I was talking with a Christian (I consider Mormons Christians, so sue me) friend, and this question came up. He said 'yes'. I want more opinions.

I was setting up for an argument. Here's the argument:

Me: Is God logical?

He: You're setting me up, but yes.

Me: So then, He will accept logical appeals?

He: Yes.

Me: So then, He will accept my logical appeal that believing in his existence is illogical?

We started talking about something else after this. I think the argument is valid.

I think that logic can be a useful tool in attempting to understand, well anything, but shouldn't be the only tool used.

Is God logical? I dunno.. that question seems a bit obtuse.

Could you clarify the question a bit more?

Do you mean does God act in a way that is logical? or Is it logical for a God to exist? Or should God surrender to our logic constructs?

if god gave you the power to think logically, why wouldn't he want you to use it? since it proves logically that he doesnt exist?

most modern beliefs of god are skewed anyway, but i dont want to get into that.

if thinking logically can aid in your survival on earth, than surely it is a useful tool, and if it proves that there is no god, then so be it.

One of the things I hate is people giving God human attributes. Many of the founders of the world's religions (including Christianity and Islam) believed that God was completely unknowable and that it was impossible for the human mind even to comprehend Him. However, they did believe it was possible to get a glimpse of "the Devine" by studying his activities in this world.

So, I don't think your argument is valid, in my opinion. God and religion was never about logic, it was about what worked best for the people of the religion, illogical or not, it didn't matter, because they knew it wasn't about logic.

Sure, many people have tried to merge religion and logic, but many people thought that these scholars were trying to reduce God's "mystery" too much into human terms.

I think the absence of a god is illogical, how could we really believe that the entire world somehow got through the ENORMOUS chances that would make it not exist?

With all the variables in the theory that there is no god I can't bring myself to believe that it was all jsut chance, and therefore if it wasn't chance there would have to be a God, but Social Junker is right, because his level of being is so superior to ours our theories of logic are not applicable, it's not about understanding God, it's about believing in him, I believe that the TV turns electronic signals into a set of moving pictures, but I couldn't begin to guess how because it doesn't matter to me, I don't need to know how

If the universe didn't exist in the way it does, we wouldn't be around to ask the question "why we exist", therefore it must exist this way. The idea of us not-existing only appears after we exist.

It's quite logical that we exist. Because, fuck... we do. :\

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:



Me: So then, He will accept my logical appeal that believing in his existence is illogical?



Forgive my ignorance; I'm only just starting to get into arguments pertaining to religion.

Why is believing in God illogical?

If this has been discussed before, just send me in the right direction.

Cheers.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:



So then, He will accept my logical appeal that believing in his existence is illogical?



For him to accept this wouldn't you first have to acknowledge his existence? What sense would it make for you to reason with something that doesn't exist?

He isn't reasoning with a god, he's reasoning with those who believe in a god.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

For him to accept this wouldn't you first have to acknowledge his existence? What sense would it make for you to reason with something that doesn't exist?

Well, the Christian belief is that you can choose to believe in God/Christ for your whole life, but once you die, that's it. So when I stand before God (let's assume He does exist) when I die, and He asks "Why didn't you believe?", if He is logical, He will have to accept my logical reasoning.

Shaolin: One thing about religious debate: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

Anyway. I have a fine argument for why believing in God is illogical.

It's illogical because in logic we have a nice thing called "burden of proof", which says that whoever makes a claim has to prove it. So when one says "God exists", they have to prove it, or else the false is assumed true. So it's not that it is necessarily illogical, it's just illogical to assert an unprovable statement as fact.

YoungOne, if you don't understand a TV, you can't truly believe in it. This is the idea behind science; to understand things more completely. And I would like to argue that even God can't make 2 + 2 = 5.

Junker, I would counter that your statement is invalid. Since we are human, we necessarily reduce God to human terms; if we couldn't do this, and merely said "God is unknowable", religion wouldn't exist at all. Just a thought, of course.

inquisitor: I'll rephrase the question: "Will God accept a logical appeal which would refute his existence?" is what I'm getting at in this case.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

He isn't reasoning with a god, he's reasoning with those who believe in a god.

Actually, in this instance, I'm asking whether God will accept a logical argument. Not religious people.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

I was talking with a Christian (I consider Mormons Christians, so sue me) friend, and this question came up. He said 'yes'. I want more opinions.

I was setting up for an argument. Here's the argument:

Me: Is God logical?

He: You're setting me up, but yes.

Me: So then, He will accept logical appeals?

He: Yes.

Me: So then, He will accept my logical appeal that believing in his existence is illogical?

We started talking about something else after this. I think the argument is valid.

uh, that's really goofy.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Actually, in this instance, I'm asking whether God will accept a logical argument. Not religious people.

