Given the fact there there is no irrefutable evidence of God (for instance if God is a conscious being, why not say hi?) or against god, one must make an assumption in order to say "God exists" that assumption is something like "look at all this indirect proof, God must exist" even though the only way to prove something so controversial would be direct evidence.

In order to make such a logical jump, one must abandon reason since it is unreasonable to make the jump to begin with. Reason dictates that one must be agnostic. (If you think about the pure definition, it's true that every human is technically agnostic (since if you have ever EVER even for a minute second doubted and moreso you were BORN agnostic))

Therefore, in order to believe in God one must be unreasonable.

To believe in God in not unreasonable. Its what a normal person chooses to do, because naturally even if we believe or not in God's existence we often call him when we say "oh my God" or pray or wish for sth to happen or not happen to us.

daphneee

Its what a normal person chooses to do, because naturally even if we believe or not in God's existence we often call him when we say "oh my God" or pray or wish for sth to happen or not happen to us.

Firstly, one would never call for God or pray for things to happen if one had not been told God allegedly existed.

Secondly, although I've heard God allegedly exists, I've never called Him nor have ever prayed for anything to happen.

Actually, I've had better luck calling Santa. He never lets me down.

Does that make me abnormal ? ;)

"Therefore, in order to believe in God one must be unreasonable."
--------------------


Therefore, for someone who thinks himself so educated in the realm of logic, and yet, posts something so void of logic itself, one must consider the source of illogic as unreasonable.

><>

Q, u may not call "God", but you blame your actions upon him. To believe in sth that is beyond us, as human beings, whether it is God or fairies, or Santa. Thats what i am talking about. Not specificly about God.

I disagree, wesmorris.

To believe in God is reasonable. There are many writings about God, as well as prophets who claim to speak God's word. There are testimonies in the Bible. There are so many different religions, who ultimately all believe in the same God (just have different interpretations of His word). When you grow up in a religious household, your parents tell you how good God is. This would make almost everyone believe in God.

Besides, there aren't too many negatives to being religious. That is, unless you have a religious person get put into a position of power. Then, all who do not share his/her beliefs should tremble, because he/she will make decisions that will affect your life, based solely on his/her beliefs.

For example, when you start burning people alive, or letting people die because you're pro-life (how ironic), there's a problem.

Just goes to show why it's impossible for people of different religious backgrounds to live in peace with one another.

To believe in sth that is beyond us

What is "sth"?

Since we're on the subject, what does "pfft" mean, too?

:confused:

Firstly, one would never call for God or pray for things to happen if one had not been told God allegedly existed.

I totally disagree with this statement. When something bad happens to us we often say "y did this happen to me!" thinking that someone who is beyond us, God for example made it happen to US. Or, when we are sad, in our despair we often make wishes. We made what today exists as God. It was in our minds, as we wanted to believe in something specific which was strong enough to make everything in our world.

VAKEMP: sth is something

Hrm...does God exist.......

Here are questions to lead to problems
(1) Does God exist
(2) Does God exist in a physical manner
(3) What are God`s characteristics
(4) Has God ever interacted with humans
(5) Is god all loving
(6) Is god all-powerful
(7) Do people have free will
(8) Does God care about humans
(9) Has God given an afterlife for humans
(10) Do we have a soul/spirit, a type of nonphysical entity which survives death


Now, the more of these statements you agree with, the harder it is to defend your conception of God. Once you start to agree with statements after (3), then you commit yourself to serious logical problems. While I will not debate with people whether a God (by that I mean greater being) does or does not exist, I will argue over certain conceptions of a greater being. I do not think that logically you can prove/disprove a greater being. However you can logically disprove certain conceptions, especially popular conceptions of god.

A problem with this however is that many people are willing to take the step past logic and reason. While I admit there are a number of things in my life that require a certain amount of faith, or at least a lack of reason, I would never do that with something very important in my life. To be irrational about a philosophy that your life revolves around is idiotic.

So it seems that we should not debate whether god does or does not exist, we should only debate about certain conceptions. When you get into specifics is when you can use logic. I you could not use logic to wonder whether I own the book Plato`s Apology. However you could use logic when I start describing it, and when I start becoming specific with it. Maybe I would quote from it. Then you could use logic to look into whether that book really exists in my home or not.

Just my thoughts for the day.

- Phaedrus

thx ;)

daphneee

Q, u may not call "God", but you blame your actions upon him.

I don't blame God for anything. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest God exists, therefore how can I blame something that doesn't exist ?

To believe in sth that is beyond us, as human beings, whether it is God or fairies, or Santa. Thats what i am talking about. Not specificly about God.

The part about Santa was a joke (a bad one at that.) There is nothing beyond our universe then that which we can observe. I don't observe gods, fairies or Santa.

I totally disagree with this statement. When something bad happens to us we often say "y did this happen to me!" thinking that someone who is beyond us, God for example made it happen to US.

Perhaps, but that is an irrational conclusion. Most rational people understand that things happen because of natural events occurring and not events occurring due to the supernatural. They simply investigate the cause and effect of the situation.

We made what today exists as God. It was in our minds, as we wanted to believe in something specific which was strong enough to make everything in our world.

And that is the problem we face today - the fact that the concept of God is a want to believe as opposed to a need to believe. If someone thinks they "need" to believe in God, then they must not believe in themselves or the world around them. They cannot see nature for what it is; natural.

To believe in God in not unreasonable. Its what a normal person chooses to do, because naturally even if we believe or not in God's existence we often call him when we say "oh my God" or pray or wish for sth to happen or not happen to us.

Well, as I said before, belief in God is not unreasonable. However certain types of beliefs with God are unreasonable. It is what a "normal person....." whoa....normal person. Beliefs in God very far too much to make that type of statement. We call on him? When I say, "oh my god," I am not calling him. Usually it is used like I would use, "what the fuck" (forgive the language if anyone is offended). For example, let us say that I see a honda civic, and it has a idiot who is being dragged being it because he is holding on to a rope attached to the car. I would not be referring to god, I would be making a statement to show my bewilderment. I do not pray, or wish to god. So...I am not normal or I just don`t pick up on your reason.


Q, u may not call "God", but you blame your actions upon him. To believe in sth that is beyond us, as human beings, whether it is God or fairies, or Santa. Thats what i am talking about. Not specificly about God.

I do not blame my actions on whatever God is. I blame my actions on myself, at least most of the time. I do not blame my problems (at least most of them) on other people, beings, or situations. I know that most of my problems are cause by me.

to VAKEMP:

who ultimately all believe in the same God
That is your interpretation, I do not think that all of the different conceptions of god can be put together. You cannot put together some of the different buddhist conceptions of god with the christian conception.


To believe in God is reasonable. There are many writings about God, as well as prophets who claim to speak God's word. There are testimonies in the Bible.

Testimonies to a supernatural power do not make something true. There are many testimonies about aliens and ufos, I still however do not think that there is enough evidence to support such claims.

So...I am off to dinner, I will continue this later.

I shouldn't respond but it's just too tempting.


Originally posted by inspector
Therefore, for someone who thinks himself so educated in the realm of logic[/B]
did I make that claim besides that joke in the other forum? and if that's what you mean, I'm just a dork. pardon.

