Source
r/DebateAnAtheist•
leftcross

By Demand...

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=yBo7Z_abiLE

A friend told me on youtube to meet here, so that I could be informed as to how belief in God is illogical and therefore laughable. I invite respectful conversation at this time, on the following points:

  1. "You believe in one of thousands of man-made gods" is a misuse of the word God for theists. Since God is not created, this critique is counter to the uses of the term under debate.

  2. Belief in God may or may not be logical, depending upon what we mean. If logic consists of a summary examination of physical evidence (i.e. science), I concede the point but wonder how one avoids material reductionism in this framework. If, on the other hand, subjective experience is admissible, and experience of the numinous might be said to occur, how is such belief illogical?

  3. Logic derives from the assumption that humans can critique that which is posited. But God, for a monotheist, cannot be attacked, known, dissected, or otherwise evaluated - God is transcendent and therefore beyond logical analysis. Can logic be used in theology despite this understanding, and if so, what are its limits?

Other questions may arise as well.

Posted Jan 14, 2012, 7:51 PM UTC

33443
britus•

Logic derives from the assumption that humans can critique that which is posited. But God, for a monotheist, cannot be attacked, known, dissected, or otherwise evaluated - God is transcendent and therefore beyond logical analysis.

I've heard things like this before, and they've always struck me as a slippery bar of soap to hold. If God is unknowable, how are you able to discuss him or have any kind of relationship with him whatsoever? At any level that you can make statements about God (even as far as his unknowability), than these statements are human-friendly and can be discussed in human terms.

Monotheists frequently make a large number of positive and negative statements about their version of God. If you are not that type - if you are the type who says you suspect something like a God exists, but his attributes and intentions are beyond comprehension so you are left with a form of practical deism - well, I'll think that is an unnecessary position to hold, because it doesn't tell you anything or affect you in any way, but I won't argue with you. If you're going to say things like God created the universe, or God doesn't like homosexuality, or God wants us to be happy, or God demands our worship, then these are knowable, discussable, evaluatable, dissectable things, right? How could they not be? If they aren't, how can you know them enough to make statements (not these in particular necessarily, but anything of that kind)?

29
leftcrossOP•

What if God is unknowable except for what God reveals? Since God cannot be fully known (just like a human cannot fully know another human), any such knowledge would be imperfect - not a law describing God's necessary qualities but a letter describing what some have experienced of God.

Christians say that the Bible contains a collection of writings that witness God - not a collection of writings that include all possible knowledge ABOUT God. This seems to be an important distinction.

Also, God is not a "thing" in a theistic definition. Statements about God are, and therefore may be known (but this does not make them true).

0
CypherAlmasy•

The problem you run in to there is that God seems to be choosing to not reveal an awful lot of himself at all, and what people often claim as evidence of God's existence is indistinguishable from known, testable, natural processes (see "life seems to have been designed", when it really just seems evolved).

This is a fairly common problem that atheist-theist discussions face. God as you're describing it isn't defined in a way that makes discussion possible. At best, we can talk about the various stories we have about purported experiences of God, but those tend to be self-contradictory, and aren't independently verifiable, which are pretty much deal breakers for honest truth-seekers.

23
tdavis•

(when it just really seems evolved). When it has been proven to have evolved. FTFY.

4
leftcrossOP•

Good! This is exactly my point. God in this sense cannot be discussed. Theology (or talk of God) must therefore begin with presuppositions. If I am understanding you, this means that to speak of God implies the presupposition of God in some sense, for otherwise there would be no basis of dialogue.

Why are contradictory statements never true? "I love her. I also hate her." Are these not contradictory statements that could both be true? But how could such truth be verified, outside of relationship with the person who makes that statement?

In other words, perhaps defining "truth" would be helpful here. On this, I don't have any ideas, really... how about you?

-2
Irish_Whiskey•

Sorry, but I'm not following most of this.

defining "truth" would be helpful here. On this, I don't have any ideas, really... how about you?

That which accurately describes reality. Like I said, a model, lie or fiction aren't true.

Theology (or talk of God) must therefore begin with presuppositions.

But it's only true is it can demonstrate that some of those presuppositions are true. Again, without it it's just a concept or model, not real.

But how could such truth be verified, outside of relationship with the person who makes that statement?

We can do a CAT scan and examine the areas of the brain which light up corresponding to emotion and invention.

This isn't a reliable truth test, otherwise they'd be in common usage. But the point is that even thoughts are expressed through physical action and are at least potentially measurable. Saying we don't how yet, is very, very different from saying "it's impossible to know or test." Even something that indirectly impacts reality, like through special revelation, is testable.

That's my main problem with these arguments. They often rely on logic and evidence, up until the second they start to point away from their definition of god. At which point there's now a "new form" of reasoning which justifies it that we don't know. Except of course that there's no reason to think that's true, any more than there is for invented lies.

It's essentially taking an unsupported or wrong answer and saying "I've defined my own answer as right and I've defined it as being beyond explanation, for reasons that are also beyond explanation".

16
CypherAlmasy•

If I am understanding you, this means that to speak of God implies the presupposition of God in some sense, for otherwise there would be no basis of dialogue.

Kind of, though with the important caveat that simply discussing God is not implicitly accepting the actual existence of God. It's the same way a mathematician will assume a suspected false statement to be true in order to look for resulting contradictions. (If you're not familiar with it, see proof of the irrationality of sqrt(2) for an easy example of the method. Yay, math!)

Why are contradictory statements never true? "I love her. I also hate her." Are these not contradictory statements that could both be true?

This would all be completely subjective, and again not well-defined. The way that 'love' and 'hate' are used in English are fairly vague without context, and cover a wide array of emotional responses (e.g. I don't hate American Idol the same way I hate Hitler, but I do hate them both). Thus, that sentence is not necessarily contradictory. However, stories about God are often contradictory in ways that would be objectively testable. As an example, the creation story in Genesis 1 places the creation of plants before the creation of man. In Genesis 2, man is created before plants. At most one of these accounts can be logically true from our perspective.

3
MJtheProphet•

In other words, perhaps defining "truth" would be helpful here. On this, I don't have any ideas, really... how about you?

A true statement or belief is one that corresponds to the actual state of affairs. As Thomas Aquinas put it: Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus ("Truth is the equation [or adequation] of things and intellect").

We do indeed have to define what we mean when we use the word "god". Typically, we're talking about the theistic god: the concept of a being which is (1) purely spiritual, (2) all good, (3) all knowing, and (4) all powerful. You can add various traits to that god concept if you wish. But if your definition includes an assumption of such a being's existence, and you won't discuss the issue if someone questions this point, then you are shutting down any discussion with atheists before it starts. And that doesn't seem productive.

3
MikeTheInfidel•

Theology (or talk of God) must therefore begin with presuppositions.

One of which is, of course, "God exists." Thus begging the question.

3
iongantas•

Love and hate aren't necessarily contradictory terms, especially when one understands that the human mind is not a single monolithic thing, but a number of distinct but integrated processes that sometimes compete for autonomy. Saying "I love her" and "I don't love her" are contradictory statements and their conjunction is necessarily false.

Truth is correspondence with objective reality.

3
DWalrus•

I just want to point out that "I love her. I also hate her" is not a contradictory statement. Things like "I think this is silly. I think this is not silly" might be more like it.

I also just want to point out that you are saying to discuss god we must assume he exists, and you aren't really giving a logical reason why. Though I guess your defense is that you don't have to be logical. But then what is stopping me from saying the same thing about Thor the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus?

1
britus•

Okay - but the point is that any statements made about God - regardless of the source - are things that can be known; they are not transcendent. As you stated, they may or may not be true. Therefore, they are discussable, evaluatable, dissectable, etc. We may not be able to come to a definitive agreement on whether or not God exists, but I think we can logically discuss your concept of God based on what you believe has been revealed. And I believe we may be able to reach the conclusion that it is highly improbable that you are able to know anything meaningful about God.

In other words, I think we can determine that if the things you believe about God appear to be non-transcendental, then we can show that they are false and the God you have conceived does not exist, or God is transcendental and unknowable, and therefore irrelevant.

8
leftcrossOP•

True, statements are things that may or may not be true. My concept of God can be logically discussed, but then we are talking about my own construction and not God, right? Statements about God may or may not be true, but as long as we are talking about God we cannot evaluate those statements. Also, truth may be known without being fact and without being empirically verifiable. So would it be safe to say that we are not advocating material reductionism here?

But the things I believe about God CANNOT be transcendental, since only God is transcendental and God is not my statements about God. Moreover, if God is actually transcendental, is God therefore BOUND to be transcendental rather than immanent, and if so is God actually to be called transcendental?