I'm saying that you're asking religious people, hence reasoning with them.

If you're asking god, and are expecting an answer, then how can you reasonably be an atheist or agnostic?

He said:

"For him to accept this wouldn't you first have to acknowledge his existence? What sense would it make for you to reason with something that doesn't exist?"

Since you're asking theists and not god, then you do not have to "acknowledge his existence". That was my point.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-15-2004).]

God isn't logical, she's crazy from dawn till dusk, except when she stops at midnight for a rest.

Her favoured weapon is the knife, although only blackpowder may be used to fire it, and the arrows tips must be made of mercury.

He grants prayers absolutely all the time, whenever you ask, but will hold back if you do.

She cannot be contained, defined, seen, identified, or even contemplated.

And her name is Eris.



http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Well, the Christian belief is that you can choose to believe in God/Christ for your whole life, but once you die, that's it. So when I stand before God (let's assume He does exist) when I die, and He asks "Why didn't you believe?", if He is logical, He will have to accept my logical reasoning.

This is assuming that you're logic is correct.Just because logic is used it doesn't mean that it is always right. I can use logic, but I can still be dead wrong.

quote:It's illogical because in logic we have a nice thing called "burden of proof", which says that whoever makes a claim has to prove it. So when one says "God exists", they have to prove it, or else the false is assumed true. So it's not that it is necessarily illogical, it's just illogical to assert an unprovable statement as fact.

So you should have to back up your claim that God is illogical, which you haven't done.

quote:inquisitor: I'll rephrase the question: "Will God accept a logical appeal which would refute his existence?" is what I'm getting at in this case.

God would would accept it as false.

Using logic does not make you correct.

Example: In the past it was believed that the earth was flat, this seemed perfectly logical due to the fact that the way you and I see earth it is flat. Today however we know that the earth is round, therefore logic can be wrong.

quote:I think the absence of a god is illogical, how could we really believe that the entire world somehow got through the ENORMOUS chances that would make it not exist?

how could we believe that god got through the enormaous chances that would make him exist?

if god has always existed and is eternal, whats stopping you from believing that the matter in the universe has always been, it has just changed in form?

no one has seen god, no one witnessed the big bang. i think there is equal evidence for both, only that the latter is more believable from a realistic point of view

The chances of the universe existing as it is now, no matter how small those chances are, mean that it could have become like this on its own. The chances exist therefore it is possible.

With the universe as it is now, being so large and vast, the chances of life coming about in at least one place were pretty decent.

We're here now, and that's what matters. The End.

quote:Originally posted by Yenzarill:

If the universe didn't exist in the way it does, we wouldn't be around to ask the question "why we exist", therefore it must exist this way. The idea of us not-existing only appears after we exist.

It's quite logical that we exist. Because, fuck... we do. :\

I kind of get what you are getting at. If all the physics of the universe were different, if the universe were 2d and life was little more than centralised energy, it could still sit around, saying that unless there was a god everything wouldn't exist as it does. Yes, there are billions of things that are required for life, but in a universe that is infinatly large, somwhere they will probably all occur. If they didn't occur here, we wouldn't be here, so it isn't really anything special that it all happened here. Besides, we are only one form of life. If this planet was 150 degrees, and pure carbon, and had no oxygen, there still could very well be life on it. The 'variables' that the other poster refered to only need to fall into a certain range for life to exist, you need to realise that life adapts to it's enviroment, and that we have.

It isn't just some great chance that Earth happens to support human life, but rather it is expected that of the millions of planets out there, one will have a probable combination of heat and makeup to support life. Of these, it is also likley that one will have molecules bond together to form some kind of life, and that it will evole through natural selection.

quote:Originally posted by Fanglekai:

The chances of the universe existing as it is now, no matter how small those chances are, mean that it could have become like this on its own. The chances exist therefore it is possible.

With the universe as it is now, being so large and vast, the chances of life coming about in at least one place were pretty decent.

We're here now, and that's what matters. The End.

I agree with you fully.

Not only is the universe huge (concevably infinite) but you also must concider that it has been here a damn long time (possibly forever) Hard to believe that 100 some molecules would never, by chance, come together to make a living creature.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

God would would accept it as false.

Using logic does not make you correct.

Example: In the past it was believed that the earth was flat, this seemed perfectly logical due to the fact that the way you and I see earth it is flat. Today however we know that the earth is round, therefore logic can be wrong.

yes, logic can be dead wrong, but you will nessecerily have at least some evidence supporting you. To back up the claim that there is or is not a god requires evidense either way. I have not seen any evidense that there is a god, so claiming that there is one is like trying to guess what a room behind a locked door looks like. Religion is the ultimate jump to a conclusion.