Originally posted by inspector
and yet, posts something so void of logic itself, one must consider the source of illogic as unreasonable.[/B]
okay, that's simply untrue. the logic may not make sense to you but what I said is certainly not completely devoid of logic no matter what claims you make. is the logic correct? i think so and if you read my retorts to others you'll see that though potentially flawed, the earnest attempt at logic is there and MUCH more sensible than most of the posts I've seen on this site. your distaste for my flavor of reasoning does not help to prove me wrong unless you attempt to dismantle my argument rather than dismiss it. in other words, if you're going to bother with a response, why not make it reasonable? hehe.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
I do not think that logically you can prove/disprove a greater being.
I believe that to be a virtually equivalent statement to my hypothesis.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
However you can logically disprove certain conceptions, especially popular conceptions of god.
A problem with this however is that many people are willing to take the step past logic and reason. While I admit there are a number of things in my life that require a certain amount of faith, or at least a lack of reason, I would never do that with something very important in my life. To be irrational about a philosophy that your life revolves around is idiotic.[/B]
Why then can the belief in god be reasonable?

Originally posted by Phaedrus
So it seems that we should not debate whether god does or does not exist, we should only debate about certain conceptions. [/B]
I think you're onto something, but human nature precludes (is that a word? hehe, uh.. makes it such that though what you say SHOULD be, it can never be due to human nature) you.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
When you get into specifics is when you can use logic. I you could not use logic to wonder whether I own the book Plato`s Apology. However you could use logic when I start describing it, and when I start becoming specific with it. Maybe I would quote from it. Then you could use logic to look into whether that book really exists in my home or not.[/B]
That's good stuff. You show significant wisdom in my opinion.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
Just my thoughts for the day.

- Phaedrus [/B]

I believe Phaedrus already responded quite nicely to this, I have to throw in my two cents.

Originally posted by VAKEMP
I disagree, wesmorris.

Originally posted by VAKEMP
To believe in God is reasonable. There are many writings about God, as well as prophets who claim to speak God's word.[/B]
Prove to me that the prophets weren't insane. Okay, better yet, heresay is generally considered irrelavent, it is for the most part in a court anyway. Further, I could make up a whole bunch of shit to get you to love me or that which it is that I'm saying. By your reasoning if I claim myself to be a prophet I am correct? Okay, if me and my friends all do it, whatever. Then I'm correct and the other prophets are correct. No? So it must be the one with the story that happens to appeal to you more, even if you had NO BASIS whatsoever by which to make the required judgement, for instance you were mentally impared. ack... it doesn't make sense. Try again.

Originally posted by VAKEMP
There are testimonies in the Bible. [/B]
Which proves? Okay.. uh.. so what? No. Okay.. The bible.. argh.. okay I won't go into it, but just because it is in that book does not mean it was true.
QUOTE]Originally posted by VAKEMP
There are so many different religions, who ultimately all believe in the same God (just have different interpretations of His word).[/B][/QUOTE]
That's simply not true. You just made that up. If you make stuff up you should make it more plausible.

Originally posted by VAKEMP
When you grow up in a religious household, your parents tell you how good God is.[/B]
So your parents have more of a clue than you do? That's not true either. As previously stated, the answer to the question is unknowable until irrefutable truth is presented.
This would make almost everyone believe in God.
That's the one good point I think you made. Quite true I spoze. I don't like it, but you are definately correct there.

Originally posted by VAKEMP
Besides, there aren't too many negatives to being religious.
That is subjective and eronious.[/B]

Originally posted by VAKEMP
For example, when you start burning people alive, or letting people die because you're pro-life (how ironic), there's a problem.[/B]
That's all the way true brother.
Just goes to show why it's impossible for people of different religious backgrounds to live in peace with one another. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'll let that one slide for lack of energy to go all the way into it.

Testimonies to a supernatural power do not make something true.

I know. My point is it isn't unreasonable to believe in a god. This thread is not about proving that a god exists, but whether or not it is reasonable to believe that a god exists.

Read the topic, Sherlock.



That is your interpretation, I do not think that all of the different conceptions of god can be put together.

My bad. I should've said 'most'. You're right.

Is it reasonable to believe in a god? Well, seeing that so many people have and do, logic would lead me to believe that it isn't so unreasonable to expect others to be influenced by 'tradition', and also believe in a god.

That's simply not true. You just made that up. If you make stuff up you should make it more plausible.

I was speaking of religions based on the Bible. Are you telling me that Christians have the same moral standards as Roman Catholics?



Prove to me that the prophets weren't insane.

Don't even start with the 'prove to me' BS.



By your reasoning if I claim myself to be a prophet I am correct?
No. If you make up a good bullshit story about how you were a whore on crack before God revealed Himself to you, and how He chose you to speak His word, it is quite possible that some people will believe you.

People con other people all of the time. Maybe they get away with it because they tell people what they want to hear. If that is the case, and these people want to believe God chose you as a prophet, would it be unreasonable if they believed you?

...that's what this thread is about, right? How reasonable religion is?



ack... it doesn't make sense. Try again.


Just slow down, and try to think about what I'm saying, and how it relates to the topic of this post...

There was a bit of misunderstanding in my posts.

Vakemp, "sherlock" why don`t you read mine first. I responsed I do not think you can logically prove or disprove a higher power. I do think you can logically disprove claims to a certain type of conception of a higher power. For example, if a friend said, I think a higher power exists. I would say, "ok, what do you think this higher power is." There is a problem if he says, "I have no idea what it is, I just think that there is one." There is not too much you can do with this statement logically to refute it. You can show why it is not very strong, but I do not think that you can refute it.

Now, on to something better. When you start to get into characteristics of a higher power, that is when it starts. If you say to me, "I believe in a god that is all-loving." I will start arguing points. I will ask you for more characteristics, and I will try to find specific premises. From there I will start to object to these. Basically, the more claims you make about a higher power the harder it gets to back it up. This is a general statement, but it generally holds. No pun there.

Wesmorris, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that a belief in a higher being was unreasonable, I was saying that giving certain characteristics to a higher being could be unreasonable. For example, giving the characteristics of a black god with an afro, that is all loving and hates white people. That would be an idiot belief. My thoughts are that it is not the idea of a greater being that is refutable, but the characteristics of this higher being.

Most of the arguments against a divinity argue its characteristics, not the existence of a god itself. I will give an example and I want people to argue against this conception of a "god" or as I will call it "gawd."

My Gawd:
(1) It does not care about human-kind
(2) It did not create us
(3) While it is not powerful, it is semi-powerful (like mini-me, 1/8th all-powerful)

Now, it is very hard to argue against this type of conception of god. I would like people to try. I want logical arguments, not statements from belief. This should show you that most arguments are directed at certain conceptions and beliefs about god, not about the existence of a higher being in itself.

- Phaedrus

Vakemp, Catholicism is a sect within Christianity. Try reading up on history.

Good detective work Sherlock.

Catholicism is a sect within Christianity.

Yeah yeah. And Christianity is a sect within Judaism. Again, my point was that there are so many interpretations of the Bible, yet they all believe in the same God. Christianity sees Jesus as a god, Judaism doesn't. They both read the Old Testament.



If you say to me, "I believe in a god that is all-loving." I will start arguing points.

..because my view would be entirely subjective. That is another reason why there are so many different religions (or sects within Christianity, as you would put it). Everyone tends to follow that which they believe in. If a little girl likes kittens and hates dogs, there is a high probability that she won't join a religion that sacrifices kittens to the dog god.