If the uncreated came into the world, wouldn't that be a contradiction of terms? But if the uncreated could not, wouldn't that limited uncreated fail therefore to be the uncreated?

1
itsalawnchair•

the problem is that your argument breaks down completely when one takes into account there are thousands of gods that people believe in, just because someone has "experience god" does not instantly mean it is the judeo/christian god that was experienced.
You will find that for every religion in the world, people will swear they experienced god, but they all belong to a different religion.
So the only conclusion is that all those people are telling the truth, so that means all religions are true and there are thousands of gods that exist.
OR, all those people are delusional and it is just their minds playing tricks on them.

1
leftcrossOP•

You assume religions conflict the way competing statements do in logic.

But religion is not about logical arguments, but experience of the truth. Your argument is based on assumptions to which I do not give assent. Why should "different" religions be assumed to refer to "different" truths, rather than being multiple experiences and reports of a singular truth?

2
Irish_Whiskey•

"You believe in one of thousands of man-made gods" is a misuse of the word God for theists. Since God is not created, this critique is counter to the uses of the term under debate.

Your definition and understanding of God was created. Without it, you have no basis for knowing what a God is or any of it's characteristics. So yes, it's still relevant. For example...

God is transcendent and therefore beyond logical analysis.

What basis do you have for asserting this? How did you come to this knowledge?

You can build a logically consistent (or in this case inconsistent) model of many things, but without some reason to think that it actually describes reality, then it's only a model, or fiction.

Belief in God may or may not be logical, depending upon what we mean.

Bear in mind that once belief isn't logical, there isn't a good reason to think it's actually true. The positing that there exists some other unknown justification is useless without evidence of that justification actually existing.

If, on the other hand, subjective experience is admissible, and experience of the numinous might be said to occur, how is such belief illogical?

Because both those things can lead to wrong answers. Feeling something is true without checking isn't good enough, because we fool ourselves all the time. Much of reality is counter-intuitive of us, and the reason we know more about the world that we did is because we questioned our feelings and assumptions to sort between the good and bad ones. Remember, for most of history this same religious feeling led people to animist spirits, polytheistic beings, monsters, ritual magic, etc. Monotheism is one relatively recent form of such belief, not any more privileged than the others.

P.S. Just to head off a lot of likely disputes, try substituting in "unicorns" or "Harry Potter" into your argument instead of God. If it still works as a justification for them, then there's probably a flaw in the logic.

21
leftcrossOP•

How is understanding "created"? Is it not always rather given? I did not create my understanding of biology - it was given to me by teachers, in discussions with peers, in the discussions of my society. If it was created, it was certainly not by me.

Your second question, God is beyond logical analysis as a derivative of transcendence, which is part of the understanding of the term "God" for theists. If we speak of a different definition, that is fine, but that is the one I posit. I didn't say anything about this definition being "knowledge". I would actually say that God, in Godself, cannot be defined. However, all terms must have definitions, or they are meaningless. For the purposes of this discussion, then, this is the definition I am positing, especially since if God is not transcendent, God would be a "thing", an "object", therefore created, and the one I wish to speak of is uncreated. By the way, this therefore excludes your postscript, since Harry Potter and unicorns do not fall into this category.

So let me understand; any evidence is inadmissible if it is fallible? But all senses and all thought are fallible. This means logic in itself is fallible and inadmissible, doesn't it? And how would one "check" on something that is not material? Remember, what I'm getting at is special revelation. As for other religious feelings that have non-monotheistic standpoints, most of them do not speak of the uncreated, yet continually seek to describe a truth that goes beyond the material and empirical. If those experiences are admissible against monotheism, they are also admissible against atheism, aren't they?

1
Irish_Whiskey•

Is it not always rather given? I did not create my understanding of biology

But someone created it, specifically a person. Your understanding of God, and any claims you make about him, is a human invention, one that can be totally discussed within the realm of logic and evidence.

Like I said, substitute unicorn in there. There are things that we may never know about unicorns because they are magic and exist partly in realms outside reality. Does that mean a person who claims to have an understanding of unicorns and knows they exist can't have their claims questioned? Of course not.

God is beyond logical analysis as a derivative of transcendence, which is part of the understanding of the term "God" for theists.

Like I said, you can say that within a specific model and definitions something is true and unquestionable, but you have to move that model from invented fiction to reality.

For the purposes of this discussion, then, this is the definition I am positing

Sorry, I don't see a definition following that. Calling something "transcendent" isn't a sufficient definition.

By the way, this therefore excludes your postscript, since Harry Potter and unicorns do not fall into this category.

Unless I chooses to call either of those things transcendent. Which would only diverge from their common usage about as much as yours diverges from common understandings of God.

So let me understand; any evidence is inadmissible if it is fallible? But all senses and all thought are fallible

No, no, of course not. But any evidence which is indistinguishable from fiction isn't evidence. If I ask people what's in a box, and most of them say "I feel it's (random different stuff)" and the rest admit to having no idea, I have no evidence as to what's in the box. One person having a "feeling" as to one type of superstition out of many isn't evidence distinguishable from an unsupported guess.

Remember, what I'm getting at is special revelation. As for other religious feelings that have non-monotheistic standpoints, most of them do not speak of the uncreated, yet continually seek to describe a truth that goes beyond the material and empirical.

But fiction and lies both go beyond then material and empirical. Because they aren't true, therefore they can't be materially and empirically supported. Calling something uncreated makes it in no way more likely to be true, and a calling a thought or impulse "Special Revelation" does nothing to speak to it's reliability.

That's it in a nutshell. Using fancy words to say that something is "beyond understanding" can be applied equally to a lie as to a transcendent truth. We need something to move from the first category to the second, and since your sole bases for distinguishing can be described in terms of material terms and logic, we need to hear it and you should be able to describe it. We aren't talking about God there, we're talking about your process in sorting between reliable and unreliable claims. Right now your claim contains no better reason in it's favor than the inventions of a madman, except that the madman isn't making special pleadings for why his claims shouldn't be questioned.

16
leftcrossOP•

I think I'm hitting on the problem. You want me to show how God can be in reality.

I'm trying to say that reality is in God. My theological framework is based on the assumption that truth and reality are from God, not attributes that may or may not be descriptors of God.

You said that fiction isn't true. Therefore, no fictional statement could be true. I know some atheists who enjoy literature and would disagree with you profusely. Hell, haven't you read Douglas Adams? You mean nothing in his novels is true?!

Again, "uncreated" is not an attribute of God; God is the uncreated one. Only God is uncreated. You want something reliable, but the God I believe in (from my perspective) keeps you and the whole world alive every second. For me, we all rely on God whether we want to or not. You seem to want reliability in revelation; why? Why can't it be true without arguments that show it is reliable?

2
Irish_Whiskey•

My theological framework is based on the assumption that truth and reality are from God, not attributes that may or may not be descriptors of God.

But if they aren't, then God is neither true nor real. Whatever other value it has as a concept, that's the difference between atheism and theism. Assuming they come from God is no different than assuming he is real. Which is no different than assuming any other concept.

Hell, haven't you read Douglas Adams? You mean nothing in his novels is true?!

Big, big difference involved here. There are many things in the Bible that are true, just as there are in Hitchhikers. But what this discussion is about is whether there is a God, in the same way we could discuss whether there is a Zaphod Beeblebrox. Zaphod could say in the book things which are true, that doesn't make Zaphod true. I am not saying all books of fictional are entirely unreal, I'm saying specific claims within the books can only move from fiction to reality if there's an independent basis for confirming them.

Again, "uncreated" is not an attribute of God; God is the uncreated one.

...that doesn't make sense to me. If God is uncreated, then uncreated is an attribute or description.

Only God is uncreated.

Any other person could say that a natural force without will or awareness is the only uncreated thing, and have no less founded a claim than you. Or they could say that there is no uncreated thing, since there's no guarantee that temporal causality always applies. Or that there's more than one uncreated thing. Your concept of God is just one of a great many, and the only reason for picking that one over others is the cultural remnants of tribal superstitions which are common to your particular society.

the God I believe in (from my perspective) keeps you and the whole world alive every second

You've no reason to think that belief is any more true than what a madman comes up with. Neither is evidenced in reality. Both are assumed without consistently applying logic and skepticism, based on wishful thinking. I don't mean to be harsh (because that does sound harsh now that I look at it), but that's exactly why I don't assume it.

You seem to want reliability in revelation; why? Why can't it be true without arguments that show it is reliable?

I want reliability because if I treat truth with disregard by not having standards as to what I accept as true, I don't know whether I'm doing good in my life. If I assume a God and his qualities, I can use the same thinking to assume what he wants from me. The people who think God wants them to love and nurture are no more or less justified than those who think God wants them to stone homosexuals and subjugate women. That's why we should always subject claims of God to critical thinking and skepticism. Because that way the good ideas that independently make sense and claims evidenced by reality remain, while the irrational and illogical gets sorted out. There's nothing a religious person can do that I can't also do, as long as it's actually true and a good idea.