I haven't seen any evidence that there isn't a god, but I believe in one because in my heart(gut) I feel that a god exists.

It is stupid to tell people to prove their beliefs when atheists can't prove their beliefs either.I make the claim that there isn't a god, so I must prove he doesn't exist. Many an atheist has claimed there isn't a god, yet they provide no evidence either. Both believers and non-believers make unprovable claims so it is stupid to single one side out and tell them to prove their case.

Also the original poster said he had logic to prove god is illogical, yet he hasn't used any supportive evidence to support his claims.

I see you all debating about, and questioning the existence of God, but why don't I see anyone questioning the idea of existence itself? And if you do question that idea (of existence), how does that effect your questions about God?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



It is stupid to tell people to prove their beliefs when atheists can't prove their beliefs either.



If you were to go by Occams Razor, then the burden of proof lies more heavily on the argument that there are gods than on the argument that there are no gods.

For example, if I were to make a claim that I could fly through the air at will, would you put the burden of proof on me or the nay-sayers?

Hmmm... Is God logical? Of course he is!

Look at the evidence.

Physics point to him: the "muon" is a partcle we don't even know exists, but invented to explain something we don't understand. muon=God?

Life points to him. Where else could life had come from? Our mere existance implies a purpose, which implies a creator.

God is completely logical. I don't see why you poeple can't see it though...

Cheers... chimera

EDIT: Typo

[This message has been edited by chimera2650 (edited 11-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by chimera2650:

Hmmm... Is God logical? Of course he is!

Look at the evidence.

Physics point to him: the "muon" is a partcle we don't even know exists, but invented to explain something we don't understand. muon=God?

Life points to him. Where else could life had come from? Our mere existance implies a purpose, which implies a creator.

[This message has been edited by chimera2650 (edited 11-18-2004).]

I hate to reply to somebody who could easily be a troll, but this will only take a second.

There is no evidence pointed to or even implied by your post, which uses no logic whatsoever, and here is why:

1) If the "muon" is something that we 'don't even know exists', how can it be used to explain the existance of a god? It cannot.

2) The causes of unexplained things do not automatically default to being gods. If you've studied physics at all you would know that there is no default explanation for anything. How then can physics point to the existance of a god? It cannot.

3) Your assertion that existence implies purpose is completely unfounded. There is no logical connection here. Even if there was, there is nothing that would suggest that the creator or creators were gods.

4) Other than your first sentence, you do not even touch upon the matter of how a god is logical.

he led his chosen people to israel and left the oil to the arabs.

he gave us americans and then led bush to the white house for a second term.

is he logical no,

but he has a wicked sense of humour.

Evidence of god? Nada.

But:

God is supposed to be perfect.

God feels the need to make life.

God makes imperfect life.

How can an perfect being concieve imperfection?

So, no: "God" is not logical.

quote:

Logic:

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

2.

1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.

2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.

3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.

4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.

5. Computer Science.

1. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.

2. Computer circuitry.

3. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

God is supposed to be perfect.

God feels the need to make life.

God makes imperfect life.

How can an perfect being concieve imperfection?



But the free will god gave man is perfect, so your logic is flawed.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

It's illogical because in logic we have a nice thing called "burden of proof", which says that whoever makes a claim has to prove it. So when one says "God exists", they have to prove it, or else the false is assumed true. So it's not that it is necessarily illogical, it's just illogical to assert an unprovable statement as fact.



Who or what is God? In some thoughts, God is 'consciousness', it is proven that consciousness exists, you know it! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) If I say "God exists" for 'God is Consciousness', is the burden of proof with me, and present in your own mind? Therefore God, as Consciousness, exists.

The logic, or not, pivots on the definition of God. Is it possible to define God?

quote:The logic, or not, pivots on the definition of God. Is it possible to define God?

can you define an abstract idea?

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

In some thoughts, God is 'consciousness', it is proven that consciousness exists, you know it! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) If I say "God exists" for 'God is Consciousness', is the burden of proof with me, and present in your own mind? Therefore God, as Consciousness, exists.

The logic, or not, pivots on the definition of God. Is it possible to define God?

You can define the word god to mean anything. You defined it here to be consciousness. I will accept that consciousness exists, so I will except that god exists strictly with this definition.

However! If you were to add anything else to this definition of god, such as personifications, your argument would be invalid.

In other words you are right that god, as defined to be consciousness, exists, but this does not prove that god, defined as anything else, exists. Any other or modified definition would require additional proof.

quote:Originally posted by Sarter:

You can define the word god to mean anything. You defined it here to be consciousness. I will accept that consciousness exists, so I will except that god exists strictly with this definition.

However! If you were to add anything else to this definition of god, such as personifications, your argument would be invalid.