And what are you even arguing for now? Well, if you wanted a quick comeback you should have thought beforehand.

Let us try this. The Catholic Church is the oldest christian sect that still practices. Study history, the Catholic church is the oldest one, protestantism came from Catholicism. If you want to learn more, just read up on a thing we call the reformation. Look at the name. Protestantism, look anything like protest? I wonder why, oh yea, it was meant as "to protest" the catholic church. Unless you are claiming that protestantism is not christian either then your logic does not make since, since protestantism came from catholicism.. hrm.......Give me a logical statement why Catholicism is not christian. They worship Jesus as their god. Christians. hrm....

- Phaedrus

BTW, if you find it hard to believe in a god, then that's up to you. It seems you are out to ruin other people's beliefs.

And just to shut you up:

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe in a god.

However, I am agnostic.

Religion doesn't make sense to me. But then again, it's all subjective. My opinion is my opinion. Until someone can either prove of disprove the existence of a god, neither side can be proven right nor wrong (until death, that is ;) )

I'll be brief:

The belief in god is reasonable but wrong.

Why is it reasonable?
a. It can make life easier.
b. It answers alot of tough questions in one quick stroke.
c. Most everyone else believes, why not?
d. Old books explain god.
e. Some say they feel god and even talk to him sometimes.

Why is it wrong?
Because its illogical.

I am out to hurt any illogical belief, sure. Ignorance is not tolerable. I do not know why a person should just stand by and watch it. Try your best to help, and if nothing can be done do not try anymore.

I am agnostic. And again, I do not think it is unreasonable to believe in a god. I however think certain conceptions of god are unreasonable.

So, if you want to debate, find a point. If you want to just lick your wounds and try to strike back with ugly words, go ahead, but I will not waste anymore of my time on it. I joined this to debate, not to get into personal arguments.

- Phaedrus

You are the atheist form of whatsupyall.



The Catholic Church is the oldest christian sect that still practices. Study history, the Catholic church is the oldest one, protestantism came from Catholicism. If you want to learn more, just read up on a thing we call the reformation. Look at the name. Protestantism, look anything like protest?

No kidding? Wow, thanks for clearing that up, pal!

So, my point was that out of one book, mant different beliefs arose. That is, they all read the Bible, but interpret it differently. One believes in baptism as a child, another may believe that only an adult can decide to be baptized. But, they all follow the same word...just interpret it differently.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. I'm glad you learned something today in 7th grade.;) Good for you!

fadingCaptain,
In a brief post, you got to the heart of what I was trying to say.

It is reasonable, but it doesn't mean it's logical.

Thanks.

I am out to hurt any illogical belief, sure. Ignorance is not tolerable.

I hope you do not plan to run for office anytime soon...:eek:

fadingcap, I do not think that you are using the correct meaning of reasonable.

Used in the situation we are currently having fun in:
Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking

now, let us define reason (within our current context).
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence

So if you say that it is reasonable but not logical, then you are making a contradiction. Reason requires logic. So using the definitions I do not think that reasoning or logic works (yea I used them for fun). Maybe you were thinking more along the lines of meaningful. I will agree though that at the surface, a God is logical.

Tell me what you think.

Vake - I will say it again, I am agnostic not atheist. I was only debating the point that Catholicism is christian. You said otherwise. I was never debating that there are many beliefs came from one book, anyway there would be no need to say that. I believe that everyone (at least most) on this board is educated enough to recognize this. So before you attack next time, please look at what points I am debating first.
- Phaedrus

Why is it wrong?
Because its illogical.

Who are you to say that its wrong? Who am I to say that its right? Its not illogical. If your going by the bible then no wonder you think its illogical. I think il be the first theist to admit that the bible is full of holes and contradicts itself. Just dont go by the bible, if you do your head will explode and youll have the brain of a 3 year old.

Try to find the truth. Not the truth in a 2,000 year old book.

Science can be illogical to. Hello radiation. Hello DDT. Hello birth defects.

Man: "Hey doctor Ive been coughin up blood recently. I think it might be the fact that I smoke 7,000 times a day."

Doctor: "Smoking never hurt anyone."

Id rather trust God then a scientist.

-CounslerCoffee

Hmmm. I hate language.

I may be wrong here but I see reasonable and logical being two slightly different things.

Of course, it all depends on the definitions you choose. Here is how I was seeing 'reasonable':
-Being within the bounds of common sense

So, I saw the belief in god as being something that could very well make common sense. But would ultimately fail when the rules of logic are applied.

Anyway, I see your view and it is valid. Reasonable can also mean logical. Words are fuzzy.

Who are you to say that its wrong?
Of course this is just my opinion...though I am one of wisest persons to ever walk the earth. :D


Its not illogical.
But is it logical? :)


Science can be illogical to. Hello radiation. Hello DDT. Hello birth defects.
I'd say this stuff is quite logical.


Id rather trust God then a scientist.
My trust must be earned on an individual basis.

Ahhh. I need to hit the sack. Or drink more coffee.

:eek:

Originally posted by Phaedrus
There was a bit of misunderstanding in my posts.

I don't think I misunderstood. I wasn't claiming you were backing my argument, I was saying " I believe the two statements to be equivalent " regardless of your intent to agree. I was "drawing a strong correlation between them". I might have stated that more clearly. Pardon.

While I don't agree with your assertion that "god" is a reasonable assumption, I respect the fact that you actually skillfully employ logic to attempt to make your point.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Most of the arguments against a divinity argue its characteristics, not the existence of a god itself.

that's kind of superfluous. the issue is the title of the thread. so how about this, this isn't most of the time?

Additionally, I'm not saying that god does not exist. I'm saying the to believe that he does is unreasonable. You may THINK that he does, and while not being unreasonable, it might be irrational. One should believe the absolute truth which is as follows: No one knows if god exists. Simple. True. Accept it... it's healthier. I wish it weren't true mind you, but it is.


Originally posted by Phaedrus


I will give an example and I want people to argue against this conception of a "god" or as I will call it "gawd."

My Gawd:
(1) It does not care about human-kind
(2) It did not create us
(3) While it is not powerful, it is semi-powerful (like mini-me, 1/8th all-powerful)

does that make you a pagan? hehe.. read the definition of god from the dictionary.

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b

the god you describe is more similar to "thor" or "Athena" or a god from some other pre-christian theology.



Originally posted by Phaedrus

Now, it is very hard to argue against this type of conception of god. I would like people to try. I want logical arguments, not statements from belief. This should show you that most arguments are directed at certain conceptions and beliefs about god, not about the existence of a higher being in itself.

- Phaedrus

No, it's easy to argue against it once you see that the conception is flawed in its inspiration. I do believe my last comment technically negates your conclusion above... correct? If I'm wrong I apologize but uh.. well, please manage to convince me. I mean, you're trying to use an incorrect definition to wiggle out of defending your position. Really your definition of god is not the god in question but equally as unreasonable to believe in. That' s a good trick but I see through it. You try more now. :) Hehe.

Neither can be proved nor disproved via logic or reason without more evidence than any human has apparently been able to produce. What argument is more correct than that? That is the only argument that is provable.

uhm.. booya.

yeah.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
I'll be brief:

The belief in god is reasonable but wrong.

