The belief in God is Unreasonable

[Phaedrus]

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

 

[wesmorris]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[wesmorris]

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.

 

[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?

><>

 

[wesmorris]

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?"

 

[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?

><>

 

[wesmorris]

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>

 

[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.

><>

 

[wesmorris]

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>

 

[Phaedrus]

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

 

[wesmorris]

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!

 

[wesmorris]

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.

 

[Phaedrus]

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

 

[wesmorris]

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.

 

[Jenyar]

On other gods

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.

 

[Phaedrus]

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

 

[Zero]

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

 

[wesmorris]

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.

 

[Phaedrus]

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