Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[mikkel_the_dane]

So far, logic has proven more useful than
other kinds of reasoning, eg, emoting, faith.

There is no objective evidence or logic that can establish useful. It is a first person subjective qualitative evaluation. Or in simple folk terms an emotion.
So you break your own rule in one sentence and contradict yourself. Is that simple enough for you?

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no objective evidence or logic that can establish useful.

Your post suggested the word "useless",
which is also a most useful word.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your post suggested the word "useless" as being an example of "useful".

Well useful is not universal or absolute, so if you don't check useful can be useless and that could be useful to know.
E.g. it is useless to say that science is the best tool we have, because there is no evidence for that it is the best.

 

[Audie]

So, you adhere to the Thomasists concept of maximal greatness? (Not every Theist does.)


If we can agree that the god you refer to is of limited omnipotence, there is still room for rational discourse. In my experience there are many theists who reject logic for the opinion of an all powerful god that defies logic. And I can't reason with someone who rejects reason.

Next step: can your god defy the laws of nature?

If so, "he" can swallow himself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well useful is not universal or absolute, so if you don't check useful can be useless and that could be useful to know.
E.g. it is useless to say that science is the best tool we have, because there is no evidence for that it is the best.

"Useless" continues to come to mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Useless" continues to come to mind.

Yeah, that is subjective and without evidence or logic. That is your trick, you treat your subjectiveness as objective when it suits you for better as to we as all humans.
But I have an evil system and that is a part of the world, so I just play subjective with your subjective. It is such fun and that is useful to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is such fun and that is useful to me.

That's an odd claim after you posted...

There is no objective evidence or logic that can establish useful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's an odd claim after you posted...

Correct, that is because I am subjective as per to me. That signals that it is in me as something I do.
I didn't claim evidence or logic. I just stated my emotion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct, that is because I am subjective as per to me.

So you're saying your opinions have no value, eh.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you're saying your opinions have no value, eh.

No, they have no objective or logical value. But that is so for all opinions including yours for a better world. That is also an opinion with no objective or logical value. That is how moral relativism works. The value is relative to the individual holding that value subjectively.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, they have no objective or logical value.

Finally, something to agree upon.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Finally, something to agree upon.

Yeah, remember when you do that as you and I point it out to you, that what you think/feel have no objective or logic value.

 

[Revoltingest]

....what you think/feel have no objective or logic value.

You should just <ignore> me then.

 

[John D. Brey]

When philosophers and theoretical physicists get together reality can certainly become weird.
Though I'd agree with Popper that magic infests our everyday thought.

I suspect that in the statement above you're using "magic" in a pejorative sense? By "magic" I (as well as Popper and Einstein) mean a power or ability that transcends what we consider the rational, material, physical, world.

When I look in the mirror I seem to see me. Upon reflection I see that this me in the mirror is an image of me in front of the mirror. I see an image of me seeing me. I know I can see. But can me see? The me I see seeming to see me seeing me does not really see me seeing me. This is because I does not cross into me seeming to see me seeing me in the mirror. I seeming to see me in the mirror is not in the mirror as I seem to see me seeing me in the mirror.​

​

DG Leahy, Faith and Philosophy, p. 143.​

The statement above addresses the magical "I" that feels and sees by using the "me" (the physical body) that's the servant of the meontological I. Yes, it takes a tad more focused and serious thought to see that the world is nothing like what it seems when we ignore philosophical and logical problems woven into the fabric of reality.



John

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You should just <ignore> me then.

No, I have still hope for you and I follow some of your threads about the USA, because I learn from them.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I have still hope for you and I follow....

Dang.

 

[Nakosis]

I suspect that in the statement above you're using "magic" in a pejorative sense? By "magic" I (as well as Popper and Einstein) mean a power or ability that transcends what we consider the rational, material, physical, world.

When I look in the mirror I seem to see me. Upon reflection I see that this me in the mirror is an image of me in front of the mirror. I see an image of me seeing me. I know I can see. But can me see? The me I see seeming to see me seeing me does not really see me seeing me. This is because I does not cross into me seeming to see me seeing me in the mirror. I seeming to see me in the mirror is not in the mirror as I seem to see me seeing me in the mirror.​

​

DG Leahy, Faith and Philosophy, p. 143.​

The statement above addresses the magical "I" that feels and sees by using the "me" (the physical body) that's the servant of the
I. Yes, it takes a tad more focused and serious thought to see that the world is nothing like what it seems when we ignore philosophical and logical problems woven into the fabric of reality.



John

When I look in the mirror I don't see me. I see the physical body which encases me. The brain/central nervous system.
Folks don't usually identify with the CNS because we never see our true self. If we did we'd likely be repulsed.

It's no wonder that folks identify as something other than what they see in the mirror. That's not what they are.

So where we agree, there will never be a face to face encounter with the "self" as the self is hidden under layers of flesh and bone.
The human brain may seem magical but the more and more we learn about it, the less magical it becomes.

​

I'm sure you would never consider to identify as the brain. Until you do certainly the magic will remain intact.