13
MikeTheInfidel•

I hate to be "that guy", but if God isn't a thing, then he's... well... nothing.

5
leftcrossOP•

And? Why does "existence" as we define it stand as the qualifier for consequence? If, by my definition, God does not "exist" but is in fact the giver of existence, God is by any criteria most important.

A great person to read on topics like this would be Paul Tillich. He is very logical and systematic in the way he lays everything out.

0
MikeTheInfidel•

Existence is not a property that can be given. Either a thing exists or it doesn't.

4
MJtheProphet•

"You believe in one of thousands of man-made gods" is a misuse of the word God for theists. Since God is not created, this critique is counter to the uses of the term under debate.

The point at issue is that, from the perspective of the atheist, you're wrong. If you think god exists, is your belief actually true? Atheists are under no obligation to play by your rules. The assumption that god does exist is exactly what we're questioning. Many people over the course of human history have believed in thousands of different gods, and they all thought they were right. How do you know that they were all wrong, and yet you are right?

If logic consists of a summary examination of physical evidence (i.e. science), I concede the point but wonder how one avoids material reductionism in this framework.

This seems to present materialism as a bad thing. Why would that be the case? One need not be an eliminative materialist from this viewpoint; immaterial things can easily be emergent properties of material phenomena. But why would acceptance only of the physical world and the things derived from it be a problem?

If, on the other hand, subjective experience is admissible, and experience of the numinous might be said to occur, how is such belief illogical?

Numinous experience is not limited to the religious, nor is it sufficient evidence of anything divine. I've had amazing experiences of awe and wonder, been completely overwhelmed emotionally, by contemplation of the cosmos and the facts that we have uncovered about it. I suggest watching Science Saved My Soul for a great description of a similar experience.

Logic derives from the assumption that humans can critique that which is posited. But God, for a monotheist, cannot be attacked, known, dissected, or otherwise evaluated - God is transcendent and therefore beyond logical analysis.

You're presenting god as an unfalsifiable proposition. You're putting the god concept on a pedestal, deciding that the idea is "holy" and thus not subject to questioning. But why would we not be able to question it? What makes that idea special, and not open to the same treatment as every other idea? You're committing the fallacy of special pleading. The god hypothesis should be, and for us is, subject to the same treatment as everything else in the marketplace of ideas.

10
leftcrossOP•

  1. Atheists don't have to play by my rules, but that means I don't have to play by theirs. Unless we have common ground, we cannot communicate. But my entire perspective is based on experience of God, whereas an atheist comes from the opposite experience. Both are assumptions, as far as I can see. I do not propose to "know" God, I propose that I "trust" God, and there is a difference.

  2. Can you give me one example of a non-physical thing deriving from the physical? You can't use emotions, since a materialist would say those are chemical and electrical impulses in the brain, right? What else do you have?

  3. I don't know what you mean by "religious", but it's probably not useful for my purposes. This question of the numinous depends on the above, but also there is the question as to what meaning the experience of the numinous has for a materialist.

  4. God cannot be critiqued because this would assume comprehension, and if I comprehend God than that is not God. I did not say God could not be questioned, by the way, only that God cannot be questioned productively. God cannot be objectified, because that indicates a neutrality of which created beings are incapable. God is not an idea, God is God. How would you respond if I called you a hypothesis, exactly?

Special pleading might apply since God, if God, must be UTTERLY UNLIKE ANYTHING. Why should such criteria apply for one whom I posit actually IS totally different from everything that is? Again, part of the problem is that we're discussing God. Atheist arguments against God make no sense to me for the same reason that my statements aren't making sense to you. You think that God should make SENSE, and that God is beholden to REASON like all things. But when I speak of God, I speak of the unique one who by definition we cannot make these demands of, because it would be like my computer demanding that I justify myself to it. We have neither the right nor the capacity to do what you suggest, and that is where the conversation breaks down. If I play by your rules, I come to your conclusions; if you play by mine, you will come to mine. But if we play by NO rules, we cannot speak. That is the fundamental problem. Ideas?

0
MJtheProphet•

But my entire perspective is based on experience of God, whereas an atheist comes from the opposite experience.

If you've experienced god, then we can talk about those experiences. And many of us, including myself, were once believers; we've had many of those same experiences.

Can you give me one example of a non-physical thing deriving from the physical? You can't use emotions, since a materialist would say those are chemical and electrical impulses in the brain, right? What else do you have?

The Internet. We have a bunch of microchips and wires, connected by other wires or electromagnetic waves, all things that are part of the physical universe. We have transmissions of pulses of electricity between discrete collections of wires and microchips. What we call the Internet is not any of the protocols, or wires, or physical things; it is an emergent property of the network that occurs as humans use it.

And emotions are a good example; as I noted, I'm not an eliminative materialist. Emotions are caused by electrochemical phenomena in the brain, but they are things unto themselves. Emergence is a fascinating field of inquiry.

God cannot be critiqued because this would assume comprehension, and if I comprehend God than that is not God. I did not say God could not be questioned, by the way, only that God cannot be questioned productively. God cannot be objectified, because that indicates a neutrality of which created beings are incapable. God is not an idea, God is God.

If you cannot comprehend a thing, or meaningfully discuss it, then what does it mean that such a thing exists? If your definition of a thing in any way precludes meaningful discussion of that thing, then there's a problem with your definition. If I defined leprechauns using the same terms you're using to define god, would that clearly show the existence, transcendence, and incomprehensible amazingness of leprechauns? To head off the "didn't relativity exist before we understood it" objection: There have been plenty of things in our history that we have not been able to comprehend, that have been beyond meaningful discussion at the time, but that hasn't made them incomprehensible in principle.

How would you respond if I called you a hypothesis, exactly?

That's perfectly alright; you are under no obligation to assume that I exist. I would be happy to present numerous forms of evidence to support the hypothesis of me.

If I play by your rules, I come to your conclusions; if you play by mine, you will come to mine. But if we play by NO rules, we cannot speak.

This is certainly true. So, my rules include such things as logic, rationality, evidence-based reasoning, and a correspondence theory of truth. These have all been shown, over many tests, to work; they actually help us to explain the universe we live in. They have advanced human knowledge, and provide consistent results. Your rules reject reason, rational discourse, supporting hypotheses with evidence, etc. What use is that? How does that actually do anything?

Ethan Allen, leader of the Green Mountain Boys in their capture of Fort Ticonderoga, had some words on this subject:

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue with reason or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle they are laboring to dethrone; but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.

7
leftcrossOP•

The internet is a word for a large sum of physical things. Emergence is fun, but ultimately you're talking about humans experiencing the sum of a variety of physical phenomena. They're not non-physical at all - light, sound, these are physical. So is electricity.

Again, God does not "exist". "Meaningful discussion" in your case seems to mean "objective discussion" - but that's exactly what we cannot have about God. Also, your evidence would all be material - how do I know it's true?

Your rules and mine differ on one point: I trust your rules because I trust the one who designed them. You trust them in themselves. That means that even when the rules don't help - and sometimes they do not - I have trust. I don't understand what you do when your rules fail.

I never invalidated reason, I'm simply pointing out that it, like everything, has limits.

1
hellcrapdamn•

  1. Your god ( I'm assuming it's Yahweh ) was most likely created by men. We have a pretty good idea of how and where. We have evidence that the concept began as one of many desert tribal gods. It evolved over time into into the god of the old testament, and eventually the basis for the god of the new testament.

  2. Subjective experience is not admissible. The individual experience varies from person to person far too much. Our perceptual capabilities are not perfect. The way we process visual information is a good example. You don't actually see everything around as it is all the time like a camera. Your brain fills in many details to save processing resources. This is why many optical illusions fool us so easily. Each person is subject to a variable level of distortion to their perceptions. Memory is also not such a concrete thing. Subjective data for these reasons ( and likely more ) is not useful for logical discussion.

  3. Things that cannot be analyzed, known dissected, or otherwise evaluated might as well not even be there in the first place. If we have no way of detecting unicorns whose to say they don't exist? Logic can be used in regards to religion ( and other supernatural constructs, in a hypothetical context. Unless you have factual evidence beyond subjective wish thinking and emotional feelings you cannot apply logic. It's like debating the inner workings of the mind of leprechauns. You can do it hypothetically, but your argument will have no bearing whatsoever on the actual physical world we all exist in.

8
leftcrossOP•

A word may be created. God, by my parameters above, could not be. I am well aware of the history of the Abrahamic tradition; they do teach this stuff in churches and at seminaries, you know.