In other words you are right that god, as defined to be consciousness, exists, but this does not prove that god, defined as anything else, exists. Any other or modified definition would require additional proof.

Personification is a 'western thought' thing, westerners have an inherent drive to understand and attempt to define all in Newtonian concrete http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Eastern thought is different:

THE ALL (which is the Substantial Reality underlying all the outward manifestations and appearances which we know under the terms of "The Material Universe"; the "Phenomena of Life"; "Matter"; "Energy"; and, in short, all that is apparent to our material senses) is SPIRIT which in itself is UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE, but which may be considered and thought of as AN UNIVERSAL, INFINITE, LIVING MIND.

"THE ALL IS MIND; THE UNIVERSE IS MENTAL."--THE KYBALION.

God is Spirit

Gospel of John

It is both near and far, both within and without every creature; it moves and is unmoving. In its subtlety it is beyond comprehension. It is invisible, yet appears divided in separate creatures. Know it to be the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer.

Dwelling in every heart, it is beyond darkness. It is called the light of the lights, the object and goal of knowledge, and knowledge itself.

-Bhagavad Gita 13:15-17

God is Consciousness that pervades the entire universe of the living and the non-living.

-Ramakrishna

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

But the free will god gave man is perfect, so your logic is flawed.

You would have to prove their is free will in the first place, which you cannot. Especially if you are speaking of a Judeo-Christian god.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You would have to prove their is free will in the first place, which you cannot. Especially if you are speaking of a Judeo-Christian god.

Well that's what I know best, so I usually base my understanding of god off of Judeo-Christian teachings.

Great. Now prove that there is free will. To do that, please refer to the current debates dealing with the paradox of free will and omniscience.

While I'm being pedantic, the point is, you cannot say "free will is perfect", when you can't even prove that either god exists, free will exists, or that the Judeo-Christian teachings are correct.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Great. Now prove that there is free will. To do that, please refer to the current debates dealing with the paradox of free will and omniscience.

While I'm being pedantic, the point is, you cannot say "free will is perfect", when you can't even prove that either god exists, free will exists, or that the Judeo-Christian teachings are correct.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-21-2004).]

Rust, I wasn't making the statement that because free will is perfect god is perfect. I was replying to what The_Reckoning said.

I can do whatever I want, I can say whatever I want, therefore I am using the perfect freewill that god gave me. Free will does exist, though I never said this was proof that god exists. It is proof the The_Reckoning used flawed logic.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Rust, I wasn't making the statement that because free will is perfect god is perfect. I was replying to what The_Reckoning said.

You were saying that he was using flawed logic. Fine. The point still stands.

quote:

I can do whatever I want, I can say whatever I want, therefore I am using the perfect freewill that god gave me.



Sorry, but thats' evidence of you THINKING it exists. That does nothing to prove it does exist. As an example, one I've used before so you might be familiar with it, is Oedipux Rex.

quote:

Free will does exist, though I never said this was proof that god exists. It is proof the The_Reckoning used flawed logic.

No, since you'd have to prove that free will exists. You haven't.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-22-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by YoungOne13:

I think the absence of a god is illogical, how could we really believe that the entire world somehow got through the ENORMOUS chances that would make it not exist?





Trial and error.

I would discuss further, but I've got other things to do. Sorry mate. You're hardly missing out on much anyway.

Stoyve

Rust, I can do, say, feel anything I want. Explain to me how that doesn't constitute as free will.

Because that just proves to you that it SEEMS you can do what you want. That in no way shape or form means a being is not controlling you without you knowing it.

Like I said, Oedipus Rex. He flees his city in order to change fate. To him, it seemed as if he had free will; but he didn't, his choice was already pre-determined. He WAS going to do that, regardless of how "free" he thought he was. Thus, he had no free will.

I mean, how the hell do you think pre-determinism would feel like? Just like it feels right now!

Now we are getting into the metaphysical which is an area that I don't know much about.

All I know is that I can do what I want, feel what I want, and say what I want. To me that constitutes as free will, but to a different person that may not be freewill.Divine intervention could disprove the existence of freewill, but I've never experienced divine intervention so I won't speak on the subject.

"God's plan" for us could mean that we make our own plan.

What constitutes free will is you actually having a choice, not feeling like you do. Again, Oedipus Rex serves as a adequate example.

How is fiction a good example?

1. Because it is an example, regardless of its existence or not, of a scenario where one could believe there is free will, when there is actually none. Moreover, it shows no logical impossibility.

