Nicodemus
New member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,756
It proved unnecessary for explanation.If the studies proved that the theory is wrong. Then it's wrong.
It proved unnecessary for explanation.If the studies proved that the theory is wrong. Then it's wrong.
Exactly. I always assumed that if somebody was responsible for creating logic and physics that they would be beyond their creation, in a different class of 'existence'. The thing is, it is useless attempting to describing such a thing and even more useless debating it.
Yep. But it sure is fun, imaginging what lies outside the framework. What lies outside the universe? Can something only exist in relation to something else? It is possible that God is where relativity ends? All knowing, every existance, every thought, feeling, action, energy, here, in the universe, from beginning to end to beginning and end, cycling forever.. and if this is god.. what lies outside of this? I tell you that to believe mans current use of logic is as good as it gets, and make strong attachments or judgements with it seems very (correction) liimiting to me.
God may transcend logic, but so does everyone. I can pick my nose. Can logic pick its nose? No. Therefore, I transcend logic: my abilities go beyond the limits of logic. However, that doesn't mean that my or god's existence is not bound by logical constraints. A god that is logically absurd, a god that literally makes no sense, is no god at all. It makes a mockery of god, since any attempt to assign properties to that god must be futile: god may be simultaneously good and evil, capricious and careful, interventionist and laissez faire, loving and hateful, the creator of all and the creator of nothing, or neither of any of these things. A god that is logically inconsistent is indistinguishable from random happenings and so doesn't resemble a living being of any kind.
Withdrawing to the 'god doesn't have to make sense, because god transcends reason and logic' argument is a foolish defence of theism. In an attempt to deflect criticism, one renders it impossible to critique alternative views: nothing has to make sense. When it's impossible to resolve disagreements with peaceful argument, all that remains is the use of force. Far from promoting tolerance toward opposing views, such philosophical positions always beget more conflict.
I'm saying that anti-rational positions (i.e. positions which deflect any and all possible criticism) tend to beget violent conflict, especially on religious matters. Rather than promoting agnosticism about the nature of God, retreating to the 'God doesn't have to make sense' argument just immunises conflicting visions of God from criticism. Such argumentative tactics are subversive to a civil society which encourages us to fight with words rather than swords.So, your point is that if the Universe isn't ultimately explainable, then you won't ever be able to talk sense into religous extremists and usher in Utopia? hah. Theism isn't the source of conflict in humanity.
The two rules of atheism:
1. There is no God.
2. You hate him.
God may transcend logic, but so does everyone. I can pick my nose. Can logic pick its nose? No. Therefore, I transcend logic: my abilities go beyond the limits of logic. However, that doesn't mean that my or god's existence is not bound by logical constraints. A god that is logically absurd, a god that literally makes no sense, is no god at all. It makes a mockery of god, since any attempt to assign properties to that god must be futile: god may be simultaneously good and evil, capricious and careful, interventionist and laissez faire, loving and hateful, the creator of all and the creator of nothing, or neither of any of these things. A god that is logically inconsistent is indistinguishable from random happenings and so doesn't resemble a living being of any kind.
Withdrawing to the 'god doesn't have to make sense, because god transcends reason and logic' argument is a foolish defence of theism. In an attempt to deflect criticism, one renders it impossible to critique alternative views: nothing has to make sense. When it's impossible to resolve disagreements with peaceful argument, all that remains is the use of force. Far from promoting tolerance toward opposing views, such philosophical positions always beget more conflict.
What 'allows' me to say anything? In any case, I wasn't saying that God is everything, but rather that an undefinable god, a logically absurd god, is a god that doesn't exist or is unrecognisable as anything like a conventional god. If 'god' cannot be defined, if it doesn't even have to make sense, then you aren't saying anything when you refer to 'God' or 'Him', because those words have no discernible meaning. It's not arrogant to try and define what one means by 'God', especially for theists who wish to understand and relate to Him. The only concepts that can't be defined are those that do not exist at all, like the highest prime number or a number greater than 2 but less than 1. A God to whom you cannot, in principle, consistently assign any properties, is no God at all, never mind the God of the The Bible (who conspicuously is some things and not other things).What allows you to say that he is everything? It's the same reason why we say that he may not be everything. To think that we could offend God is just as great of arrogance as trying to define him.
