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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you considered the question objectively?

I think I have.

That is, the question of why do people suffer and why is there evil if there is an all-powerful god? Did you come up with any reasonable possibilities?

Yes: that the existence of an omnipotent deity who dislikes suffering is logically irreconcilable with the actual state of things. I don't think that the problem of evil can be properly resolved as long as you accept all its premises as true. IMO, the only way to resolve it is to take some part away from the assumed god: he's either non-omnipotent, non-good, or both... or not existent at all.

 

[Skwim]

A funny misconception that docters are all medical docters.

Maybe among those you run with, but nobody I've ever known is this ignorant.

Astronomers are docters, leading philosphers are docters.

Yes, those who have earned a PhD. Astronomers and philosophers who only have a BS or MS degree do not have the right to call themselves a doctor, and they don't. Neither does anyone else. Leading philosophers almost certainly so, but it isn't because they are leading, but because they have been conferred the title by an academic institute of higher learning. You know, places such as universities and colleges.

It is a master of their career, not a very hard thing to understand.

A "master of their career" is it. So someone who has mastered carpentry has the right to call himself Doctor Buzz Saw, as would the the successful con-artist, Doctor Swifty Shyster. Sorry, but this bastardization of the title doesn't fly, and particularly in the case of someone like LaVey, who created the position to which he simply assigned the title, "Doctor." Just reach the priesthood, and you too can be a bona fide Doctor. It's a usurpation of inherent status. Of course a person can call himself anything he wants, but this doesn't automatically confer the status that commonly accompanies the title. It's a sham title. Not that this should prevent you from thinking of me as High Lord Skwim.

 

[PolyHedral]

For example, the color blue is blue. Since blue is a primary color of light along with red and green. So with that said, a mixture of blue with red creates purple. So in that truth, purple is really blue and red but it is literally purple.

Purple is composed of blue and red. It is neither. That's like saying that you are a molecule of glucose, or a hydrogen atom.

I think that truth is just of perception and defined knowledge. For what is known to some people, may not be known to others and others may argue out of their ignorance, hence a personal 'truth' is created though realistically their truth may be false.

A conclusion based on limited information is still only that; A conclusion. It is still not a truth, even if the reasoning is logically valid. It's only a truth if it matches up to reality.

In one eye's views, God created everything, so a circular square or a truthful lie could be created, simply because he created it, though it may be very unpragmatic.

In order to create a lie that is truthful, you must directly contradict logic. Are you saying God can do that?

On the other hand, you could draw a circle with edges, but then it wouldn't be a circle nor a sqaure, it would just be what it is, a circle square

How many edges? Any finite amount is merely a polygon. An infinite amount is a circle. There is no in-between.

And as for a truthful lie, well if one lies to get what he wants, out of the others eyes they are telling the truth and believing them out of ignorance. But it is only a truth to the person believing it is a truth and not lie.

Truth matches reality. If they conclude that the man's statement is true, then they are wrong.

 

[Orias]

Maybe among those you run with, but nobody I've ever known is this ignorant.

You would know, that all beings are of ignorance. So don't exclude yourself.

Yes, those who have earned a PhD. Astronomers and philosophers who only have a BS or MS degree do not have the right to call themselves a doctor, and they don't. Neither does anyone else. Leading philosophers almost certainly so, but it isn't because they are leading, but because they have been conferred the title by an academic institute of higher learning. You know, places such as universities and colleges.

SO YOU are denying Anton LaVey of his docterates degree. Do you not consider someone a president of their company because they are not the president of the United States. You don't know anything about whom you speak of.

A "master of their career" is it. So someone who has mastered carpentry has the right to call himself Doctor Buzz Saw, as would the the successful con-artist, Doctor Swifty Shyster. Sorry, but this bastardization of the title doesn't fly, and particularly in the case of someone like LaVey, who created the position to which he simply assigned the title, "Doctor." Just reach the priesthood, and you too can be a bona fide Doctor. It's a usurpation of inherent status. Of course a person can call himself anything he wants, but this doesn't automatically confer the status that commonly accompanies the title. It's a sham title. Not that this should prevent you from thinking of me as High Lord Skwim.

Your labeling things incoherently. And again, I don't see how this has anything to do with the thread topic, you keep ignoring the points I have been making to critisize me about something you know nothing of.

"Frank and explicit -- that is the right line to take when you wish to conceal your own mind and to confuse the minds of others." - Benjamin Disraeli

Honest critisizm isn't always the wisest.

Take Scott Walker for example, running for governer without a college degree.

What makes a prophet a prophet? You tell me.