Why is it reasonable?
a. It can make life easier.
b. It answers alot of tough questions in one quick stroke.
c. Most everyone else believes, why not?
d. Old books explain god.
e. Some say they feel god and even talk to him sometimes.

Why is it wrong?
Because its illogical.

That is the best argument yet. However, I maintain that something so obviously illogical is unreasonable (the more fundamental the claim, the more solid the proof must be). But without that assertion I have to admit that your reasoning is more correct. It does trump the entire point if you don't think that an obviously illogical point is unreasonable. Hehe, I might argue about that though. It doesn't seem like a reasonable being should avoid the obvious illogic to it, especially given the absolute truth that the answer is as of yet unknown and with all likelihood is unknowable.

But is it logical?

It can be. It all depends on how you take it. If I say that God is here around us all the time and does miracles 5 times a day then thats illogical. God doesnt do miracles, he can make certain things happen but I wouldnt call them miracles. A logical person would say "Freak Occurence" (Cue the pulp fiction music)

Science can be quite illogical. If an atheist does not admit that then they are not logical.

Pheadrus,

before you attack next time, please look at what points I am debating first.
Fair enough.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Science can be quite illogical. If an atheist does not admit that then they are not logical.When is science ever illogical?

~Raithere

Logic and reason has their uses. But my experience is that they are great tools, but unfortunately the universe doesn't run on it. Have you ever seen a child behave logically? You might be able to explain a few things logically, but that doesn't change the child's behaviour. Watch a few Star Trek episodes with Vulcans in them - they explore the merits of logic beautifully.

For example, you can argue whether suicide is a logical way out of unbearable circumstances. It's only logical if it's the only conclusion that can be come to. But is it a reaonable conclusion? Depends on your frame of reference... what does "unbearable" mean to you? Does "suicide" just mean death, or maybe Hara Kiri, or Holy Sacrifice?

Like Xev said: it's better not to be born than to live this life. That's logical if you consider everything that can happen to you in life - things over which you have no control. It might even have been reasonable if you had the choice and the knowledge at birth. If you didn't have parents who fed you. Or a future. You only lose your future when you have nothing to live for. Religion might give that - but if you practice religion for the sake of religion, you will soon become disappointed and even more disillusioned. Religion is a way in, not a way out. A way into wisdom; there is space for reason and logic, but it is not subjected to it, does not depend on it. Science is subjected to reason and logic, and should be.

The Greeks were also great with reason and logic. Socrates and Plato had already done their thing when Jesus arrived. The Jews followed the Old Testament and its strict moral laws and codes of behaviour...

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:22
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom...
1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You would say that everything should be subjected to reason and logic. Why? Haven't we progressed since the ancient Greeks? How does a tree grow, logically? What reason does flies and mosquitos have for existing? Reasonably and logically, we shouldn't even exist. And yet we do. A logical argument depends on the premises you base you reasoning, and the hypothesis you follow. It is contained therein and cannot escape that framework.

*edit*
Belief in God is not unreasonable. I believe in God's existence and his love as a premise. I believe in a God who has been revealing His will over thousands of years, first heard, then memorised, then written down in the Bible. My thoughts affirm the history described in the Bible through the Holy Spirit, and it gives me hope. You can't argue with hope, and you can't explain it. But you can't deny it's existence.

the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b

This is a very flawed definition to apply to all conceptions of god. Sure, it works with many of the western conceptions, but this does not apply to hardly any of the eastern conceptions I know. Yea, my example might sound like a Thor, but are you denying the fact that Thor was a God (in mythology)? In religions there are Gods that have no created the universe and do not "rule" it in the active sense of the word. Also some religions do not belief that their god is perfect or good. So even on the outset, this definition is too flawed to be used. Again, I think the limitation is our language, not the ideas.

Ask any scholar for the definition for a god, it is impossible to define a god that fits with all conceptions. What will happen is that you will either go far to broad (i.e A higher power) which could be many things, or too slim, like your definition. Your definition could not fit many of the Hindu gods, so the definition is flawed itself.

So, I would appreciate it if you would now logically try to refute my "Gawd" example. Why logically it cannot work. Using the rules of logic.

and booya....

- Phaedrus

Originally posted by Phaedrus
This is a very flawed definition to apply to all conceptions of god. Sure, it works with many of the western conceptions, but this does not apply to hardly any of the eastern conceptions I know. Yea, my example might sound like a Thor, but are you denying the fact that Thor was a God (in mythology)?

No, I do not deny it. It doesn't matter though which we speak of though. Either is the same. Belief in either is unreasonable.
Now, belief that they exist as concepts is quite reasonable. But that is not the issue at hand.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
In religions there are Gods that have no created the universe and do not "rule" it in the active sense of the word. Also some religions do not belief that their god is perfect or good. So even on the outset, this definition is too flawed to be used.

No, it is not. Why do you insist on changing the language? I got that definition from http://www.m-w.com. Online dictionary. I used it as a reference to clue you in on this argument. It perfectly defines what I'm speaking of.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
Again, I think the limitation is our language, not the ideas.

You are correct that language is quite limiting, but how else to do it eh? In this case however I believe I've perfectly qualified what I mean and the language used is quite appropriate.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Ask any scholar for the definition for a god, it is impossible to define a god that fits with all conceptions. What will happen is that you will either go far to broad (i.e A higher power) which could be many things, or too slim, like your definition.
It is NOT my definition. I merely use it. I did not invent english. Talk to meriam webster. However I think they did a really good job of defining it.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Your definition could not fit many of the Hindu gods, so the definition is flawed itself.
Does that matter in terms of the argument at hand? You're avoiding the question to justify your own lies to yourself. It is okay that you can't accept the truth, just be aware that you're lying to yourself.
So, I would appreciate it if you would now logically try to refute my "Gawd" example. Why logically it cannot work. Using the rules of logic.

You are changing the nature of the conversation because you cannot refute the statement that started the thread. Regardless of your definition of god or gawd or whatever the hell the following is more valid logically: The existence of a god (or "Gawd" if you prefer) cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore it is unreasonable (illogical) to believe in god. Address that point specifically if you can.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

and booya....

- Phaedrus

Love the booya but it was really very unwarrented.

What I am saying is that the definition is incorrect. I am a philosophy major, I have studied this. God is something that is almost impossible to define (I doubt it will ever be correctly defined)

Again, this was the definition:
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b

I insist on changing the language because the definition of god does not fit everything. This takes the very meaning out of the definition. I will draw an analogy for you. In science you want a theory that works with all existing phenomena, if it starts to disagree with what we know to be true, we either correct the theory using minor adjustments or we throw it away. That is what we need to do with the definition. Since the definition of god that was given does not really fit all conceptions of god, we should work on it or throw it away. I do not have any replacements for it, so do not ask me for advice. Scholars have been debating this recently, with the definition of religion. Many scholars feel that the word religion should just be thrown away, because it was a western bias that cannot fit around many eastern religions.

So, if you look at the definition you see that it is flawed because it specifically looks past eastern conceptions of god. This is why we cannot use this definition. This forum is "The belief in God is unreasonable" not "the belief in a western god is unreasonable."

Also,
You misinterpreted my use of the word conceptions.
Yes, concept is defined as:
1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION

I was talking about the different notions of god (conceptions).

I am sorry if I was not clear enough.

Now let us get to the threat statement.

