Hint: you are missing a comma, maybe two.
Cool. Lucky it isn't mine. I'm trying to prove that the phrase 'the user strikes with a tough punch as fast as a bullet', means that the punch is that fast, not the entire person. So I may owe you me winning an argument. Thanks.
edit: Ha, and thanks to you two too. Now I'm certain I'm winning. Plus I owe you guys too.
[quote] Disbelief is the default position. I have been given no empirical reason to believe in God and I continue to wonder why theists make a butchery of the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. The thing I would say is that I have been given no empirical evidence that God does not exist, but then I haven't been given any empirical evidence that suggest that an invisible pink elephant that is microscopic in size doesn't live in my bedroom.
Great, so stick to your belief. Then again, if the pink elephant is invisible, I'm not sure his "size" is relevant. I think there are two ways to go in terms of morals. Humans and a higher being. Even without concrete evidence of a higher being, I would pick him/it/her over humans any day.[/quote]
DS, I'm really starting to believe that you don't understand this particular argument. I know I've gotten the exact same response out of you more than once, and I know that I've yet to be convinced that you have adequately responded.
Simply put, the question is why you believe in God. The pink invisible something is a bit of rhetorical flourish that I think does more harm than good. So, I'd like to re-phrase it:
"Why did you begin believing in God?
I don't want to hear about the ramifications of the idea of God. I want to know why you think it is true to begin with."
Originally posted by Nephthys
Cool. Lucky it isn't mine. I'm trying to prove that the phrase 'the user strikes with a tough punch as fast as a bullet', means that the punch is that fast, not the entire person. So I may owe you me winning an argument. Thanks.edit: Ha, and thanks to you two too. Now I'm certain I'm winning. Plus I owe you guys too.
It works best if you do it poorly using MSPaint.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Weakest ideas? Lol. I sure as hell prefer it to the alternative. Btw, your rationalization is not only weak, but baseless and typical for someone who screams "logic" and enlightenment. I'm surprised you're not telling me that atheists/philosophers are in general, smarter than religious people because....
This is not an argument, this is a series of claims with no logical backing. Simply saying that I am wrong is not good enough. That being said, I am not an evolutionary biologist.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Great, so stick to your belief. Then again, if the pink elephant is invisible, I'm not sure his "size" is relevant. I think there are two ways to go in terms of morals. Humans and a higher being. Even without concrete evidence of a higher being, I would pick him/it/her over humans any day.
This is niticking, attacking the fact that invisbility and microscopic size is redundent does not disprove my argument. The second part of this is opinion, not an argument.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
This is yet another weak rationalization. "I can't disprove God's existence so I'm going to claim that he's making excuses so I can still seem like the more logical one."
Not to mention, that specific paragraph has absolutely NO legs to stand on. How is something faith based and can't be proven conclusively either way, going to be tested by scientists, especially in a field that makes and remakes theoriess?
This is a subversion of what I said, because you lack an argument against me, you have attempted to twist my words to make them easier to attack. You assert that God exists, the onus is on you to explain to me why I should believe that God exists. It is not my job to prove to you that he doesn't. I am not asserting that God doesn't exist, I am saying that I have no reason to believe that he does.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You really don't want to go down that route. You're equating religious nutcases with religion in general, which is an epic fail. That's like me equating Stalin's secular humanistic/anti religious beliefs and the murder of 25million+ soviets, with secular humanism in general. In the end, you don't want to start comparing death tolls because you'll lose.
Actually, I do want to go down this route. I am currenlty writing a paper comparing Soviet Communism to that of a Religion. It was dogmatic, had a messianic figure in the form of Lenin, had its own set of immutable laws and social codes and believed that it was the final and ultimate truth. This is not atheism, this was a religion that refused to admit that it was a religion. However, since I haven't finished the paper yet, I'm not going to push this point.
In seven weeks, after I have finished the paper (my professor set the page limit at twenty) I will post a rapidshare link to the PDF and let you judge my complete and full arguments on this issue.
Oh and about those women, they were not attacked by extremeists. They were ordinary women attacked by ordinary men and family. This shit happens all the time and is not the exception.
DS, I'm really starting to believe that you don't understand this particular argument. I know I've gotten the exact same response out of you more than once, and I know that I've yet to be convinced that you have adequately responded.
Simply put, the question is why you believe in God. The pink invisible something is a bit of rhetorical flourish that I think does more harm than good. So, I'd like to re-phrase it:"Why did you begin believing in God?
