The Argument for God(Or Against God) Is Never a Logical One.

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh, well since you said that - it all makes sense now.

Hey, I'm just being honest. Credulity is not a virtue.

 

[Aqualung]

1+1=10 in base 2, which is still the number "two".

That's true, I was thinking that they were equivalent mod 2. Thanks for pointing that out and clarifying it.

 

[DreadFish]

If you're not employing logic in your beliefs, then your beliefs have no basis in reality.

Id like to point out that logic is only logical as far as a persons understanding allows it to be. "Logic" might as well be arbitrary (just like arguing for or against God).

When discussing the health risks of smoking, many people are quite quick to make a statement about how its 'common sense' that inhaling smoke would be bad for you. But really? I cant see a reason why it is absolutely 'common sense' that inhaling smoke is bad, thats an adaptation made by hearing that its bad, but it is not at all inherent in a persons mind that inhaling smoke is bad.

That is unrelated, but the principle is similar; something is only logical as far as a persons mind is in the position to assume it. I used to have certain 'logic' but now that 'logic' doesnt seem so 'logical' to me.

Maybe I would even say that 'logic' is practically artificial in nature, just like language. But I dont cling to 'logic'.


Peace

 

[PolyHedral]

something is only logical as far as a persons mind is in the position to assume it.

No. Logic is absolute, and an argument can be objectively measured to be logically valid. (i.e. follow from its premises.) And it is common sense that inhaling chemicals would be bad for you. Common sense is not reliable, however.

 

[DreadFish]

No. Logic is absolute, and an argument can be objectively measured to be logically valid. (i.e. follow from its premises.) And it is common sense that inhaling chemicals would be bad for you. Common sense is not reliable, however.

If it is common sense that inhaling chemicals is bad for you, then what about air? And the food we eat is full of chemicals, it is a misunderstanding that 'chemicals' are detrimental, everything is made up of chemicals. There are certain ones though, that are detrimental to the human organism. If it were truly common sense, then doctors would have never recommended it for good health like they once did.

Maybe we are thinking of 'logic' in different terms. Mathematics are absolute, but the existence of something beyond anything mathematically definable isnt illogical is it? But I would risk sounding very stupid to say that even math isnt absolute, because it is based on the assumption of certain values isnt it? "one" is only "one" because we have conceptualized it. There are cultures who dont even have a concept of counting and numbers. Does that make them out of touch with reality? I think not. Alot of this feels ambiguous to me. This probably sounds uneducated and it is lol.

 

[Aqualung]

No. Logic is absolute, and an argument can be objectively measured to be logically valid. (i.e. follow from its premises.) And it is common sense that inhaling chemicals would be bad for you. Common sense is not reliable, however.

I remember in my math class a professor mentioned off hand that there were actually two possible types of logic that we could have based mathematics on.

I don't remember the specifics, but it was something like, Type 1: you can prove certain things as both true and false logically, and Type 2: some statements cannot be proven either true or false logically.

Maybe we are thinking of 'logic' in different terms.

If that is the case, you two need to come to an understanding. "Logic" has a very definite meaning, so if you're not on the same page then you're going to need to correct that.

 

[DreadFish]

I remember in my math class a professor mentioned off hand that there were actually two possible types of logic that we could have based mathematics on.

I don't remember the specifics, but it was something like, Type 1: you can prove certain things as both true and false logically, and Type 2: some statements cannot be proven either true or false logically.


If that is the case, you two need to come to an understanding. "Logic" has a very definite meaning, so if you're not on the same page then you're going to need to correct that.

Yes, an argument wont be too proper if we are making arguements on different basis' lol

But what I am getting at is, even logic and mathematics are constructed systems based on assumptions of certain values. Math could be different, if someone were to make a different system. So it is only under the assumption of certain values that a system of logic would be absolutely logical. But if anyone really actually wants to create their own system of mathematics, then more power to them lol

But then I get to this, what is considered natural and fundamental to reality, and what is artificial, or an artificial construct not based in reality? Well, something that is 'artificial' or not 'natural' still exists doesnt it? If it is in existence, then reality has facilitated its existence. Doesnt that make it natural? It is the effect of certain causes, and if it werent natural for such an effect to exist as a result of certain causes, then it would not exist. So then I see these things like 'logic' and the like as simple semantics without any definite value or meaning. "Reality" seems to be ambiguous.