The belief in God is unreasonable. Now, what I am saying that while certain gods are unreasonable, certain types (or people`s conceptions) of gods are not.

I use my earlier example of Gawd. I cannot find any logical refutation to show that it does not exist. This forum started of with "The belief in God is unreasonable," then I challenged this claim. I should not be the one with the burden of proof. However, I still offered up an example for people to pick at with logic. This has not been done, but if it was shown to be invalid, then I would have to think twice.

Now, to your point.

______________________________________________
The existence of a god (or "Gawd" if you prefer) cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore it is unreasonable (illogical) to believe in god. Address that point specifically if you can.
______________________________________________

Now, I will define logic.
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

There is nothing in logic that says if something has not been proven, you cannot believe in it. Logic does not say that if it cannot be proven or disproven, it is illogical. To be illogical it means that it does not observe the rules of logic (again m-w.com), or devoid of logic. If you can find a rule of logic that says this, I will admit defeat freely, but I have found none.

- Phaedrus

Originally posted by Phaedrus

There is nothing in logic that says if something has not been proven, you cannot believe in it. Logic does not say that if it cannot be proven or disproven, it is illogical. To be illogical it means that it does not observe the rules of logic (again m-w.com), or devoid of logic. If you can find a rule of logic that says this, I will admit defeat freely, but I have found none.
- Phaedrus

You avoid the point and the original statement, you repeat it, yet miss the point repeatedly. It is not the concept of god that is illogical. It is as follows: The existence, hence the belief, e.g. "God exists for sure" in god cannot be proven or disproven. It is therefore illogical to BELIEVE that god exists for sure (given pretty much ANY definition of GOD that I've conceived). How do you refute that? It isn't a RULE of logic, I'm APPLYING it to a scenario. I cannot be sure of the existence of god if I cannot prove or disprove it, therefore god does not exist for sure. How can you argue with that? It's 2+2 = 4. Would you debate that? I don't know how to state it any more clearly. You have good points but they are not applicable to the argument.

ARGH. I'll try to calm down and clarify more later if you are still not getting it.

No, you are not getting it.

You used the definition for belief that best fits your ideas. Here is the definition

(1)a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

Belief does not mean for "SURE." I will give an example, I believe that this computer exists, but I cannot be sure logically that it does exist. You can give evidence for and against, but you cannot logically prove that it exists.

how about another example which I found on www.m-w.com:
BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>

So it does not have to be "sure."

1. a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

Also, it is not true that god can never be proven. While it is true that god can never be disproven, it is not the same for the opposite. While it can and in my opinion should be held as unlikely, it cannot be disproven logically. Set let us use some reasoning.

1)The existence of god can possibly be proven.
2) The existence of god has not been proven so far
3) The existence of god cannot be disproven

Using these statements it does not seem that being a theist is not unreasonable. I will agree that certain types of theists are unreasonable, but the belief of a higher being does not seem to be.

You keep referring to it as illogical, but I do not see it breaking any rules of logic. To be unreasonable it would have to break a rule of logic. So please find the rule of logic that it breaks and tell me what it is. You have not done this, but you repeatedly call it illogical. So, if it is not breaking a rule of logic, it is not illogical.

- Phaedrus

Originally posted by Phaedrus
No, you are not getting it.

You used the definition for belief that best fits your ideas. Here is the definition

(1)a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. - Phaedrus

Well you have good points as usual, but... this word has multiple definitions and you chose that which works best for you as did I. I believe that to be fair, however, I would hold that I've made the assertion that started the thread so out of courtesy you might extend that my choice of definitions offered at m-w is plausible.

1 a : to consider to be true.

When using LANGUAGE, I believe I have the right to use the definition of my choice? Maybe? Now that you've made me fully qualify the use of the word "belief" and I used it as "to believe" see above... you still will weasel from the point. Go ahead... what now?

Give me an example of a "rule of logic". okay I'll try something here: refute the following statement... in otherewords, help me please to find the reason that the following is illogical... forget all other posts and tell me why the following statement is not perfectly logical please: I cannot be sure of the existence of god if I cannot prove or disprove it. I cannot prove it or disprove it. Therefore god does not exist for sure.

Please, you know what I'm saying.. maybe I've used the definition of a word SLIGHTLY wrong or something.. but look at the meat of the reasoning and tell me WHY it's wrong. Shit.. Okay, I'll try to figure out the fucking logic thing. I've never taken a course in philosphy (being an engineer) so why don't you help me out here. Break it down into logic my non-philosophy student self can understand. I'm right though, I'll prove it to you eventually. Oh sure, my fingers may be nubs by that time, but I'll do it damnit.

"you still will weasel from the point. Go ahead... what now?"
-----------------


I'm your hucklberry.

Want to debate logic? Okay. I will open with a question. Is all truth relative?

><>

Originally posted by inspector
"you still will weasel from the point. Go ahead... what now?"
-----------------


I'm your hucklberry.

Want to debate logic? Okay. I will open with a question? Is all truth relative?

><>

If I say "it is true that the truth is subjective" have I not stated an objective truth?"

You're not very good at debating, are you? You do not answer a question with another question. Now, are all truths relative? Are there such things as absolute truths?

><>

Originally posted by inspector
You're not very good at debating, are you? You do not answer a question with another question. Now, are all truths relative? Are there such things as absolute truths?

><>

?

I can answer a question however I like, ****.

It wasn't a question so much as an example. But thanks for your pointless criticism ****.

(I couldn't decide which was better so what the hell, I went for both!)

<font color="red">Moderator edit (JR): personal attacks add nothing to the discussion.</font>

Hehe. I've noticed that a significant number of atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. When this happens, it means they have nothing rational to offer.

Okay moderators, do your thing.

><>

Eh, I'm tired and cranky, but you were being a **** for no reason. Arrogant no less. Thanks for the tip. I mean wait, not thanks for the tip, ****. Care to be civil now? Oh, I'm not an aithiest. Are you a ****? I'm agnostic and so are you, you're just too much of a lemming and a coward to admit it. I will ignore further stupidity from you as I'm sure you will from me. Buh-bye.

<font color="red">Moderator edit: personal attacks add nothing to the conversation.</font>

When using LANGUAGE, I believe I have the right to use the definition of my choice? Maybe? Now that you've made me fully qualify the use of the word "belief" and I used it as "to believe" see above... you still will weasel from the point. Go ahead... what now?

I did not skim over the question. Yes, whatever definition you choose is what you do. But you cannot tell me that your definition fits all forms of beliefs in god. I know many christians who say that they are not completely sure that he exists, but they believe he does. So your definition does not fit within the complete argument. Let us set it up like it was a logical argument

1) Your definition of belief you use is: to consider to be true.
2) Some people are theists, but do not claim they are positive that a god exists
Therefore:
3) Your definition cannot be applied to many of the circumstances so it should be changed

So no, there is no need to respond to that specific point. Your definition does not work, so I do not need to respond to that point. Your argument completely relied on a selective definition that did not fit all examples. You made the fallacie of a faulty assumptions. In a fallacy of a faulty assumption on presumes some unwarranted conditions in the context of presenting the argument. The conclusion has as its basis a faulty assumption on which the argument rests. The faulty assumption on which the argument places itself on is the definition. You assumed that the definition you used works in all scenerios, but it doesn`t.