I don't want to hear about the ramifications of the idea of God. I want to know why you think it is true to begin with." [/B]
True? True would be implying that I KNOW God exists. I was introduced to the idea for years and really rebelled against it because it was sort of shoved down my throat by my peers. I started learning with Rabbis pretty hard core after I graduated high school. Kabbalah, Jewish Mysticism, and the grand daddy of them all, Gemarah/Talmud (sort of like LSATS but 100x harder). And it all made perfect sense to me. I don't have to explain why it made perfect sense to me(unless you really want me to, because that would defeat the whole concept of faith and belief.
As much as I have a problem with secular humanists, I have an equally huge problem with religious nutcases. Those who claim they know that God exists. Even in my religious mind, THAT seems irrational. Not antirational, irrational.
Originally posted by Autokrat
This is not an argument, this is a series of claims with no logical backing. Simply saying that I am wrong is not good enough. That being said, I am not an evolutionary biologist.
This is a subversion of what I said, because you lack an argument against me, you have attempted to twist my words to make them easier to attack. You assert that God exists, the onus is on you to explain to me why I should believe that God exists. It is not my job to prove to you that he doesn't. I am not asserting that God doesn't exist, I am saying that I have no reason to believe that he does.
Actually, I do want to go down this route. I am currenlty writing a paper comparing Soviet Communism to that of a Religion. It was dogmatic, had a messianic figure in the form of Lenin, had its own set of immutable laws and social codes and believed that it was the final and ultimate truth. This is not atheism, this was a religion that refused to admit that it was a religion. However, since I haven't finished the paper yet, I'm not going to push this point.
Oh and about those women, they were not attacked by extremeists. They were ordinary women attacked by ordinary men and family. This shit happens all the time and is not the exception. [/B]
I'm starting to see a trend where you just repeat your arguments ad nauseam and chirp things like "You can't prove God doesn't exist" and "your so-called logic means nothing". If you don't see the inherent contradiction in asking me and others to disprove God using logic, but then ridicule the usage of logic in terms of describing God, no one can help you. That kind of hypocritical reasoning makes you impossible to debate with, but for my own waning amusement I'm going to address you a last time. And if you continue to babble on in the same manner, you can tell it to the marines at that point.
I'm glad you mentioned the bolded area. It's basically why you can't try to disprove or prove that God exists, no matter how many philosophy courses you take. And if God created rational thinking, he did it for the fallible(us). As an all knowing being, he isn't bound to your or my definitions.
The inability to conclude God's existance comes from a complete absence of evidence supporting his existance. It has absolutely nothing to do with one's philosophical studies; if you cannot prove something is there except by blind, moronic faith, how can you claim it is knowledge? You cannot.
Let's make-believe I'm using a faith-based argument. Why are you wrong? Because I believe in it. There, we're done.
Secondly, by describing God at all, you attribute him things which are defined by human words such as "good", "creator", "almighty", and "timeless". God, an idea of something some of us wish to be true, is given whatever attributes a group of people and/or their religious text deems he should have, and then they turn around and say "Thou rational folk shalt not attempt to know our God, for he is above all human terms!". And then I'm sure they drown a witch for good measure, those progressive fellows.
And last here, you've subtley implied that God's purpose in creating rationality is for us less perfect beings, but he's beyond our definitions. So somehow, you have very specific, verifiable information on God's nature but I cannot make any logical arguments about his nature. Go figure.
We can't describe him in human terms. Our descriptions are limited to "he is everywhere" or rather, "he is not finite", etc. See negative theocracy. Again, it takes some kind of arrogance to try and describe an omnipotent being with human standards.
I don't see how negative theocracy is a valid stance here. If you cannot attempt to describe something in human terms, how can you apply positives or negatives to his nature? The answer is you cannot. So in attempting to create a double standard which protects your naive faith-based conclusion, you look completely foolish.
Either you can attribute human terms to describe God or you cannot. There is no stacking the deck here. If you claim we cannot, this excludes also any attempts you have to discuss God since he is clearly defined by us (all dictionaries and encyclopedias describe God's traits) and furthermore he is known to us as the idea of a specific type of being. If we did not have a definition for him, only then would your stance be correct. And if your stance was correct, no one should believe in God because you cannot know what he is, let alone if he is so.
Wait what? God gave us those concepts because we are fallible human beings. WE are to abide by those concepts. He has no such constraints. At what point do you drop the act?