 

[PolyHedral]

only under the assumption of certain values that a system of logic would be absolutely logical.

No, only under the assumption of certain values would a system of logic be true. Image you have this argument:

If A
and B,
C.

If both A and B are true, and the argument is logically valid, C must be true. However, the argument can still be logically valid if either A or B is not true.

 

[jonman122]

Yes, an argument wont be too proper if we are making arguements on different basis' lol

But what I am getting at is, even logic and mathematics are constructed systems based on assumptions of certain values. Math could be different, if someone were to make a different system. So it is only under the assumption of certain values that a system of logic would be absolutely logical. But if anyone really actually wants to create their own system of mathematics, then more power to them lol

But then I get to this, what is considered natural and fundamental to reality, and what is artificial, or an artificial construct not based in reality? Well, something that is 'artificial' or not 'natural' still exists doesnt it? If it is in existence, then reality has facilitated its existence. Doesnt that make it natural? It is the effect of certain causes, and if it werent natural for such an effect to exist as a result of certain causes, then it would not exist. So then I see these things like 'logic' and the like as simple semantics without any definite value or meaning. "Reality" seems to be ambiguous.

this is the argument that the universe could have been created 15 minutes ago, and we would have absolutely no idea and no way to prove it.

what we can access with our senses and with logic and sciences we deem reality. Just because it's possible that we're all sitting in incubation tubes playing games and this is in reality only about a quarter of a second of your actual life, doesn't mean thats how it is, and that is an argument without proof. Thats why with science its "if this has absolutely no proof, why bother?" because you start getting in to questions that really don't help us at all, if we had focused on what we can't measure and on questions we can't answer we wouldn't have come up with modern science.

 

[DreadFish]

No, only under the assumption of certain values would a system of logic be true. Image you have this argument:

If A
and B,
C.

If both A and B are true, and the argument is logically valid, C must be true. However, the argument can still be logically valid if either A or B is not true.

Yes thats what I mean. Sorry I didnt state it better.

 

[DreadFish]

this is the argument that the universe could have been created 15 minutes ago, and we would have absolutely no idea and no way to prove it.

what we can access with our senses and with logic and sciences we deem reality. Just because it's possible that we're all sitting in incubation tubes playing games and this is in reality only about a quarter of a second of your actual life, doesn't mean thats how it is, and that is an argument without proof. Thats why with science its "if this has absolutely no proof, why bother?" because you start getting in to questions that really don't help us at all, if we had focused on what we can't measure and on questions we can't answer we wouldn't have come up with modern science.

Im not sure I see the correlation between my statements and your response.


EDIT: Nevermind, I see it now.

 

[DreadFish]

this is the argument that the universe could have been created 15 minutes ago, and we would have absolutely no idea and no way to prove it.

what we can access with our senses and with logic and sciences we deem reality. Just because it's possible that we're all sitting in incubation tubes playing games and this is in reality only about a quarter of a second of your actual life, doesn't mean thats how it is, and that is an argument without proof. Thats why with science its "if this has absolutely no proof, why bother?" because you start getting in to questions that really don't help us at all, if we had focused on what we can't measure and on questions we can't answer we wouldn't have come up with modern science.

I think what I am getting at is: our 'logic' and the like only function within their own set boundaries, and as those boundaries are set by our minds, what do we have when we rid ourselves of those boundaries and observe without conceptualization or notions?
This isnt to say that we are "all sitting in incubation tubes playing games and this is in reality only about a quarter of a second of your actual life". Thats a jump beyond what I am talking about here.
I do indeed reasonably think that reality is beyond conceptually observable methods, because some observations are made under the assumption of certain values and, again I am repeating myself, but those values are made up, not inherently existent, so something can only be observed as 'true' if it matches up with constructed values.