2. It has as much credibility as your Jude-Christian version of a god.

1. Then me thinking, doing, and saying what I want is an equally good example of the existence of free will.

2. Then both examples cancel out. One proves the existence of freewill, the other disproves freewill's existence.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

1. Then me thinking, doing, and saying what I want is an equally good example of the existence of free will.

No, because it seeming like you have free will doesn't mean you do! That's exactly what the Oedipus Rex example refutes!

quote:

2. Then both examples cancel out. One proves the existence of freewill, the other disproves freewill's existence.

I didn't say anything about proving. What I meant was that you label it as "fiction" when it (Greek Mythology) has as much credibility as what you believe in.

Oedipus Rex is an example of someone feeling like he has free will but not having it, thus it serves to show how you thinking you have free will means nothing. That is completely different from the Judeo-Christian belief, which is just a statement, and not a counter-argument to my argument, or to that brought by the example.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-22-2004).]

quote:No, because it seeming like you have free will doesn't mean you do! That's exactly what the Oedipus Rex example refutes!

Oedipus Rex doesn't refute anything. It shows that chance happens. It shows that destiny is real. It does not show that freewill doesn't exist.

quote:I didn't say anything about proving. What I meant was that you label it as "fiction" when it (Greek Mythology) has as much credibility as what you believe in.

Oedipus Rex is an example of someone feeling like he has free will but not having it, thus it serves to show how you thinking you have free will means nothing. That is completely different from the Judeo-Christian belief, which is just a statement, and not a counter-argument to my argument, or to that brought by the example.

So one fictional instance of a person may or may not having freewill proves that freewill does not exist? Even in Oedipus Rex he has freewill. He still makes his own decisions. He just happens to make the decisions that the seers predicted he would make. It proves destiny happens sometimes and nothing else.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



Oedipus Rex doesn't refute anything. It shows that chance happens. It shows that destiny is real. It does not show that freewill doesn't exist.



Pre-Determinism is the anti-thesis of free will. Oedipus Rex shows that you CAN feel like you have free will, when you actually don't have it.

quote:

So one fictional instance of a person may or may not having freewill proves that freewill does not exist?

It's a scenario that can be applied to the real world. Hence it being "fictional" is irrelevant.

Your whole argument boils down to you "feeling" free will, thus it must exist. That's not an argument, and the example shows it.

That's like you arguing that you KNOW there isn't someone behind you at this moment.... because it "feels" that way. How you feel is irrelevant because there could be a person behind you, even if it doesn't "feel" that way.

quote:

Even in Oedipus Rex he has freewill. He still makes his own decisions. He just happens to make the decisions that the seers predicted he would make. It proves destiny happens sometimes and nothing else.

If you think that way, you obviously haven't studied Greek culture and its mythology. Oedipus Rex deals, among other things, with Greek determinism, not free will. His destiny was pre-determined because the Greeks believed once you were cursed, the curse was destined to happen. Oedipus Rex therefore, does not have free will.

Rust, I know I have freewill because I use my freewill. There is no way you can disprove my personal experiences. I can do, and I sometimes do do whatever I feel like, therefore I am using my freewill.

You also cannot prove pre-determination. "shit happens" it's a proverb of sorts. sometimes things go someways you didn't want or predict to go that way. This is what happened in Oedipus Rex, "shit happened".

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Rust, I know I have freewill because I use my freewill. There is no way you can disprove my personal experiences. I can do, and I sometimes do do whatever I feel like, therefore I am using my freewill.

No. That's you THINKING you're using your free will. For all you know, those desicions were pre-determined for you a millenia ago! You could be being controlled by ultra sonic waves from a mothership in outerspace!

It seeming as "free will" does not mean you have it.

quote:

You also cannot prove pre-determination. "shit happens" it's a proverb of sorts. sometimes things go someways you didn't want or predict to go that way. This is what happened in Oedipus Rex, "shit happened".

My point ins't to prove determinism; it never was.

Also, determinism happened in Oedipus Rex.

My actions could be pre-determined, but, since I don't believe in pre-determination, it doesn't apply to me. This is all speculation and personal opinion. IMO, I have my own frewill. In your opinion everything we do may have been pre-determined. WE DON'T KNOW! So really this arguement is fruitless.

I wish god would smite flood control. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

So because I don't believe in cancer, it doesn't apply to me? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Whether you believe in it is irrelevant. The point is, your actions CAN be predetermined, regardless of how it may feel to you.

And once again, I'm not arguing that everything is predetermined.

Actions MAY be predetermined. You don't know they are, I don't know they are, and Socrates didn't know if they are. So why are we arguing about such speculative matters? This is all opinion. No one is neither right nor wrong. I may have been rash in saying the reckoning used faulty logic, though I did provide an arguement to as why his logic was faulty. I'm not saying my arguement is entirely correct, I just provided a counter-arguement.