If the reason subjective experiences are not admissible is because of the fallibility of perception, what does not fall to this rule? Even our thoughts are perceived, aren't they? What IS useful for a logical discussion in this sense?

You are operating under the assumption that the unknowable must not be able to act. Why do you assume this? And are you claiming that all causes and actions by all beings can be known and explained by you at this time in this place? It seems to me there are things that cannot be explained in this way. Take emotions, for example.

1
hellcrapdamn•

What is useful for logical discussion is proof. Evidence. You have to have testable repeatable evidence in order to progress with a logical discussion that isn't hypothetical or speculative. All the feelings and speculations in the world mean nothing if they cannot be proven and tested.

If this unknowable force is acting on the world it sure isn't doing so in an obvious way. If a force is acting in a way that cannot be distinguished from what was going on anyway, who's to say the force is there at all? All things can indeed be explained, with enough data. I do not currently have the data, or the means to get it. That doesn't mean that humanity won't ever have the tools to answer the questions I can't.

Emotion certainly can be explained in a logical scientific way. Neuroscience has made amazing discoveries in this regard in the last decade. There is no evidence to suggest that emotions are anything more than a chemical and electrical state of the meat in your head.

8
leftcrossOP•
  1. Evidence can never be proof. What you are proposing is science. Science cannot prove the unobservable. A transcendent God is by definition unobservable. Therefore the very concept of God is unprovable by scientific means.

If feelings mean nothing without proof, than what are feelings? Why do people get angry when I cause them pain? You propose that all things can be explained, but this assumes all things are observable. This is a reductionist argument, and since many of your fellows are making similar arguments, please observe one of those conversations. Thanks!

3
Daekin•

Evidence can never be proof. What you are proposing is science. Science cannot prove the unobservable. A transcendent God is by definition unobservable. Therefore the very concept of God is unprovable by scientific means.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I think this is close to the culmination of this discussion. I have read everything between you Irish and a few others.

Now, you are right. Science cannot observe God.

Science can observe how God manifests himself. If he effects reality in any way, shape or form. He is testable.

If he never manifests himself in any way, shape or form in reality, he is not testable, and is equivalent to non-existent as he has no effect on reality at all.

5
hellcrapdamn•

If it's unobservable, why would you assume it's there? Some things are visually unobservable, but they at least have an effect on the world. For something to truly be unobservable it cannot have an effect on anything else, otherwise we could observe the effect.

Feelings don't mean nothing. They mean quite a bit to the individual. They are just useless for a logical discussion about the universe, as these feelings are highly variable and subject to perceptual flaws. Emotions are simply an electro-chemical response to stimuli. That stimuli can be within the brain itself or external (getting angry because you caused them pain). Where is the magic in that? It's your nervous system reacting to stimuli.

2
A_Simpson•

The only reason religion is still around is because of that cop-out answer, "God is unprovable".

I can claim anything exists, as long as the premise for its existence is that you can't prove that it doesn't exist. - paraphrased from JK Rowling

2
Darlando•

Some of your own medicine: look into neurobiology and the studies of emotion, it isn't proof of anything. Emotion is an attribute, a very complex reaction that could be linked to many things. Is a schizophrenic's emotions of being scared evidence for them being murdered? If so we have a huge problem.

1
[deleted]•

A word may be created. God, by my parameters above, could not be.

What would indicate that the definition of god you cite isn't just a word you yourself have created?

7
leftcrossOP•

The definition is. God isn't. There is a difference between what is and the symbol which points to it. That's how language works, insofar as I understand it.

See above regarding Steve. I may define "Steve" to you all I wish, but this will never prove that I have not invented him. Help me understand why your question is not reduction of all thought into meaninglessness?

2
[deleted]•

The definition is. God isn't. There is a difference between what is and the symbol which points to it. That's how language works, insofar as I understand it.

What indicates that the referent pointed to by 'God' is not an absent referent?

In other words, why should I believe that your symbol has a meaningful referent?

5
MikeTheInfidel•

There is a difference between what is and the symbol which points to it. That's how language works, insofar as I understand it.

Yes. Now, how did you determine that the pointed-to thing actually exists? All well and good to have a logically consistent set of related symbols, but you can do that about things that are totally fictional. Just look at Star Wars fans.

4
koonat•

We don't get to redefine what logic means.

Belief in a god is never logical (unless we suddenly lived in a universe where there was ANY evidence of such a god).

The entire basis of what you're saying is basically "If we change the rules to accommodate for what we believe instead of what we know, I could be right!"

8
leftcrossOP•

  1. Logic is a word that has a definition. Why can't we redefine it?

  2. By believe, do you mean intellectual assent? Because that's not what belief in God is for me. Let's introduce a term change: I'll use "trust". I trust God. Why is this illogical when there is no "evidence" of God? (Nevermind that I subjectively perceive such evidence all of the time, as it is not empirical evidence... that is, not evidence which is perceived by everyone.)

What is it that we know, my friend?

1
MikeTheInfidel•

I trust God. Why is this illogical when there is no "evidence" of God?

Because you're assuming that you're actually trusting something that exists, rather than the god you've built in your mind.

5
leftcrossOP•

But I could be in love with someone and find that everything I thought about them was only in my head. Is that also illogical? (And again, God does not "exist". God is not made of matter.)

-1
MikeTheInfidel•

But I could be in love with someone and find that everything I thought about them was only in my head. Is that also illogical?

The difference being that human beings demonstrably exist outside of your mind. You can actually compare the model of the person in your head to the actual person to see if your beliefs are justified. You absolutely cannot do this with God. Which is what makes this statement ludicrous:

(And again, God does not "exist". God is not made of matter.)

How do you know this? You said earlier:

What if God is unknowable except for what God reveals?

You could literally make up anything at all about God and say he revealed it to you. Why should anyone else believe you? If the only reason we have to believe you know anything about God is because you claim to have received a revelation, why should anyone accept what you're saying?

All throughout this thread you appear to have been coming up with rationalizations ad-hoc as to why you think it's still justified to believe in God. So far, you have said:

  • God doesn't "exist"; he's the giver of existence
  • God isn't a "thing"
  • God is unknowable except for what God reveals
  • God cannot be fully known... [so] any such knowledge would be imperfect
  • The human brain is imperfect and logic can't be trusted
  • God is transcendent and therefore beyond logical analysis
  • Theology (or talk of God) must therefore begin with presuppositions

All of this in response to challenges to your position. You even asked what an objective truth is.

Why should anyone take you seriously? Moreover, when will you admit that what you're really doing is redefining God at will because you're more interested in maintaining your belief than in actually critically examining it to see if it makes any damn sense? Your entire argument seems to be based around weaseling out of having to defend a single thing you say by invoking the idea of mystery, the transcendent, and the unknown. What the hell are you even believing in if all your answers end at "it's a mystery" with no possibility of figuring anything out?

Doesn't it seem a little too damn convenient that the only things we know for sure about a transcendent being are that it's unknowable and untestable? In what way does the existence of this god differ from the total nonexistence of this god?

4
dhooke•

You believe in one of thousands of man-made gods" is a misuse of the word God for theists. Since God is not created, this critique is counter to the uses of the term under debate.

Since the existence of various gods is mutually exclusive, the majority of them must be man-made. How do you know that a god is anything other than man-made, when all testimony comes from the mouths of men? Occams razor suggests they are man-made, unless we have other evidence.

If, on the other hand, subjective experience is admissible, and experience of the numinous might be said to occur, how is such belief illogical?

There are psychological explanations for subjective experiences of the sort that lead to belief in gods. So how can you base a belief on subjective experience?

God is transcendent and therefore beyond logical analysis.

How do you know?

But if God is beyond logical analysis, and there is insufficient physical evidence, we cannot say anything objective about it. Yet people do.

5
leftcrossOP•

  1. Since there are various definitions of the word and symbols used to represent the divine, there are a multitude of witnesses to the numinous. They contradict just as eye-witnesses at a crime scene often disagree - it proves that something has occurred, though what exactly that was may never be known. Occam's razor says that we ought not to multiply entities unnecessarily, if I remember right...and it seems to me that positing that all these thousands of accounts are false constructions would posit more entities than saying they are honest, flawed witnesses to the same thing.

  2. See above. All experiences are psychological for humans. You could be hallucinating everything you are reading. We have to work off of the assumption that most of what we perceive is to be admitted as evidence, or we have to write off everything we perceive. In the latter case, we have no evidence, right?

  3. I do not know this, I have included it as part of the definition. Therefore when we say things about God, they are not objective but subjective statements. Therefore there is not "wrong" theology, simply "unhelpful" theology. As for physical evidence, you rejected the senses above, so this confuses me...