Im having a hard time conveying what I mean here actually lol. Maybe you will get it anyway.

Also, im more of a philosopher than a pearlist, so im sure we will inevitably clash here . But no problem, it isnt significant in the long run.


PEace

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Id like to point out that logic is only logical as far as a persons understanding allows it to be. "Logic" might as well be arbitrary (just like arguing for or against God).

When discussing the health risks of smoking, many people are quite quick to make a statement about how its 'common sense' that inhaling smoke would be bad for you. But really? I cant see a reason why it is absolutely 'common sense' that inhaling smoke is bad, thats an adaptation made by hearing that its bad, but it is not at all inherent in a persons mind that inhaling smoke is bad.

That is unrelated, but the principle is similar; something is only logical as far as a persons mind is in the position to assume it. I used to have certain 'logic' but now that 'logic' doesnt seem so 'logical' to me.

Maybe I would even say that 'logic' is practically artificial in nature, just like language. But I dont cling to 'logic'.

You're confusing logic with common sense which, I agree, is neither common nor sensible.

Logic is reaching a conclusion based on evidence rather than emotion, not about what "seems likely to be correct". While many people can use logic to reach different conclusions, ultimately it is only logic through which people can reach an objectively agreeable conclusion.

Logic and reason are the best (and only) real tools we humans have for determining what is fact and what is fiction. Not using them or refusing to acknowledge their usefulness is a complete waste of a good brain.

 

[DreadFish]

You're confusing logic with common sense which, I agree, is neither common nor sensible.

Logic is reaching a conclusion based on evidence rather than emotion, not about what "seems likely to be correct". While many people can use logic to reach different conclusions, ultimately it is only logic through which people can reach an objectively agreeable conclusion.

Logic and reason are the best (and only) real tools we humans have for determining what is fact and what is fiction. Not using them or refusing to acknowledge their usefulness is a complete waste of a good brain.

Ok, I know where your coming from now. Basically what I mean is that, logic is still a created system, and only functions within its own borders. I know im not conveying this the way I understand it unfortunately .
I dont mean to dismiss the ultimate usefulness of logic and reason, they are important, but I feel that they are stepping stones that carry you to a place beyond logic and reason. They are starting to have a different meaning in my life, and I cant really tell you what I mean, but rather that it can be experienced. So I wouldnt be surprised that so-called "God" is beyond a logical argument.
We should "beware of limiting 'God' to our concept of 'God'", as Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan has said, and I whole-heartedly agree. It is our concepts of "God" that really set us apart often. It seems like a pretty arbitrary unfortunate thing to be set apart by. :flower::foryou:


Peace

 

[Magic Man]

My God is real, He's real in my soul.
He has washed, and He made me whole.
His love for me, is like pure gold.
My God is real, for I can FEEL Him in my soul.

I'm sorry that you have not felt that.

As I said, I've felt that. I then later realized that what that feeling was was not God.

To explain it to you, as best I can - it's like butterflies in my heart. It is the greatest sense of peace. It is waking up and being thankful that He gave you another day - yet at the same time, you don't fear death. It is a feeling of self worth. It is a feeling of responsibility - to spread how He has changed you. It is a feeling of love, like none other. It is not fearing tomorrow. It is not worrying with the things of the past. It is knowing that Someone is in control. He loves you no matter what you are doing, I know this because He loves me and I have sinned and continue to sin and how can He love me and not love you?

That's cool. I feel all of those same things without God. I have a sense of self-worth. I sometimes have butterflies in my heart and a great sense of peace. I'm often thankful that I've woken up. I don't fear death. I have a feeling of love like no other. I don't fear tomorrow. I don't worry about the things of the past; in fact I do that less because I don't believe in God. I know someone is in control - me.

