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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am convinced that objective reality is unknowable. If, for arguments sake, you accept that on my behalf, is not 'feeling right' as good a standard as any.

But that doesn't make it a good standard. Effectively, you've said that no standard is valid, so it makes no sense to me to hold up anything as a standard. Isn't it better to simply say that you don't know?

I believe that there is enormous power in the unconscious mind and I consider 'feeling right' taps into this.

Wait - so you do think that "feeling right" is a good standard? There's a difference between saying that it has merits in its own right and saying that it has no less merit than other approaches that aren't valid at all.

For me, the only truth is that there is no knowable objective truth. Other truths don't especially matter to me - living well and doing no harm does.

Then why bother saying that things are "subjectively true" to you at all? If it doesn't matter, why would it matter?

 

[sandandfoam]

But that doesn't make it a good standard. Effectively, you've said that no standard is valid, so it makes no sense to me to hold up anything as a standard. Isn't it better to simply say that you don't know?

I feel as if I know. But reason put's a brake on me.

Wait - so you do think that "feeling right" is a good standard? There's a difference between saying that it has merits in its own right and saying that it has no less merit than other approaches that aren't valid at all.

It works for me. That's all.

Then why bother saying that things are "subjectively true" to you at all? If it doesn't matter, why would it matter?

Because I feel it matters.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nope, but you can make perfectly logical arguments dictating the potential characteristics of God as logical or illogical.

On what criteria?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because I feel it matters.

But didn't you just say it didn't matter?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On what criteria?

Logical consistency comes to mind. The problem of evil is one good illustration of this.

 

[sandandfoam]

But didn't you just say it didn't matter?

-other truths don't especially matter, living well and doing no harm does.

Subjective truths are needed to navigate the world but they don't especially matter.
E.g.
Subjective truth is that I believe in God, I regularly enter discussion with those who think this is bonkers. That doesn't especially matter.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Logical consistency comes to mind. The problem of evil is one good illustration of this.

How useful is it to evaluate something for logical consistency when a spiritual dogma does not take the form of a logical argument?

[it's like using a screwdriver to drive nails...]

 

[Magic Man]

How useful is it to evaluate something for logical consistency when a spiritual dogma does not take the form of a logical argument?

[it's like using a screwdriver to drive nails...]

It's always useful to evaluate something for logical consistency. That's how we know what is good and not good to believe.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's always useful to evaluate something for logical consistency. That's how we know what is good and not good to believe.

Can you do that with the axioms of Nietzsche?

Or perhaps the enjoyment of art and music?

There is more to our human experience than logic - logic has its limits, and the failure to recognize those limits is to deny us a significant portion of ourselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

-other truths don't especially matter, living well and doing no harm does.

Subjective truths are needed to navigate the world but they don't especially matter.
E.g.
Subjective truth is that I believe in God, I regularly enter discussion with those who think this is bonkers. That doesn't especially matter.

Hmm. I think that what you're calling "subjective truth" is what I'd call a mental model: something that's useful for predicting what will happen and making sense of things, but is still not necessarily true... and not even necessarily based on sound reasoning.

I personally find the term "truth" less than useful when we're talking about anything other than objective truth.

How useful is it to evaluate something for logical consistency when a spiritual dogma does not take the form of a logical argument?

Reality is consistent with logic. If that dogma asserts something about actual existence of a real thing (e.g. a hypothesized god), then it has to be consistent with logic as well for there to be any possibility that the things it proposes are real.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Reality is consistent with logic. If that dogma asserts something about actual existence of a real thing (e.g. a hypothesized god), then it has to be consistent with logic as well for there to be any possibility that the things it proposes are real.

How do you know that?

 

[Magic Man]

Can you do that with the axioms of Nietzsche?

Or perhaps the enjoyment of art and music?

Sure, but then again that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the idea of an object. A closer analogy would be "Can you do that with a dragon, or perhaps a 10-foot-tall flying monster?".

There is more to our human experience than logic - logic has its limits, and the failure to recognize those limits is to deny us a significant portion of ourselves.

Let's just agree for the moment that logic has limits. What makes you think the idea of God is outside those limits?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you do that with the axioms of Nietzsche?