3
dhooke•

and it seems to me that positing that all these thousands of accounts are false constructions would posit more entities than saying they are honest, flawed witnesses to the same thing.

Some testimony of the divine could be honest, flawed experiences of psychologically induced phenomena. Facts we know are that humans tend to make up stories and exaggerate, and that there are psychological explanations of certain experiences. Here is where Occam's razor comes in. There are no entities to introduce other than entities we already know of. To assert that they are experiences of a genuine divinity is to add at least one entity to the explanation.

The vast diversity of experiences are not like divergent witnesses of a crime scene, they are like witnesses of completely unrelated events. The evidence for God is then conflicting and contradictory. It is impossible to construct a coherent concept from such a variety of accounts.

Yes, all experiences are psychological. This is why we are aware that psychological factors can greatly impose upon our perception of the environment. And so why the objective requires independent and multiple verification. Why also we construct rules for how the environment can behave. Verification of experience is based somewhat on accordance with these rules. It is not an all or nothing rejection or acceptance of experience. Yes you can be a solipsist but then you have no objective truth to defend - your argument is self-defeating.

If God is beyond logical analysis, there is no point saying anything about God.

Therefore there is not "wrong" theology, simply "unhelpful" theology

How would you know what is unhelpful theology? You don't even have a coherent definition of God.

5
leftcrossOP•

God cannot be coherently defined because God is transcendent. This is very important.

Unhelpful theology, for a Christian, is theology that does not communicate God to the hearer. A Lutheran formulation would be, theology that does not do law and gospel/kill and bring to life/tell the truth about humanity and the truth about God.

As for perception, you forget that I assume that senses are generally trustworthy - it's a materialist who must justify such a position.

I think you are misinterpreting "entity". That doesn't just mean "those who act", it also means "events". It is simpler and more elegant to assume these are all instances of similar events, where two entities (humanity and God) are in contact, rather than innumerable events where one entity (or a group) all suffered different psychological fits for no understood reason.

Also, by that criteria, how can there be objective verification of anything if all psychological experiences and therefore all thoughts are suspect?

1
MJtheProphet•

Unhelpful theology, for a Christian, is theology that does not communicate God to the hearer.

Since you have not successfully communicated god to any of us here, would you say your theology has been unhelpful?

4
[deleted]•

Unhelpful theology, for a Christian, is theology that does not communicate God to the hearer.

How do you determine whether or not a given theology communicates God to the hearer?

3
dhooke•

Unhelpful theology, for a Christian, is theology that does not communicate God to the hearer.

How do you know your Christian conception of god exists? Your definition of God, and your acceptance of all testimony of the divine does not get you to the Christian God. In fact, your blind acceptance of all testimony of the divine gives a contradictory and incoherent god. In some cases, gods.

As for perception, you forget that I assume that senses are generally trustworthy - it's a materialist who must justify such a position.

Senses are generally trustworthy. Sure, if you remain ignorant of science, you can assume that illusions and hallucinations don't happen.

Occam's razor is about not making new assumptions. You are the one who is confused. The fallibility of the senses is not a new assumption. Nor is the predilection of humans to tell stories and exaggerate. These are established facts. You don't ignore facts when formulating a hypothesis.

How can there be objective verification of anything if all psychological experiences and therefore all thoughts are suspect?

Generally, our senses are fairly reliable. However, there are circumstances where they are not. Furthermore, there are circumstances where interpretations of events are suspect. Your apparent lack of awareness of psychology is notable. I suggest you take steps to redress that. Or stop arguing as if you have no awareness of psychology.

There are several methods by which events are objectively verified. They include, but are not limited to:

Repeatability. Multiple verifiers, especially those from different backgrounds, ingroups etc (i.e with different biases). Physical evidence. Accordance with known rules for the environment. With reports, lack of motive for exaggeration or lying.

1
tripleatheist•

"You believe in one of thousands of man-made gods" is a misuse of the word God for theists. Since God is not created, this critique is counter to the uses of the term under debate.

So your understanding of God is real, but all those other gods are just silly. Glad we could clear that up.

If, on the other hand, subjective experience is admissible, and experience of the numinous might be said to occur, how is such belief illogical?

For many theists, Christians in particular, their subjective "experience of the numinous" has led them to adopt a dogma that is fundamentally at odds with the world around us. Something's gotta give, and the weak link in the chain is God.

But God, for a monotheist, cannot be attacked, known, dissected, or otherwise evaluated...

Read: there can be no good reason to believe that such a thing exists. Well, that neatly brings things to a close!

4
leftcrossOP•

Your first point posits that the definition of the term "God" is the one that is "real". I said no such thing. I said that when a theist uses the term, they mean one who is uncreated.

What is this dogma that is "fundamentally at odds with the world" of which you speak? Are you talking about creationism? Belief in the resurrection? Transubstantiation? You can't mean that the concept of "God" is at odds with the world around us, since "God" by definition would not be a part of the world around us. Help me out here...

You have assumed that God is a "thing" without defining what a "thing" is. I assume you mean (I'm trying to be generous here) "that which can become an object of thought". But what if God cannot be an "object" of thought, but instead is the thinker? If God is always the actor and speaker in any sentence that is actually about God, the uncreated, rather than a god humans have constructed?

2
tripleatheist•

I said that when a theist uses the term, they mean one who is uncreated.

Do you believe in Allah? Because I checked with some Muslims, and they told me that you guys aren't talking about the same god. What of the Hindus? There seem to be an awful lot of people who get upset when you presume to speak for them under the umbrella of "theists."

What is this dogma that is "fundamentally at odds with the world" of which you speak?

Do you believe that if I humbly and honestly ask God for faith, he will provide?

You have assumed that God is a "thing" without defining what a "thing" is.

Alright then, define "God," and explain why I should believe that God exists or is real in some meaningful fashion.

5
leftcrossOP•

Yes, I believe in Allah, who is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, also known as YHWH Elohim. The Muslims you spoke of sound a bit confused, because the last time I was at a mosque I experienced no such sentiments. If Allah is not transcendent for them, one of us is confused. When I studied Islam I was taught that Allah's transcendence (uniqueness, oneness) are primary for that tradition. The word "Hindu" is insane to even bring up, but let's talk about that in general terms. Most "Hindu" folks would disagree with my definition above, but would agree that there is the uncreated (Vishnu or Krishna mostly, if I understand aright). I was not speaking "for" anyone, except that I was underlining a concept that is operative in most world religions. In Taoism, the Tao is uncreated. In Buddhism, it would be the Truth - that is, the Dharma - that acts in this capacity (though samsara is also sometimes uncreated, but let's not get into that).

No. I believe that if God gives you faith, you will have it. And I believe that God promises to give you faith in the Christian Assembly. But I don't think that's a legal argument you can take against Christian teaching as proof that it is "fundamentally at odds with the world". I was an atheist for five years. I asked for faith for all those years, and I got it after I gave up. And I still lose it sometimes.

God cannot be defined; God can only be spoken of in metaphor. See "Metaphorical Truth" by Jungel or Metaphorical Theology by Sallie McFague for more on that. But here goes: Things exist. There is not nothing. Therefore there is something. All these things were created by and are sustained by God, who loves them all. Including you. All meaning begins with this statement. What else could you be looking for in the word "meaningful"? Help me understand what "meaning" is to you, if you do not accept this idea.

1
MJtheProphet•

I was an atheist for five years. I asked for faith for all those years, and I got it after I gave up. And I still lose it sometimes.

Wait, to what did you direct your requests? If you didn't believe god existed, who were you asking? This is the kind of sentiment that makes many of us doubt the "I used to be an atheist" claims. If you prayed that god would give you faith, then you believed he was there, and you weren't an atheist.

10
tripleatheist•

...I believe that God promises to give you faith in the Christian Assembly.

If you believe that God has promised me faith, and I haven't received that faith, then your beliefs are demonstrably wrong. If you wish to redefine your position into unfalsifiability--and it seems you are making admirable progress towards that end--then that is your right. It is also everyone else's right not to take you particularly seriously, especially in light of statements like:

God cannot be defined...

You know what? You can stop there. If you can't define what you believe in, we really don't have anything to talk about. Alternately, if you really can define what you believe in, but you insist on being a petty pedant, I don't want to talk to you anyway.

9
MikeTheInfidel•

I was an atheist for five years. I asked for faith for all those years, and I got it after I gave up. And I still lose it sometimes.

Sorry, but if you think there's someone to ask, you're not an atheist.

4
A_Simpson•

So I guess God doesn't give faith to billions around the world, just the select few rich Christian nations.

Sucks to be a starving kid in Africa. But he should enjoy his time starving, because after death he gets to burn for all eternity!

Loving God indeed..