 

[Ostronomos]

Even if a god were non physical, for it to be omnipotent, it would need to be able to exert infinite power in the physical realm. Infinite power can't exist in the physical realm as it would need infinite energy which would fold spacetime into a black hole. Omnipotence is physically (and logically) impossible.

Again, it depends on your definition of infinite power. Mine, omnipotence is perfectly possible just as a paradox is possible.

Allow me to demonstrate:

paradox = not-paradox

This allows infinite freedom to defy all boundaries, but only in the dimension of the spiritual. WITH the exception that a physical being meet God "half way" through entry into His spiritual dimension. This is more than an appeal to mystery, it is a logical fact.

Self and non-self or God and non-God merge to become the one that distributes over the one.

 

[John D. Brey]

When I look in the mirror I don't see me. I see the physical body which encases me. The brain/central nervous system.
Folks don't usually identify with the CNS because we never see our true self. If we did we'd likely be repulsed.

It's no wonder that folks identify as something other than what they see in the mirror. That's not what they are.

So where we agree, there will never be a face to face encounter with the "self" as the self is hidden under layers of flesh and bone.
The human brain may seem magical but the more and more we learn about it, the less magical it becomes.

View attachment 78050
​

I'm sure you would never consider to identify as the brain. Until you do certainly the magic will remain intact.

It seems like very few people understand let alone take the "mind body problem" seriously. If you could aim cameras on your head while you open up your skull to do brain surgery on yourself, would you then see yourself on the screen attached to the camera? Or would "you" merely be looking at the physical machinery serving the meontological you?

When the nerves send a signal to the brain to register pain, someone, or thing, must "experience" the pain. The central nervous system can send signals and register electrical phenomena but they can't do the heavy lifting of "experiencing" the pain or "seeing" (in a tactile, sensory sense) what the brain paints with the electromagnetic wavelengths of light transferred by the nervous system into electrical signals:

The nerve fibers that enter the brain from the eyes, ears, and skin look the same. Not only do they look identical, they transmit information using identical-looking [electrical] spikes. If you look at the inputs to the brain, you can't discern what they represent. Yet, vision feels like one thing and hearing feels like something different, and neither feels like spikes. When you look at a pastoral scene you don't sense the tat-tat-tat of electrical spikes entering your brain; you see hills and color and shadows.​

​

"Qualia" is the name for how sensory inputs are perceived, how they feel. Qualia are puzzling. Given that all sensations are created by identical spikes, why does seeing feel different than touching? And why do some input spikes result in the sensation of pain and others don't? These may seem like silly questions, but if you imagine that the brain is sitting in the skull and its inputs are just spikes, then you can get a sense of the mystery. Where do our perceived sensations come from? The origin of qualia is considered one of the mysteries of consciousness.​

​

Jeff Hawkins, A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence, p. 138-139.​

John

 

[dybmh]

So, you adhere to the Thomasists concept of maximal greatness? (Not every Theist does.)

Never heard of Thomasists. I looked them up, and I'm not sure they're the ones you're thinking of. I could be wrong, though. Regarding maximal greatness, I looked that up too. ( Apologies, I'm not too interested in proving God. I actually think that's counter-productive. )

I'm not sure "Maximal Greatness" describes my concept of God. I go with: infinite, eternal, solitary before creation, and tri-omni.

If we can agree that the god you refer to is of limited omnipotence, there is still room for rational discourse.

I m saying that omnipotence requires the capability to limit its omnipotence temporarily. Otherwise, that is a potency which is lacking. It's like the silly video I posted from the 90s movie "Revenge of the Nerds 2". Infinite includes big and small. Omnipotent includes all capabilites, including limiting itself, or even destroying itself.

And yes, I am aware that this challenges the idea of God's immutability. But, that isn't really a problem. The verses which claim "God doesn't change" in context are all talking about not revoking a promise to do good. The most famous verse regarding this is in Malachi. Commenting on this verse, the Baal Shem Tov, a great Jewish thinker and mystic, objects to the common understanding asking, "Isn't God the master of change?"

In my experience there are many theists who reject logic for the opinion of an all powerful god that defies logic. And I can't reason with someone who rejects reason.

Reasonable people have reasons for their conclusions. People with integrity admit when they're at fault, and acknowledge when someone makes a good point. I can't promise that any valid reason given which challenges my own conclusions will over-rule my own reasons for developing that conclusion. But I do strive to be both reasonable and to have integrity.

My reason for rejecting the "rock is too heavy" and "buritto is too hot" contradiction is because omnipotence includes the power to reduce itself temporarily.

My reason for rejecting the "that's not omnipotence" challenge to the definition is simply to refer back to the defintion of omnipotence, and that denying this power to limit itself, is itself a denial of omnipotence.

If you can convince me that "limiting itself temporaliy" is not a power, a potency. Then you will have convinced me that I am contradicting the definition of omnipotence.

Do you have any reasons for claiming "limiting itself temporarily" is not a power?

Next step: can your god defy the laws of nature?

I vote: yes, whole-heartedly. That is the definition of a miracle. What's next?