I have given arguments and comparisons to my logic in God, but to what avail? I won't change your beliefs, and that's not what it's about. I will not stand by though and see someone ridicule my Savior. As long as I have the ability, I will defend my beliefs and the truth about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

This thread isn't about me changing your belief in God or vice versa. This thread is about whether or not the question of God's existence is subject to logic. No one here has ridiculed your savior, and it's sad that you see it that way. And this is not the thread to defend your beliefs and the truth about God.

As for logic, thank you. Thank you all for making me realize that it's not necessary for me to believe.

Oh, we didn't do that. You already had that notion. What we've shown you is that in you quest to decide whether or not God is real, logic should be the method of determining the answer. You just refuse to see that.

1Corinthians 1:26 - 1:27
For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.
Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Ah, yes, Bible quoting. You're hitting all of the usual points. I especially love that the Bible quotes are the ones with the old disclaimers in them. That way, in case you do start to doubt and listen to those who try to tell you God doesn't exist (which is not what's happening in this thread), you've already got you holy book explaining that you shouldn't listen to them for good reason. I also love the calling us swine. That's always a favorite of mine. It's a very Christian thing to call others swine, I think.

 

[Aqualung]

Logic is reaching a conclusion based on evidence rather than emotion, not about what "seems likely to be correct"

That's also not true. Logic is reaching a conclusion based on a series of logical statements. People do that with common sense. Things tend to "seem likely to be correct" because people can construct a couple of if-then statements to reach it. The problem isn't the logic; it's the initial premises.

 

[Magic Man]

Often, there are things in the universe we know are there only by noticing the effects they have on other things. Take, for instance, quarks. To my knowledge, no one has been able to see a quark (quarks are believed to be parts of atoms). No one has ever seen a black hole either, for that matter.

Actually, quarks aren't believed to be anything. They are known to be what make up the nuclei of atoms because they've been seen. Also, black holes have been seen, but you're right, mostly by their effect on their surroundings.

In any case, this is definitely a good line of thinking. Even if you can't see something with your naked eye, you generally only believe it's real if you can sense its effects on other things. I think the problem is you're going on to say that there was some effect or effects in your life that could only come from God. That's not the case. Even if there's something in your life that scientists or doctors can't explain, that doesn't mean it's a sign of God. It just means we don't understand it at this point. Hence my signature.

The main problem here is that there is pretty much no such thing as an effect that is only attributable to God. That has been proven over the years. Over the course of human history people have attributed all kinds of things to their gods, and at least the vast majority of them have been proven to be something else, and so the concepts of god have evolved.

Also, to clarify - I am not going to scroll back up thru the posts to determine who said this to me, but someone implied that I am a literalist when it comes to the Creation story. This is not the case. I believe that God could well have used evolution in some manner to create the universe.

As we were walking out, he said, "Have you been using any homeopathic methods to treat her?" I said, "No. But our entire church has been praying for her. That's all I know." He laughed and said, "I've seen stranger things work. I believe in the power of prayer."

So, wait, no it was the power of prayer? I thought you said prayer can't work that way because that would be changing God's plan that he already had. So, obviously this doctor is mistaken. And the fact that he says this just means that he, like you, likes being able to attribute this to God.

I can't explain what happened, and neither could her doctors.

I can. She was one in a million. She had just the right combination of factors for her to get better. Since it only happens one time out of hundreds of thousands or millions, they don't understand exactly why, I'm sure. However, that doesn't mean it's God. It just means they have yet to figure out exactly why it happened in one case and not many, many others.

Actually, attributing this to God only means you have at least one more question to answer. Why did God do it this time and not the many others?

The only reason you believe this to be God's intervention is that you already believe in God, and you want to attribute things to him. This is what has happened for all of human history. "How did that happen?" "I don't know. It must have been Zeus/Odin/Shiva/Goddess/God."

 

[Kathryn]

Oh wow, mball - thanks for clearing all that up. Now I realize it wasn't God at all. Your pristine logic has convinced me otherwise.