2
angrymonkey•

Watch this, and then come back and we'll discuss: QualiaSoup's Putting Faith in its Place

3
ShadowStarshine•
  1. This is absolutely correct, and is a fallacy known as begging the question. If someone makes the assertion that gods are man-made, it is on them to prove that assertion is correct, rather than assuming it is. The burden of proof falls to that person.

However, let's keep in mind, that the default position isn't "God isn't man made" either. If that is your assertion, then the burden of proof falls to you to prove that as well. If neither of you can do so, then neither of you know.

  1. If you count subjective experience, one must note that it is not provable, unless you have instructions on how someone else can achieve that subjective experience. And if you do in fact have those instructions, that again is science. That's all science is, is a set of repeatable instructions that show how something work.

Honestly, I wouldn't be concerned whether something is considered "logical" or not. In general, this is an Ad Hominem attack and does nothing to prove anything or move the discussion forward. I'd be more concerned with whether it is true or not.

  1. Logical may or may not be effective in examining a God with said qualities, but logic can certainly be applied to: Whether or not the belief in something examinable is worthy of belief. How tentative should our beliefs be and why? Basically, logic is not useful for examining the qualities set forth, but the reasons of belief.
2
leftcrossOP•

  1. Thanks. I do posit that God is not man-made, since that is part of my assumption as outlined above. That would have to be true of God in order for God to be God. Though we could get into a very interesting question of God creating Godself, I'll leave that aside. I do not, by the way, "know" that God is not man-made, it's a belief that I hold. And it's fine if someone else believes otherwise. I just don't understand how someone who holds an equally indefensible position can call me illogical.

  2. So the criteria for proof rests on reproducible experiences? But one of the proofs against God in the Dossier of Reason is that spiritual experiences ARE reproducible. Also, thanks for saying that the concern over logical argument tends to be an ad hominem. I made that observation to my friend on the youtube conversation and he seemed quite upset by it.

  3. Ah, "worthy of belief". This is good stuff, the reasons for belief. By this do you mean intellectual assent? Because that's not what I mean. I believe in God, not because of evidence or choice, but in spite of them. Because belief, as I define it, is done TO me, and not something that I do.

3
ShadowStarshine•

  1. "I do posit that God is not man-made, since that is part of my assumption as outlined above. That would have to be true of God in order for God to be God." Keep in mind, this very statement is also "Begging the Question". The same fallacy that your friend is using. Something can't be true "by definition". It either is true or isn't. But yes, his is equally indefensible, unless he does have a legitimate defense (Such as historic proof showing when God concepts came to be made by man).

  2. "But one of the proofs against God in the Dossier of Reason is that spiritual experiences ARE reproducible." Are you sure you wrote this right? I haven't read it, but it doesn't make sense to me.

  3. The entire study of Epistemology deals with this kind of thing. I'm not sure what you mean by "in spite of choice". How is it not a choice to believe in god? Unless were getting into Free Will vs determinism. To me, that is your choice to believe despite a lack of evidence. I'll never understand those that do that personally.

4
leftcrossOP•

  1. Dates for when someone coined a term to describe something does not mean that thing was created then.

  2. Yes, the proof against special revelation was that some spiritual experiences are reproducible. It was in the Dossier of Reason on this site - it was posted on the YouTube comments link above with instructions. If you can't find it, I'll try.

1
ShadowStarshine•

  1. My example was not of "When someone coined a term." If you are reducing what I had said to that, that is a Straw man fallacy. You told me once you had told your friend he had been using fallacies and been upset by it. I hope you do not follow suit and are willing to see the fallacies you are using on me, to. I stated that his defense would be legitimate if he had historic proofs when the concepts were created by man. (If that is what happened.)

  2. Before I go and look at that, is there anything about these experiences that necessitates the word spiritual, and, in that case, please define what spiritual means. As far as I know, many people have many experiences, through prayer, communion, and I don't doubt the experience itself, but I've never heard of anything that isn't more than a state of mind.

1
leftcrossOP•

Oh, and 3. Sin means you don't have free will regarding God. You choose to reject God because that's all you can or want to do. This is why faith is a gift from outside, because everything in us wants control (especially control via reason). So goes at least one argument, anyway.

0
ShadowStarshine•
  1. Honestly I can't make heads or tails of this part. First, you write that Sin means you don't have free will. That's a premise I can't understand. Does sin somehow control my decisions? And then you go on to write something that confuses me more: "You choose to reject God because that's all you can or want to do." If I'm choosing, then that is evidence of free will, not against it. The whole argument of whether we have free will is whether we have choices, so how can you say I don't have free will, and then say I choose it? Or are you saying that I can ONLY choose to reject god, and the option to believe in him is nonexistent? If so, then how do others? Am I special? You'd really have to do a lot to explain how any of the things you said here can be true and make sense.
2
Addequate•

Point the first: You believe in god. Judging solely by the youtube response you made I"m going to assume the christian god. How can you be certain your god is the one true god? You've likely heard this argument before but it bears repeating because it is strong. The counter, of course, is that you have faith in the bible that your god is the one true god. This is problematic because other religions also have religious texts; Some of those texts are older than the bible. So who has the right text? You take it on faith that you do but their faith is just as rock solid as yours. Both sides are infallible in their own eyes and can bring to bear the same amount of evidence (none) -> There's either two true gods or no true god. If there's room for two there's room for all of them. If there's no true god then you're either deist or atheist.

Point the second: Material reductionism is only a problem if you're looking for significance of existence. Significance being defined as meaning beyond the thing itself, it's impossible to have meaning beyond existence because existence is everything. There's no evidence for something to exist outside of that. This doesn't mean that the actions we take are meaningless. I can work to leave a better world for my children and that has meaning. It gives my life value to the people that will follow me.

Subjective experience is not admissible. Our brains experience the world through our sensory inputs which can (and reliably are) mislead or outright false. Our brains and consciousnesses are chemical; If you've any doubt about this I'm sure you can think of at least one person who's a kind individual while sober but a violent drunk. The unreliability of our subjective experiences bars them from being reliably logical.

Point the last; I need only quote the late Hitchens on this - "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." I say there are unicorns, you ask me for proof, I tell you proof is by the unicorn's very nature impossible.

2
leftcrossOP•

  1. Just because I believe in God doesn't imply any sort of certainty or knowledge. I believe in God whom I have experienced in my life, whom I see every Sunday. But that's not to say that I have any intention of "convincing" anyone else away from their faith - even atheists. :P

  2. If nothing is significant, morality must be meaningless, matter is not created nor sustained, and either the Big Crunch happens and none of our lives matter or the Big Freeze happens and all motion eventually stops and there is nothing. Which then begs the question of where the Big Bang came from, since it's not a circular process. In either case, I deny your premise since literally nothing you do will make any lasting impact on anyone or anything. Pain is meaningless, as is Joy, for they are both simply biological responses. Everyone and everything is ultimately meaningless; and only ultimate meaning has any meaning at all. Either you will exist in community with everyone forever, and so it matters what you do, or you will not and therefore it does not.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding you.

As to subjective experiences, how do we know what is subjective and what isn't? Otherwise everything is and your point doesn't work?

As for Hitchens, fine, I'll respond with a critique of Dawkins by Haught: "He has yet to tell us what is so special about his or anyone else's mind that we should simply entrust ourselves to it." You say logic, reason, and evidence should be trusted, I ask for proof, you tell me that there can be no proof outside those things.

1
Addequate•

Wasn't trying to say you were attempting to convert anyone, just laying out that all theists have the same amount of evidence for god (none) and by that mark are unable to really say anything definitive about a god; Particularly whether or not one exists or doesn't.

Morality: We derive morality both by the mean social expectation and from a desire to live in pleasant world. I don't murder people because I don't want to live in a world where people are murdered. We do live in a 0 energy universe (strong theories suggest one of many) which will eventually die heat death. See Lawrence Krauss's lecture "A Universe From Nothing" for more detail on the specifics of that.

Pain is suffering, why must it be significant of more and why is it not good to alleviate suffering? Joy is chemical but that makes neither sunsets nor love any less magnificent (I've personally found quite the opposite to be true; that understanding the complexity makes me appreciate it more). Your argument is quite possibly the most cold and selfish one you can make. If good actions don't earn you a direct reward then the actions can't be called good? Rubbish! Empathy begets morality. Whether we live forever or not it is good to ease the suffering of others.

Our own experiences are unreliable, yes. This is why we use the tools of science to find objective data values, empirical evidence to share and analyze as best we're able. This is why we don't use our subjective experiences as evidence.

Pertaining to Haught: I'm sorry but I genuinely do not understand the argument being made. Logic, reason, and evidence are tools. Their very function shows you how they work. Show me how they're faulty.