 

[Orias]

Purple is composed of blue and red. It is neither. That's like saying that you are a molecule of glucose, or a hydrogen atom.

So can you make purple from not red and blue? Of course it is composed of blue and red, but it is both since if it were not both then it would not be. We consist of atoms, so therefore we are the coagulation of those atom. The consistancy of growth and evolution. So it is an truthful lie, that purple is red and blue, but it is just purple.

A conclusion based on limited information is still only that; A conclusion. It is still not a truth, even if the reasoning is logically valid. It's only a truth if it matches up to reality.

Agreeable. But that is just evidence enough against God's existence. Since Christians do believe mercy is truth, and God's word is truth, but it is really just a conclusion, or a justifcation of death or the 'after' life. I do agree with you 100%, it is only a truth if it matches up to reality. But I was speaking on a more personal term, from a more introverted perspective.

In order to create a lie that is truthful, you must directly contradict logic. Are you saying God can do that?

Not necessarily though. Is cunning logical? If so, then one who get's another to believe a lie must have some form of logic or trust. Not saying that all lies are logical, it just depends on the situation. And to answer your question, I think that it all depends on opinion, since my views of God may be different than yours.

But yes I do believe he could do that, since those who believe claim he is all powerful, yet he demands faith. Is he not powerful enough to directly influence our belief? If God was so logical why would he create an evil to tempt man? Oh right...it is part of God's great plan.

You see, God tested his followers faith by letting 'Satan' deprive them of their meaning of existence. Yet those followers still held faith within God.


"Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid...for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.”

I don't know about you, but I find a hypocrit in God.


"A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult”

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”

But how is this so? The Church follows the bible, does it not? If this is so, the leaders of the Church would not get into Heaven. Why must a man be moderate or low in wealth to enter the kingdom of God?

I find that no matter how powerful God may be, he has a very rash sense of doing things.

Of course then many Christians use the excuse, this is just a test for the after life.

How many edges? Any finite amount is merely a polygon. An infinite amount is a circle. There is no in-between.

But this is taught. There is the possibility to have an in-between. No matter how illogical that may sound, it is rational. Why is blue, blue? Because it is taught and not questioned. A circle really has no edges, since it is rounded, unless you could have a rounded edge, but then it would just be a curve, i.e. circle.

But the labels we give to things matters not, for they just are what they are. Though labels are just voices of perceptions to distinguish difference, but these are not truths.

Truth matches reality. If they conclude that the man's statement is true, then they are wrong.

Of course. They would be wrong, but they don't know that. You made some good points, some of what I was trying to get across, you just simplified it.

 

[PolyHedral]

But yes I do believe he could do that, since those who believe claim he is all powerful, yet he demands faith. Is he not powerful enough to directly influence our belief? If God was so logical why would he create an evil to tempt man? Oh right...it is part of God's great plan.

I heard that God doesn't want to disturb our "free will" as the answer to that.

But this is taught. There is the possibility to have an in-between. No matter how illogical that may sound, it is rational. Why is blue, blue? Because it is taught and not questioned. A circle really has no edges, since it is rounded, unless you could have a rounded edge, but then it would just be a curve, i.e. circle.

It is taught because it is correct. Blue is blue because blue is merely your eye interpreting light with a wavelength of 440–490nm. It is still impossible to draw a shape that has both a finite number and 0/infinity edges at once.

 

[Orias]

I heard that God doesn't want to disturb our "free will" as the answer to that.

Hmm...it seems God says a lot of things. God is a hypocrit because people say that God said things, that counter things that he has said before. As I have previously stated, God is a tool used to manipulate and control the masses.

It is taught because it is correct. Blue is blue because blue is merely your eye interpreting light with a wavelength of 440–490nm. It is still impossible to draw a shape that has both a finite number and 0/infinity edges at once.

Of course it is the interpretation of the light wave, but the numbers are irrelevant to the label of the color. It isn't blue because of the 440-490nm, it's blue because it's different than red.

Christians are taught of God, that doesn't make it correct, it is just one teaching others their perception of the subject.

Dog's don't label and distinguish blue from red. Sure blue is blue, but who made blue blue?

 

[jonman122]

Hmm...it seems God says a lot of things. God is a hypocrit because people say that God said things, that counter things that he has said before. As I have previously stated, God is a tool used to manipulate and control the masses.





Of course it is the interpretation of the light wave, but the numbers are irrelevant to the label of the color. It isn't blue because of the 440-490nm, it's blue because it's different than red.

Christians are taught of God, that doesn't make it correct, it is just one teaching others their perception of the subject.