OK back to reality. I hope you don't think that I haven't seriously considered the theories that you just presented. However, the CUMULATIVE experiences in my life, of which this is just one, prove the existance of God to me over and over again.

It's sort of like this. Something can happen to you, and you can say, "Oh well, it must be because...blah blah blah" to disprove the existance of God. Then something else happens and you say, "Yes, but maybe it's...blah blah blah"

Or - it could be God.

I believe in God. I guess you don't. Neither of us will be able to prove or disprove God's existance to each other using simply logic. You can say that you believe the preponderance of evidence in your life points to the theory that there is no God - and I can say that the preponderance of evidence in my life points to the existance OF God, and we may both be right - but our positions are un-provable.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh wow, mball - thanks for clearing all that up. Now I realize it wasn't God at all. Your pristine logic has convinced me otherwise.

You should probably hold off on the sarcasm until there's a proper time to use it. What I'm saying is that you jump to the conclusion that it was God when there are plenty of other equally likely possibilities. That story about your daughter isn't evidence for God like the effects of a black hole are evidence of a black hole. The effects of a black hole can't be attributed to anything else, while your daughter's story can.

OK back to reality.

Good. I'm glad you came back here to meet me.

I hope you don't think that I haven't seriously considered the theories that you just presented. However, the CUMULATIVE experiences in my life, of which this is just one, prove the existance of God to me over and over again.

Yes, and those cumulative experiences are all of this same variety. Many people don't like coincidences to just be coincidences. You like believing in your god; nothing wrong with that. But that gives you a biased opinion of those experiences.

It's sort of like this. Something can happen to you, and you can say, "Oh well, it must be because...blah blah blah" to disprove the existance of God. Then something else happens and you say, "Yes, but maybe it's...blah blah blah"

Or - it could be God.

Sure, it could be God, but then you have to subject the whole thing to logic. If you subject it to logic, in cases like your god, it tends to point away from God, unless you then make up excuses for God.

I believe in God. I guess you don't. Neither of us will be able to prove or disprove God's existance to each other using simply logic.

Maybe not to each other, but certain god concepts can be disproven with logic.

You can say that you believe the preponderance of evidence in your life points to the theory that there is no God - and I can say that the preponderance of evidence in my life points to the existance OF God, and we may both be right - but our positions are un-provable.

Again, it depends. The point is that logic should been employed to determine whether or not God exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Kathryn, your story set off a few flags for me:

Often, there are things in the universe we know are there only by noticing the effects they have on other things. Take, for instance, quarks. To my knowledge, no one has been able to see a quark (quarks are believed to be parts of atoms). No one has ever seen a black hole either, for that matter.

Also, to clarify - I am not going to scroll back up thru the posts to determine who said this to me, but someone implied that I am a literalist when it comes to the Creation story. This is not the case. I believe that God could well have used evolution in some manner to create the universe.

I believe someone else also asked at some point if anyone had ever had God directly intervene in their lives and produce any sort of miracle. This has happened to me and my family, I believe, on two occasions THAT I AM AWARE OF.

It seems to me that you've previously argued in this thread that God is beyond scientific inquiry, right? However, here you present us with a story of what you say is evidence for God. These two positions seem to me to be contradictory.

As we were walking out, he said, "Have you been using any homeopathic methods to treat her?" I said, "No. But our entire church has been praying for her. That's all I know." He laughed and said, "I've seen stranger things work. I believe in the power of prayer."

As a side note, this set off an alarm bell for me. I'd personally question the opinion of any doctor who leaped to the conclusion "it must be homeopathy!" when confronted with a healed patient he can't otherwise explain... though this isn't exactly relevant to the thread, other than for the fact that you seem to be citing the doctor as an authority, and his feelings about the efficacy of sham cures would speak to how much of an authority he actually is.

I can't explain what happened, and neither could her doctors.

Wait - but you gave us the explanation already: you told us that God healed your daughter. Which is it? Can you explain it or not?