1
leftcrossOP•

Tools can break. If you cannot gauge the tools except by themselves, how do you know if they are broken or not? I'm not saying they are broken, I'm saying they are limited. As for Haught, he is saying that trusting the mind cannot be posited - we need a reason to trust anyone's thoughts.

1
namedmyself•

Okay step one: you talk about god...

God is not created.

God, for a monotheist, cannot be attacked, known, dissected, or otherwise evaluated - God is transcendent and therefore beyond logical analysis.

It sounds like you have developed an extensive theory about what you think this god is like. Where did you get these ideas from? I can assume you weren't born with them, right?

2
novelty_string•

  1. If your god is real, then the other gods are man made. If someone else's god is real, then your god is man made. If you can't demonstrate that your god is real then he is no different to any other god, almost all of which must be man made, therefore your god is no different to a man made god, ergo your god is man made.

  2. Unfortunately there is a better explanation for these experiences than an all powerful creator of the universe that cares whether we masturbate. I'm not sure why one needs to avoid materialism, unless of course you start with the unsupported assumption that things like consciousness are not an emergent property of matter.

  3. If something is beyond logical analysis, then it would be illogical to believe anything about it. Perhaps belief in it is not illogical itself, but then you are a deist and not a theist.

2
leftcrossOP•

  1. You didn't read my statement effectively. You're not using God in the sense that I do.

  2. Who told you that God "cares if we masturbate"? It wasn't me. As for your latter point, is matter emergent from matter? Not to mention, if you're a materialist, as far as I can see meaning doesn't exist anyway, so it doesn't matter.

  3. Why is it illogical to believe in something beyond logical analysis? I can't perform logical analysis on a girl I'm dating - it doesn't work. Does that mean I shouldn't believe in her?

1
novelty_string•

Sorry, but the "sense that you do" is to assume you are right, in which case there is nothing to discuss. What I said is true objectively and holds logically.

Matter and energy are equivalent, so as far as I know, possibly. It's not clear as yet. However this is not what is meant by an emergent property. Stones could happen to fall in a square pattern, then the square is an emergent property. To say that conscience is a thing in its own right is akin to saying the square shape exists with or with out the stones ... that might be confusing, happy to discuss this in more detail if you want.

Meaning exists, just not on its own. You need say an arrow shape and a mind to attribute meaning to that shape.

You can observe what girls do. You might not understand why they do it, and it may appear to defy logic, but logically believing they do X is fine because they actually do it. Again, it's not so illogical to believe "in" God here, just it's not possible to know anything about him when you say he is beyond analysis.

1
leftcrossOP•

If you won't use the same terms, I won't use yours. Having established these rules, let us proceed. I will return to your previous points.

  1. Your statement makes no sense, because it is comparing God with idols created to flee from God. My God also is your God, by the way. As for "demonstrations", why does the idea that you cannot grasp God intellectually trigger this reaction?

  2. Materialism is synonymous with despair, which even the ancients knew. This is why the concept of salvation has emerged in human language. The world is full of suffering and we are going to die.

  3. You are using the word "belief" incorrectly here. Belief in God is not about logic or information, it is about trust.

For your later post: What you said is objective - too bad God isn't an object. I never said meaning exists on its own, quite the contrary - meaning is possible because God gives it. You on the arrow shape are talking about language - I'm talking about ultimate significance. God actually does create the world, so I can believe in that, right? What you seem to want to get at is "how" and "why", not "who" and "what", really. Also, God is beyond analysis - but God is also self-revealing and immanent. This is important.

1
novelty_string•

  1. I'm simply treating all claims about God equally. Please demonstrate why your god is different to the others. If I take your god as real then I must take all gods as real and this would cause a paradox. Perhaps I'm being dense here but I really don't understand how you can mean anything without assuming your god is actually real - which we both know is a fallacy in this debate.

  2. You are confused about the meaning of materialism. In this case, rather than meaning the pursuit of material goods for happiness, it simply means that there is nothing more in our universe than the matter around us. That is, people don't need souls, conscience is simply a property of a configuration of matter, right/wrong aren't things that exist but opinions formed by said configurations of matter.

  3. This isn't about belief or trust it is semantics. You cannot logically know anything about something that is beyond logical analysis. There can be logical reasons why you might believe "something" exists (what causes famines etc) but if you define that thing to be beyond analysis then that is as far as you can ever go. This point is nonsense.

ultimate significance.

Doesn't exist. For example, what is the significance of your child dying to a prawn wandering about on the sea floor. Do you mean significance with respect to humans? Which ones? The slave owners or the slaves? How do we determine which ones at any given time (eg abortion is a rather confused issue).

God actually does create the world, so I can believe in that, right?

You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it correct. Are you claiming that God does create the world? Can you provide some support ...

What you seem to want to get at is "how" and "why", not "who" and "what", really.

I don't care which it is, as long as its not made up!

Also, God is beyond analysis - but God is also self-revealing and immanent.

This is a contradiction. Some parts can be analysed when he reveals them? Could he be black to one and white to another? Or would everyone who was revealed to see the same colour? In the first case we end up with nonsense, in the second he is not beyond analysis and we would have a clear picture by now rather than 30 000 odd religions all claiming theirs is the one true religion.

1
iongantas•

  1. This statement is assuming the conclusion, and may be dismissed.

  2. Logic in the sense used here means square with data, i.e. your conclusions must follow from available data. Conclusions based solely on personal experience ignore large quantities of available data and are thus suspect and not logical.

  3. Logic is math applied to words. Clear meanings of words must be used and maintained or else explained when and why they drift to other meanings. Clearly things are said about the nature of god and even attributed to it (in western monotheism anyway). Theology is in fact the marriage of logic and scripture and the attempt to square scripture with itself and other data. An honest theology will disregard non-compatible scripture, and the resultant beliefs would look nothing like contemporary christianity. If anything can be said about god, for it to be linguistically meaningful, it must be analyzable by logic, else it is gibberish.

2
leftcrossOP•
  1. This statement is defining the meaning of a term.
  2. If data is the only way to speak of experience, I think you're a materialist.
  3. Theology is speaking of God or to God. If all illogical statements not based off of data are gibberish, Lewis Carroll produced no work of merit. I don't accept that, though if you do, that's fine - you just don't live in my reality.
0
iongantas•

You have misused the term reality. For this alone, there is no point discussing anything further with you.

1
leftcrossOP•

You have misused the term language - therefore logically nothing you say can make any sense.

0
super_dilated•

Since the supernatural is, by definition, not bound by nature, what reason does one have to think the supernatural exists?

We gain our understanding of nature by observation and logic. If the answer is something that is not bound by these things, such as the supernatural, then we have no way of confirming whether the supernatural exists or there is an error in our understanding of nature.

Thus, to me, in no way is it rational or logically justified to believe in anything supernatural.

2
leftcrossOP•

Since the "supernatural" (what does that even mean?) is not in nature, by definition you could neither prove nor disprove it, so what reason do you have to think it doesn't "exist"?

What about experiences which are subjective (note that I covered all your points in my initial post)?

1
mastamomba•

God is transcendent and therefore beyond logical analysis

Ok, let us start with this. First of all we have to agree on some stuff:

  • There are things beyond ones own existence that are knowable.

If this is not the case, not only is god unknowable, believe in him just would not make any sense, similar to believe in houses or trousers.

  • Modus Ponens works.

Not accepting this immediatly leads to the problem above. If I cannot follow stuff from information, all stuff becomes unknowable.

If stuff is knowable and modus ponens works, the following holds: (If this is not given, nothing is valid, including god.)

That means that the existence of a contradiction automatically makes every statement and its negation trivially true. This again would make everything invalid and unknowable. See above. We can follow from that there are no contradictions.

From this, we can follow that god has to be either non-contradictory or non-existent. To say that he does not have to adhere to that is equal to saying that nothing is knowable, which again makes any statement about anything, including god, nonsensical. So if you profess belief in anything, be it god or the existence of your trousers, you will have to accept that this holds.

Having established that god cannot be contradictory, try one of the following. The answer is always "Yes and No", making every single one of these contradictory. A god could not possess any of these pairs of properties.

  • God is immortal and omnipotent. Can he commit suicide?

  • God is omniscient and omnipotent. Can he make a decision other than the one he has foreseen that he will make?

  • God is creator of the universe and immutable. Can he change state from "not having dreated" to "having created"?

  • God is timeless and creator of time. A timeless being has no linear order of events and therefore needs to be immutable. See above.

  • God has free will and knows the future. Can he decide to do something he has not foreseen?

  • God is omnipotent: Can god make a non-counterfeit 1$ bill? (Hint: A 1$ bill is only genuine if it is made by the federal reserve.)

Theoretically speaking, you could construct a non-contradictory god, but only by redefining god to mean "powerful alien".