I'm sorry, you just got done saying we cannot define God. How are you certain of this? Could it be that you're just skewing what can and cannot be said about God to favor your own argument? If you cannot be honest in a debate, how can you be honest with yourself I wonder?
Lol. That was funny. Read the bolded area again, and then read your contradiction in the next two sentences. I'll try and simplify.1. You haven't explained how God CAN be defined by human capacities. You've tried to define him but you haven't shown how fallible humans can logically or reasonably define an all knowing, all powerful being, other than arrogance.
2. You've yet to explain how reason can be applied to a theoretical, omnipotent being, other than stating that it can.
1. God is clearly defined by Man. The entire idea of God arises from Man, not in a void or by itself in nature. Only Man recognizes a God, and yet some men recognize that God cannot be verified to exist. Ergo, we apply generic attributes to the concept of God and then argue how those concepts make sense. It's very simple, which must explain why you keep missing the point.
2. It's called Rationalism, and it has been applied by many thinkers - religious and otherwise - for centuries. You may want to consider getting an education in what is and isn't rational before you attempt to dispute its function. Descartes, for example, used purely rational arguments to determine the nature of God.
And because you arrogantly put God within the realm of human understanding, doesn't make it so either.
You: God is an exception to all rational discourse because I said so. I have no reasons to bring forward, so here's some misdirection.
Everyone Sane: God is no different than rationally arguing the nature of theoretical aliens, unicorns, leprechauns, and distant galaxies. Why are you applying a ridiculous double-standard here?
The answer is you're afraid to set aside your dogmatic ignorance and evaluate the ideas I'm presenting before you. That is your choice, right? Or was it determined? You tell me.
Religion= faith based.
Arrogance= trying to prove or disprove something faith based by adding human concepts to an infallible, omnipotent being.
Argument by Assertion = Foolish
Faith-based = Ridiculous justification for that which has no justification. See also "bias", "dogma", "appeal to tradition", "wishful thinking", and "I believe there's cheese on Mars, but no one can prove or disprove it; therefore no one can say I am wrong."
You call me arrogant for attempting to define God as humans have always defined God, simply because it threatens your tenous position here.
I've noticed. You've been trying so hard to prove your arguments are logical, you haven't been able to grasp the simple the idea that it's not really possible to use logic and reason for something that exists outside our scope. I mean you can try, but it doesn't make it logical.
This is semantic nonsense. You have no argument, and your attempts to prove a point are boorish.
I don't have to tell you how it's NOT a human term. I don't have to prove you how something ISN'T (ironic since you spend most of your time trying to define logic, reason, and argument). God is not finite. God is not limited to anything. God can contradict himself or not, no matter how many times you try to argue it. That's as far as we can go in describing God.
1. You asserted that God cannot be described by human terms, yet you have attributed to him things like "omnipotence", "omniscience", and "omnipresence". These are human terms. You made the assertion. You must either prove up or shut up.
2. You have asserted that God is beyond human understanding. Yet you know what he is not. This is contradictory.
Ah yes, and the pseudo intellectual argument continues. But thanks for proving my point that something involving God can be a contradiction, and it cannot be a contradiction, and we won't understand it unless we apply human terminology. To me, God making a rock that he can't lift poses some sort of contradiction. God can make a rock that he can't lift, and then lifting it at first, seems like a contradiction. I suggest you try and stick to the subject, rather than trying to make yourself sound more intelligent by picking apart specific points that just favor what I'm saying. And the bold text definitely screams "insecurity".
God being almighty does not mean he exists as a paradox at all times or any time. Your strict definition of omnipotent means God has to be able to overcome himself. But realistically speaking, he is the limit. Therefore, he cannot overcome himself nor would he want to do so; he is the upper limit of power. Omnipotence is not always defined as the power to contradict itself although if used in a simple argument a paradox can be created. However, even logical paradoxes are based on specific instances which can be avoided through use of context and reason.
A. God creates a rock using the utmost of his powers. It is impossible for anyone else to lift as per his intent.
B. God chooses not to lift it, simply because he ordained no one should. No paradox occurs, because God is never in a position to overcome himself (which is illogical in itself).
C. God is still by definition almighty and omnipotent because no one can challenge his power, not that he can overcome himself.
There is no paradox present in this argument. The paradox arises from an irrational attempt to stretch the definition of omnipotent into something which is and isn't at the same time. Since this cannot rationally exist and we have never experienced anything like it in nature, there is no reason why we should consider this argument sound.
Likewise, because we can only explain God as a theory and describe him using rational human terms, there is no way we can attribute conflicting traits to him either.