Dog's don't label and distinguish blue from red. Sure blue is blue, but who made blue blue?

you're wrong because you seem to think that colour is subjective. it's not, blue is the same for everyone and everyones brain (other than those that can not distinguish colours and the blind) can see blue the same, and interpret it the same. we don't say blue is blue because its not red, we say blue is blue because its blue. blue is also not yellow/green/grey/black/white/violet/cyan, but it can be used to help create some of these colours. make some sense?

 

[ChristineES]

I don't know why but it bothers me when someone says "you're wrong" rather than "I disagree with you". I am probably just being nitpicky, since they mean the exact same thing, but...
Just an interjection.

 

[wmjbyatt]

you're wrong because you seem to think that colour is subjective. it's not, blue is the same for everyone and everyones brain (other than those that can not distinguish colours and the blind) can see blue the same, and interpret it the same. we don't say blue is blue because its not red, we say blue is blue because its blue. blue is also not yellow/green/grey/black/white/violet/cyan, but it can be used to help create some of these colours. make some sense?

What? Okay, I do think it's fair to assume that the color that you call "blue" and the color that I call "blue" share the same physical characteristics. That is, the phenomenon that you see as blue is the result of light with a wavelength of roughly 475 nanometers striking your retina, and the phenomenon that I see as blue is ALSO the result of light with a wavelength of roughly 475 nanometers striking my retina, but you and I have no possible way of comparing our subjective experiences of this photo-phenomenon, so it is impossible to determine whether or not we experience color the same way. Because it is impossible to gain another human being's subjective perspective, you cannot possibly sit behind their eyes to check and see if we do, indeed, experience blue the same.

As a matter of fact, when you realize that our understanding of the color blue comes with a series of associations and abstractions, it becomes pretty reasonable to assume that it is extraordinarily unlikely that you and I will experience the color blue in an identical fashion. When you see blue, it evokes a full range of associations, thoughts, understandings, even emotions. When I see blue, it will evoke a different range of associations, thoughts, understandings, and emotions, because my life experience has been different than yours.

The basic point is that your claim that everyone experiences blue the same way is untestable at best, with a deep theoretical foundation suggesting that it is mistaken.

 

[PolyHedral]

you and I have no possible way of comparing our subjective experiences of this photo-phenomenon, so it is impossible to determine whether or not we experience color the same way.

Would you like to me get out the MRI machines?

When you see blue, it evokes a full range of associations, thoughts, understandings, even emotions.

True, but you are going to see the same colour as me. (Unless your eyes have a totally different design to mine.)

 

[wmjbyatt]

True, but you are going to see the same colour as me. (Unless your eyes have a totally different design to mine.)

You don't know that. I'm not saying that I will see a different color than you will, I'm saying that you don't have the epistemic authority to know what I see. Your entire experience of reality is from your own perspective. I will most certainly see the same color that you see in that I will see the same photo-phenomenon, but the way I actually experience blue may be closer to the way you experience purple. The qualia of the experienced phenomenon may be different, and you have no way of demonstrating or comparing their similarity.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't know why but it bothers me when someone says "you're wrong" rather than "I disagree with you". I am probably just being nitpicky, since they mean the exact same thing, but...
Just an interjection.

You're wrong.

But seriously, they don't necessarily mean the same thing. There are times when someone is just wrong. If someone says "If you have 2 apples, and I have 2 apples, together we have 7 apples", that person is wrong. It's not that I disagree with their conclusion; it's that their conclusion is simply wrong.

 

[Orias]

you're wrong because you seem to think that colour is subjective. it's not, blue is the same for everyone and everyones brain (other than those that can not distinguish colours and the blind) can see blue the same, and interpret it the same. we don't say blue is blue because its not red, we say blue is blue because its blue. blue is also not yellow/green/grey/black/white/violet/cyan, but it can be used to help create some of these colours. make some sense?

First of all, what is your definition of 'subjective'? Morals are subjective because they can be seen and percieved in different manners, as are colors simply because color blind people interperate the visuals of colors 'differently' than others. Sure blue is blue because it is blue, but the label of blue is irrelevant to the color, as purple consists of both blue and red. It's taught that God is good, but some people would beg the differ .

Second of all, I am not wrong. Color is taught, which makes it subjective, but what the color is taught may be correct in the same minds of everyone else, who said what color the color is? Red could be blue whereas blue could be red. Different manners of animals don't percieve the meaning of 'blue' they just see it. As a different intelligant race may see blue as green.

It is a matter of seeing things from a different perspective other than the everyday common sight.