2
leftcrossOP•

God, as I speak of God, is unknowable outside of God's self-revelation. The rest of your argument is, if I understand it, irrelevant.

1
mastamomba•

Is being unknowable his only property? If yes, how can I distinguish it from a rock on the dark side of the moon?

1
leftcrossOP•

God is not an "it" anymore than you are. A rock on the dark side of the moon is created, and more, is not personal, immanent, transcendent, infinite, or eternal. But you are speaking outside of revelation, correct? Outside of revelation, you might guess at God - but you will, at best, get a God who is angry and terrible. Not good descriptors of God at all.

1
mastamomba•

So your god is personal, immanent, transcendent, infinite, and eternal? Now we are going somewhere.

Lets translate the terms before we start:

  • Personal means he has a will, emotions, goals and desires. A personality, that has thoughts and feelings that change according to the situation.

  • Immanent can mean a lot of stuff. I guess you mean omnipresent as in "immanent in her creation". This assumes a creator god, but I do not think you would disagree, no?

  • Transcendent. I would interpret this as transcending the borders of her creation. So she is not only imminent in her creation, but also exists outside of it.

  • Infinite. I guess you mean that in a temporal and spacial kind, so he is forever and everywhere. As time and space are possibly finite, we could say she transcends time and space.

  • Eternal would be included in the definition of infinite.

Ok. Now we can start. So riddle me this: This god has thoughts about situations. But there is a problem: She is transcendent, so she is beyond time. Time is a necessity for linear order of events. So she must have all thoughts at all times. I would already argue that that is not really a personality anymore.

But let us get on to more serious problems: Transcendent... So god is outside of time, eh? Even before time existed, the whole of god existed. So we can say that all of god is timeless. Timeless entails unchangeable, because change neeeds a linear order of events, which basically is time. But if god existed without a universe existing, he has a property: "being the only thing existing" this changes to "being one of the things that exist". Hmmm... so one of god's properties changed. But that means she is not unchangeable, which means that she is not transcendent. So transcendent is a contradictory property.

....and I am back to my original point.

You only dodged this in the first place by declaring that your god is unknowable outside of self-revelation. The problem with this is that what she reveals of herself tends to be contradictory. So either the one she reveals herself to is delusional and just imagines things or she is a lier.

My argument still applies.

1
MJtheProphet•

Let's go ahead and sum up what we've learned from you here:

God is not subject to logical analysis. God is not subject to standards of empirical evidence. No evidence that humans can perceive can prove or disprove god. God is not limited to human concepts of "reality" or "existence". Humans have no way of obtaining knowledge about god; our methods of obtaining knowledge about anything are suspect. God is not subject to verification or disproof in any way that is available to humans.

From this, I can deduce only one thing: god is indistinguishable from fiction. If you think there is a way in which we can determine that the god you are describing is not fictional, I'd love to see it. Because how can you trust it? How can you verify anything you say? How can you justify any beliefs you hold?

2
leftcrossOP•

Fiction is not by definition untrue.

1
MJtheProphet•

fiction [fik-shuhn] noun

  1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
  2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
  3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
  4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
  5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

Antonyms

  • fact.
2
leftcrossOP•

Fact and truth are not the same thing.

1
MJtheProphet•

They are intimately related via a correspondence theory of truth, which I (and most other people) hold to. True statements and true beliefs correspond to the actual state of affairs. If I say "there is a pencil on my desk", then the statement is true if there is a pencil on my desk. So if you claim "god exists", the statement is true if god does exist. Similarly, a fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. So a true statement or belief is a statement made or a belief held that corresponds to factual information.

Now, if you hold to another theory of truth, clarifying that would make this discussion more fruitful.

1
egalitarianusa•

  1. No, it is you misusing the word, you have a god, Hindus have a god, are they the same? They have different rules, talked to their followers differently...

  2. Why would subjective imaginations be admissible?

  3. That which does not logically exist, cannot.

2
leftcrossOP•

  1. If you think you can define my terms for me, we have nothing left to say. We'll be speaking different languages.

  2. Why not? If the material is not all that is, what prevents this?

  3. Why?

1
weelluuuu•

What people believe prevails over the truth.

SOPHOCLES,

1
MrBooks•

unless they believe jumping into a pool molten lead is survivable.

1
weelluuuu•

then they will know the truth.death is final and beliefs are nothing more.

1
Londron•

After having read some of your responses I come to the conclusion it's useless to debate with a person that doesn't know the rules of a debate.

Have a good day.

1
leftcrossOP•

This isn't supposed to be a debate. It's supposed to be a conversation. You have a good day as well!

1
Broolucks•

Logic is not about reality, it's about language. God might very well be impossible to describe, but no description can possibly accurately describe God if it is illogical.

In other words, logical analysis does not apply to God - it applies to the descriptions you make of God. If I logically analyze the way that you describe God, and obtain a contradiction, what this means is that your description is gibberish. Since theology is all about talking about God, that is, it is all about relating words to some hypothetical deistic reality, it is very much subject to logical analysis.

I repeat: you do not analyze reality logically. You analyze propositions logically. Words. Logic is a sanity check we apply to words to make sure they make sense. So if you say things about God, and that they fail logic, then you are just talking nonsense - the failure is not on God in this case, it's on you!

1
leftcrossOP•

I like this point, but it posits that God must ultimately assent to logical description. God as I encounter God does not do this.

I agree that logic is about words, but see metaphor - this is a way of making meaning without syllogistic statements. Paul Ricoeur, the Rule of Metaphor. The very way language works proves that meaning is constructed by language, and can be constructed in contradiction.

1
Broolucks•

I like this point, but it posits that God must ultimately assent to logical description.

You don't "assent" to description. A description of God either describes God or it doesn't. Perhaps no logical description can fully describe God, but it is absolutely certain that no illogical description does.

The very way language works proves that meaning is constructed by language, and can be constructed in contradiction.

Absolutely. But insofar that this meaning is contradictory, it cannot be a fully accurate description of reality. Metaphors (among other things) do contain information that is much easier to assimilate than rigid, formal statements, but the downside is that they are also much more fragile. Metaphors are deep and inspirational, but at face value, they are usually mostly wrong. They are much more telling of human psychology than they are of reality itself.

There is a parallel with buggy systems: a program with bugs in it may still be useful, but it's buggy nonetheless. Contradictory or illogical statements are rarely completely useless, and there exist paraconsistent systems of logic that try to avoid the principle of explosion in classical logic (i.e. the idea that all statements can be derived from a contradiction), and therefore can process and make use of inconsistent data. I would say that human language is both meaningful and inconsistent, and as such the human brain uses a sort of paraconsistent logic.

In other words, you can learn and improve your understanding of the world through metaphor. Metaphors can together give you insights on parts of reality. But that doesn't change the fact that reality itself can only be a consistent subset of what you think. If, by examining your beliefs, you run into a contradiction, then at least one of them has to be wrong.

Now let's see why this is the case. The key issue, for the human brain, is that it determines a degree of belief for each statement taken individually. If it's above a certain threshold, it will believe. It is very possible that statements A, B and C are all believable when taken in isolation, but that they are inconsistent when taken together. Since we rarely have the capacity to truly inspect a belief system as a whole, we'll keep believing all the small things that make sense to us, even though at least one of them must be wrong. It might even be rational: consider a lottery where a number from one to a million is picked at random. It is rational to believe that the number 1 won't be picked. Same for number 2, 3, etc. For any given number, it is rational to believe it won't come out. And yet, one number will come out, and thus if one was to (rationally) hold the belief that N will not come out, for all N, one will be wrong once.

In a theological setting, God is often defined in an inconsistent way, and the problem is very much what I mentioned. It makes sense to believe that God is the greatest being. Since justice is a positive attribute, God is naturally seen as being maximally just. Since mercy is also a positive attribute, God is naturally seen as being maximally merciful. It makes sense. But mercy is precisely the act of not giving someone their just punishment, so God can't exactly be perfectly just and perfectly merciful, you have to drop one of them. Alas, the human brain is good at ignoring these signals and "picturing" the concept anyway.

1
leftcrossOP•
  1. You don't. God isn't like you. In any way.
  2. By definition this means language cannot be a "fully accurate description of reality". Language is based entirely on metaphorical contradiction.
  3. You are using belief as intellectual assent. I am not interested in this type of belief visa vie God.
  4. In God, justice and mercy are the same thing. This is actually mentioned in Psalm 85:10. You are assuming that justice and mercy are the things that have ultimate forms, but you're wrong - God is ultimate, and they are shadows of God. You are assuming that human ideas of justice and mercy align with what justice and mercy are. You are attempting to construe a reality in which human beings are gods, knowing right and wrong. This is a problem.
1