The existence, hence the belief, e.g. "God exists for sure" in god cannot be proven or disproven. It is therefore illogical to BELIEVE that god exists for sure

Also, the entire forum is "The belief in God in unreasonable." It is not "The belief that god exists for sure" forum. So I will again use the example from www.m-w.com.

BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>

In response to your question of rules of logic, I will give you one, the example will be a flaw in your logic. You are begging the question, otherwise known as Petitio Principii. Begging the question can refer to any faulty assumption of the point of issue in an argument. Your faulty assumption: belief in god is unreasonable.

This assumption is the basis for your argument. You keep saying that it is unreasonable, without saying the laws of logic it violates, and as far as I know it violates none. I cannot list all of the rules of logic for you, it would be like listening all of the theories of science. If you want to learn logic, go buy a logic book, or a critical thinking book (they usually have logic in them).

You are also arguing in a circle. This is a special case of the fallacy of begging the question. "A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true." This is called circular reasoning. You say that belief in god is unreasonable. And that it is unreasonable because it is illogical." This is circle. You will either have to find why it is illogical, which it is not, or at least admit that your line of reasoning is wrong.

So there are a few of the rules of logic for you, applied any everything.

- Phaedrus

Actually, this entire argument is really just me trying to say "absolute conviction that god exists can only be attained through circular reasoning: hence it is unreasonable (unreasonable is a word that in this case is synonomous with illogical) I just didn't think all that was a good name for a thread. Well, that and I thought I'd see if the discussion could derive that. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.

oringinally by Phaedrus
BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer

you are choosing to use whatever definition you like as it fits your argument when I've already stated I'm only attempting to argue "to consider to be true." you say I can't do that well, I am. I just did and you ignored me again. it is NOT invalid to say that "given these conditions, this" it applies perfectly. you say it does not. I say you're wrong, you say I'm wrong.

is it possible that your attempt to apply the "rules of logic" was flawed? couldn't be eh? no way dude!

Originally posted by inspector
Hehe. I've noticed that a significant number of atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults.

My accusations and insults towards you are just based in a distaste for pointless derogatory criticism. you can say what you want but if you make stupid comments like "you're not very good at this, are you" I will defend myself in whatever way appeals to me at the time. Your assertion is arrogant and pricklike. I took it as an insult to my intelligence. I'm not the smartest human but odds are I'm smarter than you.

Originally posted by inspector
When this happens, it means they have nothing rational to offer.
[/B]
That is ridiculous. I am human, sometimes I'm not rational but come on. I believe I've demonstrated that I'm very rational. You are just picking a fight and then acting like a little bitch when I call you on it.

Originally posted by inspector
Okay moderators, do your thing.
[/B]
that's a little pathetic.

absolute conviction that god exists can only be attained through circular reasoning: hence it is unreasonable

What type of circular reasoning? You have not ever stated the argument that makes it circular. No, I did not misapply these
laws of logic.

You are the one who is using the definition how they see fit. I am applying the definition which covers all examples that I know of. I showed how your definition does not work with all of the argument.

However, to please you I will go ahead and make the argument.


I cannot be sure of the existence of god if I cannot prove or disprove it. I cannot prove it or disprove it. Therefore god does not exist for sure.


Yes, this is completely true. However to apply this and to say that because of the previous statements, to believe in god is unreasonable to to get into hardcore skepticism. I am not talking about a positive amount of skepticism, I am talking about when you doubt almost everythings existence. Your hand, Wal-mart, your body, etc.

If you want to be this skeptic about everything, and if you want to apply logic to everything, there is very little that you can prove to exist.

How about this. Using logic you can not prove that your body actually exists, or you cannot prove the computer that you are using exists. You cannot prove logically that my foot is really in existence. Using logic, none of these are provable. So, using your "logic" you would have to say that to believe that my body exists is unreasonable. To believe that my computer exists is unreasonable. To believe that my foot exists is unreasonable.

To follow your line of reasoning would lead to the conclusions above.

Sure, you can go ahead and argue like this if you want, but I doubt that you believe the statements above. I just applied your logic to other circumstances, so in this I have answered your question. Only hardcore skeptics (and I mean hardcore, not skepticism in a positive way, I am meaning this in a negative way) would make the statement that it is unreasonable.

- Phaedrus

- Phaedrus

Originally posted by Phaedrus
What type of circular reasoning? You have not ever stated the argument that makes it circular. No, I did not misapply these
laws of logic.

thought it obvious: evidence that god created the universe is overwhelming. god must exist because the evidence that he does is overwhelming.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

You are the one who is using the definition how they see fit. I am applying the definition which covers all examples that I know of. I showed how your definition does not work with all of the argument.

However, to please you I will go ahead and make the argument.

thanks.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Yes, this is completely true. However to apply this and to say that because of the previous statements, to believe in god is unreasonable to to get into hardcore skepticism. I am not talking about a positive amount of skepticism, I am talking about when you doubt almost everythings existence. Your hand, Wal-mart, your body, etc.

Well, I don't, but that is where any philosophical debate has to start from for it to be completely rational. From that starting point one may make assumptions through which one can substantiate one's existance. It's easy, the only thing that is provable to me is nothing. Okay now tell me what assumptions I must make to validate what you claim. That is science. That is philosophy as I see it. There can be NO assumption or inreality you've instantaneously disqualified a part of the solution set. That is irrational. You have to know what assumptions you've made when solving a problem or the interpretion of your solution has no absolute bearing. It is at that point mere probability. My assertion is that the "absolute certainty in the existance of god" is irrational because it requires a HUGE assumption. In order to prove that god exists, you have to believe that god exists. Let me rephrase:

Circular logic? I'd say.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

If you want to be this skeptic about everything, and if you want to apply logic to everything, there is very little that you can prove to exist.

actually, is it that since you don't really do science, just logic, that you don't understand importance of the the principle behind stating your assumptions? there is great power in assumptions right? i mean I can assume god exists and you can't discount me. why? well, i made the assumption. that is circular logic.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

How about this. Using logic you can not prove that your body actually exists, or you cannot prove the computer that you are using exists. You cannot prove logically that my foot is really in existence. Using logic, none of these are provable. So, using your "logic" you would have to say that to believe that my body exists is unreasonable. To believe that my computer exists is unreasonable. To believe that my foot exists is unreasonable.

actually, I agree with that statement with this qualification: I cannot believe that my foot exists unless I've made two assumptions:

I believe that I exist.
and
I believe that reality exists independent of my existence.
okay one more.
I believe that my nervous system indicates to my consciousness the conditions outside my body, as I understand them given my particular perspective.

Does that cover it?

Is this not the superior application of logic? Is it not the only scientific application of logic? In my opinion any other interpretation breaks the rules. Assumptions may be made, but if they are not specified, applicaction logic could be entirely out of context. Take a calculus course.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

To follow your line of reasoning would lead to the conclusions above.

They were valid conclusions.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Sure, you can go ahead and argue like this if you want, but I doubt that you believe the statements above. I just applied your logic to other circumstances, so in this I have answered your question. Only hardcore skeptics (and I mean hardcore, not skepticism in a positive way, I am meaning this in a negative way) would make the statement that it is unreasonable.

whichever.

Acts 17:16While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

32When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." 33At that, Paul left the Council. 34A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

thought it obvious: evidence that god created the universe is overwhelming. god must exist because the evidence that he does is overwhelming.