I'm so very very tired...

you're tired? well, i know for a fact that it is predetirmined that you will rest, in one form or another.

you guys are kind of missing the point. some actions are predetirmined because the forces leading to their occurrence are already in motion. others are not so much predetirmined, though roughly predictable, because their forces still exist in the realm of potential energy. and yet other actions aren't predetirmined because it is not even clear if the potential energy exists. these forces exist in a state of pure energy, meaning that the potential for there occurrence is infinite, but so is the potential for their non-occurrence.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 11-23-2004).]

I predetermined that I will rest eventually, not you, not god, not anyone. Though I'm not resting now. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Doesn't free will make an arguement against god? I mean god didn't directly tell us that we have free will, if anything he told some old sickly dude in the middle of the desert. Nothing was ever told to us directly from god so even the thought of him is illogical. He was "discovered" by humans. I think in the beginning he was just a way to explain things they could not. I don't see how so many people still believe it. I would really like someone to give me a GOOD reason to believe in him. Someone whole atleast has a HS level class of evalution. It just doesn't make sense.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Actions MAY be predetermined. You don't know they are, I don't know they are, and Socrates didn't know if they are. So why are we arguing about such speculative matters? This is all opinion. No one is neither right nor wrong. I may have been rash in saying the reckoning used faulty logic, though I did provide an arguement to as why his logic was faulty. I'm not saying my arguement is entirely correct, I just provided a counter-arguement.



I don't have to know if they are predetermined or not, because I'm not making an argument either way. My point was not to prove free will (in which I believe) or predeterminism, but to get you to say:

"I may have been rash in saying the reckoning used faulty logic,"

Why? Because I believed you were rash in saying he used faulty logic. That's it.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I predetermined that I will rest eventually, not you, not god, not anyone. Though I'm not resting now. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

not true. but even if it was, you just validated my prediction by agreeing that it was predetermined, which was all that i said... and that only strengthens my argument.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

not true. but even if it was, you just validated my prediction by agreeing that it was predetermined, which was all that i said... and that only strengthens my argument.

Predetermined by me of my own freewill. You made an educated guess that I would rest, but neither you nor anyone else did not make or compel me to do what I did. There is knowing in the past what you will do in the future because you are choosing to do that. I know I will go to college, but it was never predetermined that I would. I made a choice by my own freewill in the past to predetermine that I would not let anything deter me from going to college.

Again, you don't know you weren't predetermined.

You don't know that it was predetermined.

"

I was talking with a Christian (I consider Mormons Christians, so sue me) friend, and this question came up. He said 'yes'. I want more opinions.

I was setting up for an argument. Here's the argument:

Me: Is God logical?

He: You're setting me up, but yes.

Me: So then, He will accept logical appeals?

He: Yes.

Me: So then, He will accept my logical appeal that believing in his existence is illogical?

We started talking about something else after this. I think the argument is valid.

"

Depends on what kind of logic. If you refer to binary(i.e. true/false) logic- then no.

If it helps, there was an attempt a while back by physicists to reconcile quantum mechanics with a much larger base system of logic (132[i think] instead of 20, which may come a lot closer to the 'god-logic'.

Personally, though, I would say that an infinite system of logic is the only way to find truth- which is, of course, impossible to implement. [BUT- can be approximated]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You don't know that it was predetermined.

Correct. That's why you don't see me claiming either way!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Correct. That's why you don't see me claiming either way!

I recognized that my actions could be predetermined, but I still have an overwhelming feeling that that just isn't true. Many things CAN be true, but just because they can happen, it does not mean that someone has to recognize them as real and possible.

Hurray. That does nothing to refute the fact that you were claiming you weren't predetermined, when in fact you have no clue.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Predetermined by me of my own freewill. You made an educated guess that I would rest, but neither you nor anyone else did not make or compel me to do what I did. There is knowing in the past what you will do in the future because you are choosing to do that. I know I will go to college, but it was never predetermined that I would. I made a choice by my own freewill in the past to predetermine that I would not let anything deter me from going to college.

dude, WAKE UP! you're missing the point. i said i knew for a fact that you would rest in one form or another (which means either sleep, lying down, taking a shit, death, etc.), and i was correct. why? because it was obviously predetermined.

i'll come up with another example... i guarantee you will respond in this thread again.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

dude, WAKE UP! you're missing the point. i said i knew for a fact that you would rest in one form or another (which means either sleep, lying down, taking a shit, death, etc.), and i was correct. why? because it was obviously predetermined.

You knew I would do something, you nor anyone else predetermined I would do something. There is predicting human nature and then there is showing predetermination in specific life events. You are predicting human nature, which a five year old can do.

quote:i'll come up with another example... i guarantee you will respond in this thread again.