What 'allows' me to say anything? In any case, I wasn't saying that God is everything, but rather that an undefinable god, a logically absurd god, is a god that doesn't exist or is unrecognisable as anything like a conventional god. If 'god' cannot be defined, if it doesn't even have to make sense, then you aren't saying anything when you refer to 'God' or 'Him', because those words have no discernible meaning. It's not arrogant to try and define what one means by 'God', especially for theists who wish to understand and relate to Him. The only concepts that can't be defined are those that do not exist at all, like the highest prime number or a number greater than 2 but less than 1. A God to whom you cannot, in principle, consistently assign any properties, is no God at all, never mind the God of the The Bible (who conspicuously is some things and not other things).
A definition is just an abstract category.So you are saying that if you cannot define God then there is really no God? If so… Then can you see the problem with this thought?
I suspect you think that by 'define God' I mean that one should be able to say exactly what God is and is not, once and for all, with no chance of being wrong. Why you would make such a stupid assumption baffles me, but people often baffle me. A definition is just an abstract category.
I'm saying that anti-rational positions (i.e. positions which deflect any and all possible criticism) tend to beget violent conflict, especially on religious matters. Rather than promoting agnosticism about the nature of God, retreating to the 'God doesn't have to make sense' argument just immunises conflicting visions of God from criticism. Such argumentative tactics are subversive to a civil society which encourages us to fight with words rather than swords.
I can say anything I want to. It's not like the epistemological police will come and arrest me for saying stating something that I don't know to be true. In any case, the relevant question is not what I am "allowed" to say, but whether what I am saying is true or false. Retorting with 'you're not allowed to say that!' is besides the point in the extreme. I have explained why the notion of an 'illogical God' is nothing like what people mean when they refer to 'God', because an 'illogical God' would no more be a god than a logically absurd dog would be a cat. A logically absurd dog is something that just doesn't exist: it is neither really a dog nor really a cat. When people say the word 'God' in a sentence, they mean something by it: they are referring to an entity with definite properties. Maybe they are wrong about what properties God really has, or perhaps there are properties of God which they are not aware of, but they are nonetheless talking about a being that is explicable. All your criticism of this argument amounts to is 'your'e not allowed to say that! You have no right! You could be wrong!', which is all well and good but entirely irrelevant.So… No. Alright. Then you can not know if an illogical God exists. Then you cannot say that a logical god has to exist.
I can say anything I want to. It's not like the epistemological police will come and arrest me for saying stating something that I don't know to be true. In any case, the relevant question is not what I am "allowed" to say, but whether what I am saying is true or false. Retorting with 'you're not allowed to say that!' is besides the point in the extreme. I have explained why the notion of an 'illogical God' is nothing like what people mean when they refer to 'God', because an 'illogical God' would no more be a god than a logically absurd dog would be a cat. A logically absurd dog is something that just doesn't exist: it is neither really a dog nor really a cat. When people say the word 'God' in a sentence, they mean something by it: they are referring to an entity with definite properties. Maybe they are wrong about what properties God really has, or perhaps there are properties of God which they are not aware of, but they are nonetheless talking about a being that is explicable. All your criticism of this argument amounts to is 'your'e not allowed to say that! You have no right! You could be wrong!', which is all well and good but entirely irrelevant.
There is the perspective that god is bound by the laws of logic.I apologize. You can say whatever you wish, you just may be wrong; I personally cannot live with that certainty, but being illogical does exist so technically logic could be an invention of man and god is apart from that.
There is the perspective that god is bound by the laws of logic.