This is not true, there are theists who do not believe that god created the universe. If you want to try to argue against a god like this, look at what I called my "gawd" example, and argue against that. That is one thing I would like you to focus on. Why my example of gawd is illogical, because this is similar to certain peoples idea of god. Remember this, we are arguing against the existence of god, not certain conceptions or beliefs about god. So when you argue that it is circular logic, you are arguing about a person`s belief that god created the universe. Not all theist belief this, so you cannot use it in an existence argument. Anyway, god`s existence is independent from his creation. Remember, we are arguing the existence of god itself, not certain beliefs and religions.


From that starting point one may make assumptions through which one can substantiate one's existance

First of all, you cannot substantiate something that is based completely on assumptions. Unless it can possibily prove itself, but this example cannot. Your existence cannot prove itself logically.

The definition for substantiate in logic:
to establish by proof or competent evidence

You cannot substantiate something without proper evidence, and relying on assumptions is not evidence.


actually, is it that since you don't really do science, just logic, that you don't understand importance of the the principle behind stating your assumptions? there is great power in assumptions right? i mean I can assume god exists and you can't discount me. why? well, i made the assumption. that is circular logic.

Well, I do dabble in science but nothing past that. However I do study the philosophy of science, so yes, I understand the important of any assumption I make. In fact, philosophy has more to say about assumptions than science.

I will now argue against your statement, and I will put it in form.
1) I can assume god exists
2) You cannot discount me
3) Because I made that assumption

I have never heard this offered up as evidence for a god. However I will go ahead and attack it. Yes it is illogical, however this has nothing to do with the argument. You are trying to show it is illogical by giving illogical arguments that are not common. Just because you can make a illogical argument does not mean that position is invalid. I will give you an example.

1) I assume that the CIN works better than the MWT
2) You cannot discount the CIN
3) Because I made that assumption

well, CIN works just as well as the many worlds theory (if this has recently changed science majors I would enjoy a correction). Both of them have evidence for them, but just because I can give an argument that says one of their arguments is illogical does not mean that the whole position is.

So argue against my gawd position.

My Gawd:
(1) It does not care about human-kind
(2) It did not create us or this universe
(3) While it is not all-powerful, it is semi-powerful (like mini-me, 1/8th all-powerful)

I want you to show logical problems with this god. If you cannot, then there is no reason to say that belief in god itself is unreasonable. You would have to change it to "certain beliefs in god are unreasonable."

So, my request is that you argue against my gawd. By the way, I made it gawd so no theist would be offended by my periodical usage of it.


actually, I agree with that statement with this qualification: I cannot believe that my foot exists unless I've made two assumptions:

1) I believe that I exist.
2) I believe that reality exists independent of my existence.
okay one more.
I believe that my nervous system indicates to my consciousness the conditions outside my body, as I understand them given my particular perspective. Does that cover it?

Is this not the superior application of logic? Is it not the only scientific application of logic? In my opinion any other interpretation breaks the rules. Assumptions may be made, but if they are not specified, applicaction logic could be entirely out of context. Take a calculus course.

Hahahaha. I will not get into a personal attack but let me say that you need a logic book. Before you think that it is a "superior" application of logic, go actually read on logic.

I will attack now:
The premise - 1) I believe I exist.
I is not necessarily body. You have to do this
1) I exist
2) I have (or am) a body
3) I have a foot

These are all of the necessary requirements to say that your foot exists. It does not prove it though, because premise 2 and 3 are flawed. I will not get into this, this is a very simple philosophy problem involving the philosophy of mind and logic. If you actually studied logic you would know that you cannot actually prove that "I" is "body" which is what your first premise required. For if "I" was not "body" in your statement, then I would not necessarily exist within a body. Real old problem, called the mind-body problem. Your nervous system is not required for your foot to exist.

Reality does not have to exist independent of your existence for your foot to exist. Get that right. While you exist you still have a foot (with the argument).

Also, assumptions have to be made to say that your foot exists, very very large assumptions. So, take a logic course...however it does not seem that I have to take a calculus course yet.

- Phaedrus

Originally posted by inspector
Hehe. I've noticed that a significant number of atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. When this happens, it means they have nothing rational to offer.

Okay moderators, do your thing.

><>

Like theists are exempt from it. Amusing, inspector.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Also, assumptions have to be made to say that your foot exists, very very large assumptions. So, take a logic course...however it does not seem that I have to take a calculus course yet.

- Phaedrus

You are a gigantic pain in the ass. :) You demostrate great tenacity in dismantiling arguments and the ability to do so proficiently. I respect that quite a bit.

I'm further very impressed that you are pointing this argument in the correct direction and in my opinion significant progress has been made.

You are correct that HUGE assumptions have to be made in order to proved that my foot exists. Are they as huge as those that must be made such that God exists? In my opinion they are the same. Since they are the same, which is more reasonable? I can see my foot?

Hmm.. have we broached the heart of the issue yet? Should I spell it out? I prolly should. In my somewhat humble, somewhat arrogant opinion I believe the following to be undoubtably true: It is more reasonable to assume that I have a foot than to assume that god or gawd or similar deity-like beings exist. Therefore: I have FAITH that I have a foot. You see where I'm going with this? Ultimately, given philosophical inquiry and the apparent requirement of FAITH for sanity, I am entirely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is far more productive to place my faith in my foot that in hypothetical bullshit.

This would of course all change were a being with any godlike qualifications to expose himself, undergo scrutiny and still appear to be a godlike being. It would, I would hold, only be logical that a being of said ilk would throw a brother a frickin bone instead of well, some silly book and a bunch of lemmings. I do not presume absolute truth in the preceding statement. Just that it is reasonable.

You keep quoting your gawd example. that example only lists properties of god and is coherent with part of your earlier argument however you contradicted yourself by asking that I attack that example. I cannot attack that example because it is a list of properties regarding a hypothetical being. I am not arguing about its properties, I'm arguing if it is reasonable to assume that it exists. Again, I think it is reasonable to think it might exist. I don't think it is an invalid definition that you offer. I just think it doesn't apply to the argument.

You deny that my argument has ANY merit? You would call me unreasonable?

Argh.. I'll get back to this, but you are ignoring the subjective nature of consciousness. If I assume that CIN is better that my ASS, you cannot convince me otherwise SO NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, YOU ARE STILL WRONG TO ME. get it, you are speaking to a brick wall at that point. It ultimately doesn't matter that your logic is or is not superior at that point because we are no longer playing the same game. At that point, as far as I am concerned, I have substantiated my ASS and you can to nothing to stop it, no matter how much you'd like to. That's the problem with that whole line of reasoning. Again, assumptions are very dangerous. It is imperative to keep them reasonable (such that no one is excluded from the game, hence ultra-conservatism).

Everyone I've ever heard talk about god says this "belief in god requires faith" faith is circular because it is the same as making an assumption. It is more reasonable to have faith that your foot exists than to have faith that god exists because I can kick you with my foot. Hehe, then maybe you'll have faith too eh?

Just making a point. (and I'm sure you'll find a way to tell me that I'm not)

I try damnit.

In my somewhat humble, somewhat arrogant opinion I believe the following to be undoubtably true: It is more reasonable to assume that I have a foot than to assume that god or gawd or similar deity-like beings exist.