Again, you predicted human nature. This is like me saying predetermination exists by saying that eventually you will die. You will die, so therefore predetermination must exist. You're making generalized assumptions on someones basic human nature, you are not showing the existence of predetermination.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Hurray. That does nothing to refute the fact that you were claiming you weren't predetermined, when in fact you have no clue.

Jesus Christ!

What more do you want? I acknowledged that everything I do COULD be predetermined, I just don't believe in it. There is no evidence supporting either side, so I am allowed to believe whatever the fuck I feel like believing. I am neither wrong nor right.

The problem is you making possitive assertion like:

"Predetermined by me of my own freewill. You made an educated guess that I would rest, but neither you nor anyone else did not make or compel me to do what I did. There is knowing in the past what you will do in the future because you are choosing to do that. I know I will go to college, but it was never predetermined that I would."

When you make the possitive assertion, it is up you to back it up. And yes, I do sound like an ass, but it's ridiculous that you agree that you can't know, and then go right ahead and make those claims.

you're still missing the point.

my argument from the beginning has not been that predetermination is a universal truth, only that it exists. i specifically said that certain things are predetermined, others are not. i'm using the word 'predetermined' as a substitute for 'inevitable' or 'highly probable.'

those other things are left up to free will.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



When you make the possitive assertion, it is up you to back it up. And yes, I do sound like an ass, but it's ridiculous that you agree that you can't know, and then go right ahead and make those claims.

What if I were to say that it makes the most sense to me that predetermination doesn't exist, would that ease the tension?

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

you're still missing the point.

my argument from the beginning has not been that predetermination is a universal truth, only that it exists. i specifically said that certain things are predetermined, others are not. i'm using the word 'predetermined' as a substitute for 'inevitable' or 'highly probable.'

those other things are left up to free will.

You never said these things, so I had no point to miss. I'll agree with your wording this time.

yeah, i did, but whatever... it's all good.

from my previous post:

some actions are predetirmined because the forces leading to their occurrence are already in motion. others are not so much predetirmined, though roughly predictable, because their forces still exist in the realm of potential energy. and yet other actions aren't predetirmined because it is not even clear if the potential energy exists.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

For him to accept this wouldn't you first have to acknowledge his existence? What sense would it make for you to reason with something that doesn't exist?

Ha ! I found that to be an excellent point.

I must have missed the part where this thread turned to predetermination.

Predetermination is probably true; I feel this way because we know that our brains work on neuro-chemical and electrical impulses, which are subject to the cause/effect paradigm of the universe. Even though they're probably too complex to predict effectively, that doesn't mean they're not predictable.

So scientifically predtermination is true, but insofar as everyday life is concerned, we're basically free agents.

napoleon, they (we?) are discussing free will in the metaphysical sense, not the political sense of free speech/religion/et cetera.

The idea behind Oedipus Rex (and correct me on this, Rust) was that Rust was trying to show that it can be proven that free will Doesn't exist. On the inverse, it can't be proven that free will does exist, so we have to go negative twofold - first from burden of proof, then from the above conditions.

Digital, that point that I would have to "accept" God is pointless. It's implicit, from this discussion, that I'm assuming God exists.

PS - Rust, thank you for using the burden of proof in my absence. It's like my baby. And you get brownie points for invoking Oedipus Rex.

Oedipus Rex doesn't prove jack shit other than the possibility that something exists. This is all personal opinion so why the fuck is anyone arguing. And people who can't back up thier claims often use the 'burden of proof clause', so it's understandable why you like it.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

And people who can't back up thier claims often use the 'burden of proof clause', so it's understandable why you like it.

Oh how ignorant you are.

Burden of proof doesn't belong in religion and philosophy. People who spout off "Yeah well you got the burden of proof" usually can't prove anything. They can't back up their claims so they try and force the other person into having to prove their case.

and we all know how unfair it is to have to prove your case, instead of just being accepted as right.

it's the reason why el chupacabra is not universally worshipped as the one true god as he should be... but you heathens will all get yours, when he comes and sucks the blood of your goats.

its illogical to believe in god....no proof. only hear-say.....no logical scientist or logical anyone believes anything without observed facts.

that's not true either. there are many forms of 'belief' because the word is vague. it describes many degrees of expectation. a scientist believes in his hypothesis, though there may not be enough proof for a theory. he applies diligence to convince himself further, or refute the idea completely.

it's a lot harder with the notion of god.

for example, suspecting that your lonely neighbor is a potential lunatic without much information to prove it can be considered a belief.

on the other side of the scale, being convinced that it's a bad idea to light a cigarette when refueling your car is also a belief.

one is much more compelling than the other, but without contradictory evidence, they are both equally valid.

the same goes for belief in god. while it may be a weak belief in respect to the suggestive evidence, it is far from contradicted by refuting evidence.

first of all, because it is such a complex idea... belief in god is pretty much the theory of everything - to which there is no widely accepted philosophical/scientific alternative.

secondly, because there is no uniformally accepted concept of god. many people would argue that god can be used as a loose term for the divine order present in existence.

edit: i suppose what i'm getting at is that, like a hypothesis, belief in god is a guess at the true nature of reality. with such a complex question, it is foolish to automatically exclude reasonable guesses. the notion of god has not been conclusively disproven.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 11-28-2004).]