That argument is concluded.
I'd ask the same of you. So far the only thing you've really said is "We can define God through human reasoning because we can." That's not much to go on. And yet you want me to prove my assertions based on a belief/faith based system. Way to make that one work.
I ask you to prove your assertions and you try to spin the burden of proof on me again? Are you ever going to take ownership of your own side? Are you ever going to conclusively break down how you are right and why I am wrong? Or will you forever skirt the issue, knowning you don't have a leg to stand on?
A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.
I can use that definition alone to refute your whole nonsensical argument. I wouldn't need to though since you're constantly trying to flex intellectual nuts(and failing) by trying to use logic and reason discussing a theoretical higher power.
I like how you picked out the one Wikipedia line that supports your argument. Very amusing.
I'm drawing the line in the debate here and now so we're entirely clear where we stand. If you insist on using a definition of omnipotent which is not universal and which is not rationally defendable, then I refuse to further converse with you on this topic. You've essentially taken the "it's magic" defense to ward off any actual burden of proof or display of cognitive thinking beyond what is parroted to the indoctrinated from birth. If you truly believe God is irrational, magical, and beyond observation from "philosophers" but entirely knowable and justifiable through "faith", we are done here.
Actually my argument is this: God is all knowing and all powerful, infinite, etc, and he created fallible humans with limited knowledge, therefore humans cannot understand the concept or motives of an all knowing, all powerful, infinite being.
I thought you said we couldn't define or know God?
In Judaism, at the beginning of the new year, God determines how much money you are going to make. However, through the process of free will, one can change the amount he's going to make by doing Mitzvahs, commandments, giving tzedakah, etc.
I asked you for a rational argument. You countered with appeal to tradition and an unsubstantiated existance of free will. You are not debating; you are sharing your dogmatic beliefs as proof.
And you continuing defining God through your perspective. "If God determines everything and preordains everything, then there cannot be free will". And yet you have the audacity to criticize me regarding "contradictions".
I don't see any contradiction there, and neither do you. If you did, I'm sure you would have the intellectual muscle to demonstrate such. Then again, I might be giving you too much credit.
My, you're failing at a rapid pace. This is what happens when you spend more time trying to sound like an intellectual, and less time making a sound argument. Since you said "man", that implies that a human made other human beings. It also would contradict the whole retarded notion, since a human can't create mankind. And finally, a man can't breathe on the moon because it lacks oxygen. Again, thanks for playing
You assumed context. The argument is general, but if you insist on moving it to the specific, I will accomodate.
1. The man in question is at the apex of technological progress. With his technology, he can live on the moon and germinate the planet below with life, including human life. He is perpetuating the human race because he is the last of his kind and wishes to see humans return to the galaxy.
2. Seeing as this man has the means to do what the argument assumes, then it stands to reason that he really could be there, and because no one can yet prove or disprove his existance, he is an unknown.
3. However, if one were to assume the existance of this man without any kind of observation or rational cause, then they would be considered irrational and insane for believing without proof. Unless they claimed it was their religion, in which case suddenly it's okay.
Now... would you kindly stop reciting the same nonsense over and over again and surprise me with some well-thought out arguments for once?
Ryan, weren't you the one asking about QM? Or was that Serge?
Either way, this is a particularly interesting piece in a series of interesting articles.
This is semantic nonsense. You have no argument, and your attempts to prove a point are boorish.
Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
1. You asserted that God cannot be described by human terms, yet you have attributed to him things like "omnipotence", "omniscience", and "omnipresence". These are human terms. You made the assertion. You must either prove up or shut up.
2. You have asserted that God is beyond human understanding. Yet you know what he is not. This is contradictory.
God being almighty does not mean he exists as a paradox at all times or any time. Your strict definition of omnipotent means God has to be able to overcome himself. But realistically speaking, he is the limit. Therefore, he cannot overcome himself nor would he want to do so; he is the upper limit of power. Omnipotence is not always defined as the power to contradict itself although if used in a simple argument a paradox can be created. However, even logical paradoxes are based on specific instances which can be avoided through use of context and reason.
A. God creates a rock using the utmost of his powers. It is impossible for anyone else to lift as per his intent.
B. God chooses not to lift it, simply because he ordained no one should. No paradox occurs, because God is never in a position to overcome himself (which is illogical in itself).
C. God is still by definition almighty and omnipotent because no one can challenge his power, not that he can overcome himself.