Or perhaps the enjoyment of art and music?

There is more to our human experience than logic - logic has its limits, and the failure to recognize those limits is to deny us a significant portion of ourselves.

It's not that you need to derive every position from logic, but any real thing must be consistent with logic. Logic does not say that it is impossible to enjoy art and music.

OTOH, logic does say that it's impossible to enjoy other things: misery, for instance, since the definition of misery is incompatible with enjoyment.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sure, but then again that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the idea of an object. A closer analogy would be "Can you do that with a dragon, or perhaps a 10-foot-tall flying monster?".

I don't know where you got that from. We are talking about the idea of God, not dragons or monsters. Even then, my point concerns the value of human experience that gives weight to the idea of God that dragons and 10-foot tall flying monster or whatever else you care to make up does not have.

Let's just agree for the moment that logic has limits. What makes you think the idea of God is outside those limits?

Of course logic has its limits. Logic is essentially mathematics, and it needs adjustments just like math as discoveries are made [quantum theory and theoretical physics effect our reasoning for how the universe works]. Logic is a tool for evaluating ideas and arguments that can be contained within logical / mathematical constructs.

However, Nietzsche and other wisdom teachings, including those in the Bible are not mathematical equasions or logical arguments, but a type of art meant to be experienced.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's not that you need to derive every position from logic, but any real thing must be consistent with logic. Logic does not say that it is impossible to enjoy art and music.

OTOH, logic does say that it's impossible to enjoy other things: misery, for instance, since the definition of misery is incompatible with enjoyment.

Logic doesn't say anything.

Who are we to say that someone cannot enjoy misery? The ideal Epicurean wiseman - according to Seneca - could endure misery so much that he/she enjoys it. The Stoic wiseman, on the other hand, endures misery but does not enjoy it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know that?

Because, effectively, it's a tautology and therefore necessarily true.

Logic is the determination of what is true through valid inferences. Really, my statement "reality is consistent with logic" could be re-written "reality is consistent with how reality works".

Effectively, anything that is true is necessarily logical, because logic is defined in terms of what is true.

Of course, this is all completely separate from any judgement about whether any particular school of thought on logic is correct.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think logic is often confused with the way the world is in itself.
Logic, like the FSM is a product of the human mind. The only thing we can be sure that it evidences is human thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Logic doesn't say anything.

Who are we to say that someone cannot enjoy misery? The ideal Epicurean wiseman - according to Seneca - could endure misery so much that he/she enjoys it.

Then it would cease to be misery.

However, if you want to quibble with my word choice, I'm sure you could come up with some other set of antonyms.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't know where you got that from. We are talking about the idea of God, not dragons or monsters. Even then, my point concerns the value of human experience that gives weight to the idea of God that dragons and 10-foot tall flying monster or whatever else you care to make up does not have.

The point is we're talking about the existence of a certain being. When you define an object or a being, that definition is either going to be logical or illogical.

I'm not talking about why it might make more sense for people to believe in God than to believe in dragons. I'm just talking about the logical nature of each creature. So, the point that human experience gives more weight to the idea of God than dragons is irrelevant here.

Logic is a tool for evaluating ideas and arguments that can be contained within logical / mathematical constructs.

Yes, exactly, and God is one of those ideas/arguments. Anyway, you didn't actually answer the question. I already agreed for the sake of this particular argument that logic has limits. The question then is why you think the idea of God would be outside those limits.

However, Nietzsche and other wisdom teachings, including those in the Bible are not mathematical equasions or logical arguments, but a type of art meant to be experienced.

What does this have to do with anything? Whether or not that's true, the fact remains that to be useful, a concept of God needs to be logical.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then it would cease to be misery.

However, if you want to quibble with my word choice, I'm sure you could come up with some other set of antonyms.

According to you.

The significance is human experience, not semantics [word choice].

It would be no accomplishment for an Epicurean to achieve enjoyment of misery if misery ceased to exist. He has conquered it, but he enjoys the suffering - not in a perverted kind of way - but because he celebrates victory - the control of his body / emotions while in misery.