I hope you guys are doing this for fun,

Consider it from this, Peter steping of the boat, onto the water, it's not that he belived it was logical, but that he had implicit knoweldge for those few steps he stayed afloat that the water would suport him, that God would support him...

I think people misunderstand 'faith' it's not enough to believe it. \

that is will to do what you have to, it involves the whole of a person, what they can see feel know where they are in everysense and what is pushing them, climbing rungs in a ladder, Jacob's Ladder? It seems people don't even know they're dreaming, what chance do we have?

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

and we all know how unfair it is to have to prove your case, instead of just being accepted as right.



That's not what I mean. But in debates like this, invoking burden of proof only serves to try and get the other person to admit that they can't prove their point. While at the same time the person invoking burden of proof can't prove shit.

Example: Atheist and believer are discussing the existence of god. Atheist say to believer, "prove to me that god exists". The believer obviously can't do this. Atheist assumes he won the arguement even though he hasn'r disproven the existence of a god.

so why debate it? and why believe either way?

you may not realize it, but that post is a perfect argument for agnosticism.

But you have to couple my last post with your own personal beliefs and your own personal experiences, then decide whether or not the existence of god is logical.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That's not what I mean. But in debates like this, invoking burden of proof only serves to try and get the other person to admit that they can't prove their point. While at the same time the person invoking burden of proof can't prove shit.

Example: Atheist and believer are discussing the existence of god. Atheist say to believer, "prove to me that god exists". The believer obviously can't do this. Atheist assumes he won the argument even though he hasn't disproven the existence of a god.

That's the crappiest example of "invoking the burden of proof" I've ever read. If any atheists, agnostic or theist does that, he should lose any an all credibility.

Hell, arguably you don't even "invoke" it because it is ever-present! The moment one person makes a positive assertion, like "God exists!" or "God doesn't exist!" then the burden of proof automatically (without magical "invocation") falls on them.

The "burden of proof" has nothing to do with not being able to back up anything; it actually does the contrary! It's there to stop people from making allegation they cannot back up and removing any credibility to those who still decide to make those allegations.

But the 'burden of proof' really doesn't belong in this arguement due to the fact that no one can prove anything. The 'burden of proof' should be used in a lot of arguements, just not in arguements like these. That is all I was trying to say.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

But the 'burden of proof' really doesn't belong in this arguement due to the fact that no one can prove anything. The 'burden of proof' should be used in a lot of arguements, just not in arguements like these. That is all I was trying to say.

It's irrelevant if nobody can prove anything. The usefulness of the burden of proof is to stop people from claiming things they cannot prove. If neither party can prove anything, then GREAT; that means neither party should make a possitive assertion.

You see, that's not argument against the burden of proof; that's an argument against morons who make allegations without being able to back them up.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-28-2004).]

Doesn't the existence of burden of proof mean the negative is automatically correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was my understanding - it was meant to decide arguments.

Aff: "god exists"

neg: "burden of proof"

aff loses, so therefore neg wins, correct? Or does it just stalemate because of this:

Aff: "God !exists"

neg: "burden of proof"

So I guess it does stalemate, which makes this post pretty unnecessary.

Edit: But it does end discourse on a subject.

[This message has been edited by deptstoremook (edited 11-28-2004).]

Well, it seems that one way ends up with theism and the other ends up with strong atheism. Both are making positive claims so they should back them up. Some people(like me) are weak atheists, who when presented with the positive assertions of say, a god existing, simply lack a belief in the claim till sufficient evidence or a sound logical argument is provided. I lack belief that a god exists, but I do not make the positive claim it doesn't. It's prefectly reasonable to lack belief in positive claims till they are backed up properly.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Doesn't the existence of burden of proof mean the negative is automatically correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was my understanding - it was meant to decide arguments.

Aff: "god exists"

neg: "burden of proof"

aff loses, so therefore neg wins, correct? Or does it just stalemate because of this:

Aff: "God !exists"

neg: "burden of proof"

So I guess it does stalemate, which makes this post pretty unnecessary.

Edit: But it does end discourse on a subject.





The 'burden of proof' neither refutes nor proves anything, hence it cannot end discourse or decide an argument, in and of itself. It is simply a way of deciding what is reasonable or unreasonable to believe in, given the fulfillment of the 'burden of proof', or lack thereof.