There is no paradox present in this argument. The paradox arises from an irrational attempt to stretch the definition of omnipotent into something which is and isn't at the same time. [b] Since this cannot rationally exist and we have never experienced anything like it in nature, there is no reason why we should consider this argument sound.
Your whole argument falls under that pretense. If I just read that sentence, I know where you stand and reading the rest of the drawn out post is nothing more than a repetition. You keep claiming that everything can be classified by logic and reason, and yet you try do the same thing to a faith based system that, as far as conventional wisdom goes, is not rational, nor logical. Your argument is one giant contradiction and you're spending all your time trying to sound intelligent or regurgitating what you learned, to understand that.
That argument is concluded.
I ask you to prove your assertions and you try to spin the burden of proof on me again? Are you ever going to take ownership of your own side? Are you ever going to conclusively break down how you are right and why I am wrong? Or will you forever skirt the issue, knowning you don't have a leg to stand on?
I don't have to prove to you something that I believe. I do not know God exists, nor can I prove God exists. I do know that if God does exist, his existence is entirely out of our understanding, aside from the knowledge that he IS out of our capabilities.
YOU on the other hand are trying to conclusively disprove something. You cannot disprove God's existence, nor any belief system because you cannot use logic and reason when discussing said system. Therefore, you fail.
I like how you picked out the one Wikipedia line that supports your argument. Very amusing.
I'm drawing the line in the debate here and now so we're entirely clear where we stand. If you insist on using a definition of omnipotent which is not universal and which is not rationally defendable, then I refuse to further converse with you on this topic. You've essentially taken the "it's magic" defense to ward off any actual burden of proof or display of cognitive thinking beyond what is parroted to the indoctrinated from birth. If you truly believe God is irrational, magical, and beyond observation from "philosophers" but entirely knowable and justifiable through "faith", we are done here.
I thought you said we couldn't define or know God?
I asked you for a rational argument. You countered with appeal to tradition and an unsubstantiated existance of free will. You are not debating; you are sharing your dogmatic beliefs as proof.
You assumed context. The argument is general, but if you insist on moving it to the specific, I will accomodate.
1. The man in question is at the apex of technological progress. With his technology, he can live on the moon and germinate the planet below with life, including human life. He is perpetuating the human race because he is the last of his kind and wishes to see humans return to the galaxy.
2. Seeing as this man has the means to do what the argument assumes, then it stands to reason that he really could be there, and because no one can yet prove or disprove his existance, he is an unknown.
3. However, if one were to assume the existance of this man without any kind of observation or rational cause, then they would be considered irrational and insane for believing without proof. Unless they claimed it was their religion, in which case suddenly it's okay.
Now... would you kindly stop reciting the same nonsense over and over again and surprise me with some well-thought out arguments for once? [/B]
I would ask you to do the same but seeing as how you still aren't clear why your argument is flawed to begin with, we'll just leave it at that.
ds, you seem to have missed some points.
the first:
[quote]
A. God creates a rock using the utmost of his powers. It is impossible for anyone else to lift as per his intent.
B. God chooses not to lift it, simply because he ordained no one should. No paradox occurs, because God is never in a position to overcome himself (which is illogical in itself).
Yes, please keep telling me what is and isn't logical when you discuss a supreme being. That's VERY logical.
C. God is still by definition almighty and omnipotent because no one can challenge his power, not that he can overcome himself.
As per your "logic".[/quote]
The telling part has been identified.
Logic is the discipline of arriving at true conclusions given a starting point. My position (the one that you've endorsed both outside and inside of this particular post) is that people can begin from different starting points and thus reach different conclusions. This is not in any way the same as throwing aside logic entirely. Thus, my position that "[DS] is not operating from a position where conventional Burden of Proof applies" means only that we are taking the existence of a God as an axiom to prolong the discussion. Any contradiction that arises out of such an assumption indicates a problem with it.
[quote] 1. The man in question is at the apex of technological progress. With his technology, he can live on the moon and germinate the planet below with life, including human life. He is perpetuating the human race because he is the last of his kind and wishes to see humans return to the galaxy.
Great, how am I supposed to to either believe or disprove a man who is the last of his kind? That would mean that I'm...Dead? If you're wondering why I'm nitpicking your examples, it's because they flat out suck.
2. Seeing as this man has the means to do what the argument assumes, then it stands to reason that he really could be there, and because no one can yet prove or disprove his existance, he is an unknown.
