pole...Ho Ho Ho). But amid the embarrassing void of evidence to warrant a reasonable person to assign any amount of truth to such assertions, we are obliged by the rules of reason to reject them as false.
Andys if your going to quote my position on something make sure you have the right position. I have never said that personal experience is proof or evidence of God in general, only that my personal experience is enough for me to believe. I don't expect anyone else to believe because of my experiences and am also aware that I may have misinterpreted my experiences and as such could be wrong in my beliefs. It's not a matter of I'm right your wrong, it's a matter of this is what I believe based on my experience. If we can't rely on our own sense of truth and reality then what can we rely on? Who's sense of truth and reality should we follow? Aren't you yourself following your own sense of truth and reality? What makes your sense of truth and reality better than mine or storms or anyone else who disagrees with you?
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
I think it's a cheap shot, an ad hominem attack on religion in general. It doesn't work with panentheism nor does it work with other sophisticated theologies--including Christian theologies--and I think you're smart enough to know it.
"Infinity" implies unity or oneness at a deep level, but it does not preclude diversity: from the perspective of diversity, The One can be understood as "God."
Nevertheless, it wasn't too long ago that you could make a strong argument, but this is no longer the case.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
It's not a cheap shot. I clearly state that in my experience, there is no God. I'm not saying that it's impossible, or that anyone is stupid for believing in one. I simply see no evidence of God in the traditional sense, and so I see no reason to believe that God exists.
Why does "infinity" imply oneness or unity? And why does that unity point to "God"? As I said, there are some definitions of God that I agree with, but I don't consider those things God. I agree with the idea, but don't think it really fits the category of "God".
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I don't even know what to say. If unicorns were wild oxen, then they weren't unicorns.
And, yes, I will tell you that a lot of the Bible is mythical.
MoonWater
I fear you will never understand the answer to the question, you posed,
"Aren't you yourself following your own sense of truth and reality? What makes your sense of truth and reality better than mine or storms or anyone else who disagrees with you?"
In my post to RedRain and Starfish, directly above your reply to me, is my answer. I couldn't have made more clear if I had written it on glass with invisible ink. Rambling talk of my own truth, your own truth, the grocer's own truth, the postman's own truth... is madness. You do not grasp the inescapable implication of allowing reality and truth to be stripped of all rankreduced from the objective and verifiable to the subjective and unverifiable. Truth and knowledge are not internal experiences akin to your favourite colour, or the grocer's favourite colour, or the postman's favourite colour. Forfeit objective reality and you forfeit your place in it. Essentially, you forfeit "You".
I fear you will never understand the answer to the question, you posed,
"Aren't you yourself following your own sense of truth and reality? What makes your sense of truth and reality better than mine or storms or anyone else who disagrees with you?"
In my post to RedRain and Starfish, directly above your reply to me, is my answer. I couldn't have made more clear if I had written it on glass with invisible ink. Rambling talk of my own truth, your own truth, the grocer's own truth, the postman's own truth... is madness. You do not grasp the inescapable implication of allowing reality and truth to be stripped of all rankreduced from the objective and verifiable to the subjective and unverifiable. Truth and knowledge are not internal experiences akin to your favourite colour, or the grocer's favourite colour, or the postman's favourite colour. Forfeit objective reality and you forfeit your place in it. Essentially, you forfeit "You".
No - not in the least.
mball, do you have the slightest idea what is meant by the term 'non sequitur'?
mball1297
You're taking a beating for the ill informed statement you wrote: "I have never seen a unicorn in any of the places I've looked. Therefore I can confidently say that there are no unicorns".
RedRain saw the opening and walked right in replying:
"I haven't seen an atom or electron in any of the places I've looked, but I certainly can't confidently say that they do not exist. "
Geeze, I'm on your side but let's get on the same page. Don't fall into this trap by asserting that YOU can't find unicorns therefore they don't exist. That's suicide. In recent posts I've tried to make it clear that: The onus is upon the people who postulate the existence of unicorns (or anything else) to provide evidence to support their claim. All YOU have to do is swig a beer and belch out "put up or shut up." THEY should be on the defensive not you.
I've been relentlessly asking theists on this forum to provide their evidence, but all I get is the standard runaround. They know full well that their belief in god is void of proof, but they keep chanting tirelessly that they have proof. In the conspicuous absence of any proof, or the conspicuous unwillingness to provide it, the only possible verdict for their chant is "not true". I refer you to my post (to RedRain and Starfish on page 23) which explains the basic "rules" of science and logic. Good luck!
You're taking a beating for the ill informed statement you wrote: "I have never seen a unicorn in any of the places I've looked. Therefore I can confidently say that there are no unicorns".
RedRain saw the opening and walked right in replying:
"I haven't seen an atom or electron in any of the places I've looked, but I certainly can't confidently say that they do not exist. "
Geeze, I'm on your side but let's get on the same page. Don't fall into this trap by asserting that YOU can't find unicorns therefore they don't exist. That's suicide. In recent posts I've tried to make it clear that: The onus is upon the people who postulate the existence of unicorns (or anything else) to provide evidence to support their claim. All YOU have to do is swig a beer and belch out "put up or shut up." THEY should be on the defensive not you.
I've been relentlessly asking theists on this forum to provide their evidence, but all I get is the standard runaround. They know full well that their belief in god is void of proof, but they keep chanting tirelessly that they have proof. In the conspicuous absence of any proof, or the conspicuous unwillingness to provide it, the only possible verdict for their chant is "not true". I refer you to my post (to RedRain and Starfish on page 23) which explains the basic "rules" of science and logic. Good luck!
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I was actually just using it to prove a point. It doesn't really matter what I say, some people are going to disagree. The point was that if I don't have evidence of something, then I'm going to say it doesn't exist. I can elaborate, but if people disagree with that statement, they're most likely going to disagree with a longer explanation.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Bull. You've been relentlessly looking for ways to ridicule believers. I've been watching. I have evidence for my belief. In broad outline:
1. Personal experience of God.
2. Historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The gospel accounts of the event are the best explanation for it, and those accounts imply the existence of God.
3. There's something rather than nothing, and God is the best explanation of that.
4. There are moral truths, and the existence of a God who created the universe with a moral purpose (including creating us with a capacity to be responsive to moral truths) is the best explanation for that.
5. I'm rather old-fashioned, so I actually take the ontological argument to be stronger than its critics admit.
Of course, you have heard arguments supporting all these things and reject them. But that's different from saying you've never heard a believer give evidence. Rather, you've never heard a believer give evidence that was convincing to you. But in my opinion, that says more about you than about the quality of the evidence.
Charity
Let's go racing boys !
If you have access to a bible check out Job Chapt 39:9-10
Lighten up, smile, laugh I said I was just teasing around with you about the unicorn, I know you were using it as an example to make a point...I have respect for the answers that you give.... A lot of good theory and logic.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
By applying a little logic, you can see you've been looking in the wrong places and in the wrong way. God is not experienced like you might experience a unicorn.
Simple logic. There is no room in infinity for an "other."
Science+consciousness. (not that you believe it.)
But you define God as sort of a "unicorn," and as we've seen, that ain't God.
Use a little logic.