This is undoubtably true. The issue of God has many more epistemological (knowledge related) problems than your foot would. I was just trying to show that belief in both require faith, but it is completely correct to say that there is more reason in the belief of your foot than god.


You keep quoting your gawd example. that example only lists properties of god and is coherent with part of your earlier argument however you contradicted yourself by asking that I attack that example. I cannot attack that example because it is a list of properties regarding a hypothetical being. I am not arguing about its properties, I'm arguing if it is reasonable to assume that it exists. Again, I think it is reasonable to think it might exist. I don't think it is an invalid definition that you offer. I just think it doesn't apply to the argument.

I was just trying to show that it is impossible to argue against the idea of god itself. My example was something with hardly and properties and thus, to argue against it you would have to argue against its existence purely on the basis of its existence. This is almost impossible to do in any case. I maybe if I show the same type of example in another context it will illustate why I did it.

I want you to argue against my shoe (just an illustration)
1) You have never seen it
2) It has a rubber sole
3) It has shoelaces

See, remarkable like the god example. Yes the premises are different, but all I was trying to do is show that it is almost impossible to argue over the existence of something when the only argument is existence, with no more premises.

It was only an example not to be taken very seriously.


You deny that my argument has ANY merit? You would call me unreasonable?

Not at all, you are not trained in logic but you are doing the best you can. No one is educated enough to be completely logic, leaps of "faith" are required all the time, just some has more merit as we have shown.


but you are ignoring the subjective nature of consciousness.

So hurry up and get back to this, I would like to see your points.

- Phaedrus

"Only a brave person is willing to honestly admit, and fearlessly to face, what a sincere and logical mind discovers."
-Rodan of Alexandria

Originally posted by Phaedrus
This is undoubtably true. The issue of God has many more epistemological (knowledge related) problems than your foot would. I was just trying to show that belief in both require faith, but it is completely correct to say that there is more reason in the belief of your foot than god.



I was just trying to show that it is impossible to argue against the idea of god itself. My example was something with hardly and properties and thus, to argue against it you would have to argue against its existence purely on the basis of its existence. This is almost impossible to do in any case. I maybe if I show the same type of example in another context it will illustate why I did it.

I want you to argue against my shoe (just an illustration)
1) You have never seen it
2) It has a rubber sole
3) It has shoelaces

See, remarkable like the god example. Yes the premises are different, but all I was trying to do is show that it is almost impossible to argue over the existence of something when the only argument is existence, with no more premises.

It was only an example not to be taken very seriously.



Not at all, you are not trained in logic but you are doing the best you can. No one is educated enough to be completely logic, leaps of "faith" are required all the time, just some has more merit as we have shown.



So hurry up and get back to this, I would like to see your points.

- Phaedrus

"Only a brave person is willing to honestly admit, and fearlessly to face, what a sincere and logical mind discovers."
-Rodan of Alexandria

sorry if I'm slow and I'm not going to really address it directliy at the moment... but a little loose flavor about subjectivity:

The human mind seeks to find context in which to place its stimulus. That is to say, the mind is perpetually trying to cram stuff into a schema of concepts you've created which only exists within your particular brain. Additionally, and this is experimentally verified by some guy I saw on the science channel: The brain provides/fabricates said context when it cannot make sense of things otherwise. (on a funky note: the path of least resistence regarding thought is exactly to let your brain do its thing, otherwise you have to exert the effort of thought at some or many levels)

The human mind, being aware of itself, cannot help but to ponder its creation hence "why is everything so X?" and/or "why am I here?" blah blah etc. The brain attempts to employ its only real tool "thinking" (which may resemble reason if the person is actually mature and uninfected by a meme) to provide "reasonable" (e.g. "whatever will trip that particular brain's trigger to make the answer seem reasonable") explanations such that it can be filed per the prior bullet.

Sorry for taking so long but my dad is visiting and my oldest daughter (2.5 years old) will not sleep. It's been a hectic but lovely day. I promise to rejoin the conversation sometime Sunday. I'll think about my approach.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
This is undoubtably true. The issue of God has many more epistemological (knowledge related) problems than your foot would. I was just trying to show that belief in both require faith, but it is completely correct to say that there is more reason in the belief of your foot than god.

a point of common ground. refreshing. i enjoy relating to the other humans.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
I was just trying to show that it is impossible to argue against the idea of god itself. My example was something with hardly and properties and thus, to argue against it you would have to argue against its existence purely on the basis of its existence. This is almost impossible to do in any case. I maybe if I show the same type of example in another context it will illustate why I did it.

I want you to argue against my shoe (just an illustration)
1) You have never seen it
2) It has a rubber sole
3) It has shoelaces
Well, I might have touched your shoe. I might be blind. I know what you probably mean, but if I had no conception of your shoe I certainly wouldn't believe in it. I would probably believe in it once you explain it to me first because of it's function and secondly because of its mundane nature. the assumption of it, or belief in it doesn't really impact me in the same way that the existence of god might.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
See, remarkable like the god example. Yes the premises are different, but all I was trying to do is show that it is almost impossible to argue over the existence of something when the only argument is existence, with no more premises.

You ignore your knowledge: Your shoe is not an astounding claim. (it might be to you, but it wouldn't be to me: subjectivity?)

Originally posted by Phaedrus
It was only an example not to be taken very seriously.

Okay, I'll chill.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
Not at all, you are not trained in logic but you are doing the best you can. No one is educated enough to be completely logic, leaps of "faith" are required all the time, just some has more merit as we have shown.

I sometimes think that to be excessively trained in logic would impair my ability to reason. :)

Originally posted by Phaedrus
So hurry up and get back to this, I would like to see your points.

- Phaedrus

that's all I got for now... I went farther than I thought for the night.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
"Only a brave person is willing to honestly admit, and fearlessly to face, what a sincere and logical mind discovers."
-Rodan of Alexandria

man a bunch of people on here have the most inspiring quotes. seriously, I've never heard most of them and sheez.. that's quality shit. thanks for sharing everyone. sincere thanks with a dash of goofy non-chalance so as not to appear gay not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

Rodan would have been more correct if he(she?) would have used the phrase "truly reasonable" rather than the word logic. Of course that's just my opinion. Or IS it? (bamp bamp BUH! (you know that three note thing played when someone does something dastardly in a drama or spoof or something and the camera zooms all up in on them and junk and then it's all bamp bamp BUH!!! and you're all "whoa, that dude did something" or something?)

Here is something that I posted in teh "God DOES exist" forum. I believe it's relavent.


You know why science geeks, athiests and agnostics refuse to succumb to the statement "God did it."?

It is very simple. If you answer "God did it." you are a huge wuss. It's a simple, silly answer. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but to a reasonable being all possibilities must be exhausted before accepting something so uh... well, seems stupid to me. Seems like you don't have the intellect, will or creativity to consider other possibilities. That doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you a little pathetic from the perspective of a person who is compelled to seek objective truth.

I mean really, if you are interested in seeking objective truth, isn't it inherent that you HAVE to maintain agnosticism? Refute that? Everything else is just justifying your assumptions.

Comments?

Wes:

I think you've scared everyone away. I'll try to bring this thread back if it isn't just you and me talking. I am interested in the thread title, that "The belief in God is Unreasonable". I consider myself a "believer in god", and so I would like to test out my thinking skills.
ur pal

No. Please don't restart a 4 year old thread, start a new one.

Thread closed.