Existence. And why would I have to prove or disprove his existence in the first place? If he's invisible to every kind of technology that is, meaning there is no way I could ever interact with him or really KNOW he exists, then I cannot disprove his existence, just like you can't prove it(assuming your example didn't suck and wasn't full of holes). All you did was confirm my argument.
3. However, if one were to assume the existance of this man without any kind of observation or rational cause, then they would be considered irrational and insane for believing without proof. Unless they claimed it was their religion, in which case suddenly it's okay.
Way to simplify and generalize. There is nothing irrational for believing in a higher power, no matter what you keep trying to tell yourself. It's not rational either. As RH says, it's antirational. Another man, no matter what technological apex he's reached, is still a man and therefore, not a higher, supreme being. Ergo, your example falls short again. [/quote]
DS, at 1) your dodge indicates some sort of apprehension. Being able to make fun of something doesn't make it wrong.
At 2) you seem to be deliberately missing the point. The man has no evidence suggesting it's validity. An idea, when approached in the hopes of finding out if it is true is not defaulted to "truth." It has to earn that distinction. This guy hasn't, so there is no reason to believe in him.
At 3) you've misapplied my argument again, for (I think) a variety of reasons.
The first is that this is a different case than believing in a religion. This mystic has made measurable and quantifiable changes to the universe. He is the reason we are here. Thus, his interventions (or lack thereof) are questions that have to be settled by rationality. They are questions of truth. Thus, it is very irrational to posit a belief in this phenomena without any evidence.
There is a distinction between this person and a Deity (in the sense that I've understood you to believe in) is that a Deity has not had a noticeable effect on the physical world. This case is very different because it is not struggling to find traction on evidence that isn't there. Rather, it is based in something other than evidence--faith. The trick is that anywhere that evidence is possible is a place where faith can be misplaced. In that territory your faith can be and should be demolished by the march of science.
Finally we arrive at the bottom line. Faith is a system of seeing the universe that ignores or contradicts other systems, including both rationality and other faith-based systems. Where it is possible for the two to conflict faith has always fallen short, because it lacks a means of proving itself. On the other hand, it is impossible to completely eradicate faith because it approaches the world in a different way. No matter how valid the faith-object is under rational grounds it will be held onto. This means that calling something irrational doesn't really describe the system, because people who are being irrational have tried to be rational.
Theism hasn't. It has reached its starting point (axiom, premise, etc.) through a different route. Attacking it at that axiom will only affect people who want to be rational.
DS you have to admit, however, that by diverging from rationalism in this instance you've left yourself open to all sorts of potential illogical leaps. I am willing to recognize being irrational--it is a system that isn't right for your subjective case. However, logic is not an area that can be ignored. By leaving logic aside you become demonstrably wrong. That can only be fixed by an appeal to "magic."
I'll get to your thing later RH but here's what I want to clear up, as this is how I see it.
What I gather from the arguments is "God doesn't exist but if he did, we could describe him through human logic and reason." That argument simply does not work.
So, the general assertion seems to be that religion and a mythical higher being are both illogical, and irrational/antirational, but if you're going to debate it, you're going to use logic and rationality and expect a believer in religion to do the same. What you're doing is setting up an apples and oranges argument intentionally bent on calling the opposition "illogical", because he can't use a logical(by human standards) argument to describe religion and a higher being, other than the fact that if said being exists, he is above our understanding.
If that is correct, I will proceed later tonight/tomorrow. If not, I'll review it again.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'll get to your thing later RN but here's what I want to clear up, as this is how I see it.What I gather from the arguments is "God doesn't exist but if he did, we could describe him through human logic and reason." That argument simply does not work.
Since some people do think so, they must be using something other than logic and reason.
If he does exist, then the methods of logic and reason would apply to things that he does in the universe. Things that are not bounded by logic and reason (for instance, an afterlife) would not be subject to description by reason. Logic would still apply, because of the nature of the universe. (Also, most Xtians I've met have used the argument that God cannot do things that are logically impossible.
So, the general assertion seems to be that religion and a mythical higher being are both illogical, and irrational/antirational, but if you're going to debate it, you're going to use logic and rationality and expect a believer in religion to do the same. What you're doing is setting up an apples and oranges argument intentionally bent on calling the opposition "illogical", because he can't use a logical(by human standards) argument to describe religion and a higher being, other than the fact that if said being exists, he is above our understanding.If that is correct, I will proceed later tonight/tomorrow. If not, I'll review it again.
Any other case devolves to inconsistencies that are exaggerated by a logical analysis. The former allows those logical snags to be smoothed over by compromises.