Our brains do interperate the same colors, as everyone knows the color blue, but the name of the color is irrelevant to the color for it just is. Everyone knows 'blue' but the experiences within blue differ among everyone else, as it a variation of an infinite perception. As a man who his color blind may see blue as brown.

Purple is the collaberation of red and blue, so therefore purple is both blue and red but it is just purple.

Take some time to understand before you jump into making conclusions.

 

[PolyHedral]

Color is taught, but what the color is taught may be correct in the same minds of everyone else, who said what color the color is?

The light itself is identical and the eye is constructed near-identically. (barring colour-blindness) The only subjective thing is how the brain reacts to the blue. It's still blue no matter how you twist it, though.

Purple is the collaberation of red and blue, so therefore purple is both blue and red but it is just purple.

A = (B + C)
Therefore, A = B and A = C

Has something been lost in translation?

 

[Orias]

The light itself is identical and the eye is constructed near-identically. (barring colour-blindness) The only subjective thing is how the brain reacts to the blue. It's still blue no matter how you twist it, though.

Of course, I am not saying that blue could be a different color, because it already has the lable blue!

It's the matter of experience and how much of your left brain you are using to try and understand the simple perception of the label blue. The only phsyicality of blue is the color and the reflection of light upon our retinas, since blue is a label for our perception of what it is, it can be twisted in anyway because of it's simple and philosophical concept.

A = (B + C)
Therefore, A = B and A = C

Has something been lost in translation?

1+1=2.

Red+Blue=Purple

Do you think I am misunderstanding something here?

A(purple)=B(red)+C(blue)

Therefore A(purple)=B(red) and A(purple)=C(blue)

So what? That is what I have been saying this whole time.

 

[ChristineES]

You're wrong.

But seriously, they don't necessarily mean the same thing. There are times when someone is just wrong. If someone says "If you have 2 apples, and I have 2 apples, together we have 7 apples", that person is wrong. It's not that I disagree with their conclusion; it's that their conclusion is simply wrong.

In that case, I would be wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

A(purple)=B(red)+C(blue)

Therefore A(purple)=B(red) and A(purple)=C(blue)

So what? That is what I have been saying this whole time.

Yes, and the point was that's wrong. If A=(B+C), then A does not equal B or C individually (unless one of them is 0). It only equals the sum. For instance, your example above that is 1+1=2. 2 does not equal 1, but it equals the sum of 1+1. The point is that purple equals purple. It doesn't equal blue, and it doesn't equal red. It equals the combination of the two.

 

[jonman122]

First of all, what is your definition of 'subjective'? Morals are subjective because they can be seen and percieved in different manners, as are colors simply because color blind people interperate the visuals of colors 'differently' than others. Sure blue is blue because it is blue, but the label of blue is irrelevant to the color, as purple consists of both blue and red. It's taught that God is good, but some people would beg the differ .

Second of all, I am not wrong. Color is taught, which makes it subjective, but what the color is taught may be correct in the same minds of everyone else, who said what color the color is? Red could be blue whereas blue could be red. Different manners of animals don't percieve the meaning of 'blue' they just see it. As a different intelligant race may see blue as green.

It is a matter of seeing things from a different perspective other than the everyday common sight.

Our brains do interperate the same colors, as everyone knows the color blue, but the name of the color is irrelevant to the color for it just is. Everyone knows 'blue' but the experiences within blue differ among everyone else, as it a variation of an infinite perception. As a man who his color blind may see blue as brown.

Purple is the collaberation of red and blue, so therefore purple is both blue and red but it is just purple.

Take some time to understand before you jump into making conclusions.

words are subjective, our ability to interpret colour is not. Thats why i said you're wrong, you seemed to be implying that the interpretation of colour was different between people when in fact it is not. The only difference is the word, just like rouge is red, blanc is white, and so on. no matter what you name it, it's the same damn colour.

try to take the time to understand before you jump in to making conclusions.

1+1=2.

Red+Blue=Purple

Do you think I am misunderstanding something here?

A(purple)=B(red)+C(blue)

Therefore A(purple)=B(red) and A(purple)=C(blue)

So what? That is what I have been saying this whole time.

you realize you just said in that sentence that 4=2?

 

[Orias]

Yes, and the point was that's wrong. If A=(B+C), then A does not equal B or C individually (unless one of them is 0). It only equals the sum. For instance, your example above that is 1+1=2. 2 does not equal 1, but it equals the sum of 1+1. The point is that purple equals purple. It doesn't equal blue, and it doesn't equal red. It equals the combination of the two.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the point I was trying to make.

Purple would not be purple if it were not for red and blue, as I have said in previous posts, purple is red and blue but it is actually just purple.