God

[yerazhishda]

Re: God

I don't want to keep repeating myself. I'm done. I never commented with the expectation that people would change their minds. It is only that I feel compelled to represent my opinion when the issue of religion is brought up... to let people know that not everyone agrees. And for that reason I am ending this debate because I was never really interested in debating the same old arguments all over again. See you.

Suit yourself. Just get off your high horse in the process.

Cheers.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

Why doesn't it matter? This is just an easy way for you to escape the limitations of the human mind.



Nevertheless, you cannot show with absolute certainty that logic or reason is the best way to comprehend the universe. At best using logic and reason to comprehend the universe is a subjective choice.



What are you talking about? I am not "arbitrarily categorizing" - I am saying that God and philosophy in general are unfalsifiable. All philosophical ideas are unfalsifiable - this does not mean that they are untrue. Certainly you are not a nihilist?



Philosophy needs to be logical? By what standard of value? You are using your own value set and applying it to what you think philosophy should be. Western philosophy generally accepts this fact (at least in the past it has) but Eastern philosophy does not necessarily agree with this. Does this render Eastern philosophy obsolete or "wrong"? Not necessarily.

As Anonymouse so aptly and concisely explained, the issue of God is outside the realm of science. Both atheism and theism are taken on faith.



You've said it, but have yet to explain it.



It is an argument to consider when someone, such as yourself, comes along and upholds the virtues of logic and reason as the only way to percieve the universe. The principles of logic are not, and cannot be axioms. I am assuming you are familiar with Godel.

I don't want to keep repeating myself. I'm done. I never commented with the expectation that people would change their minds. It is only that I feel compelled to represent my opinion when the issue of religion is brought up... to let people know that not everyone agrees. And for that reason I am ending this debate because I was never really interested in debating the same old arguments all over again. See you.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

but isn't logic illogical?

No.

like i said according to logic something had to have come before you, but in order for everything to start, that means something must have come before everything and from nothing and just always existed, i know that sound illogical, but how else can you logically explain something coming out of nothingness?

I still believe you need to study refutations of the "first cause argument" to be clear about why this is not a valid argument.

And you must also understand that nobody here, me included, has the knowledge to understand the issues theoretical physicist deal with regarding the beginning of the universe. But I can say that you are not only over-simplifying but that you are making conclusions about the issue without all of the facts.

However this statement does not prove the existence of the Abrahamic God or any other god(s) of any religion, because all of them have major contradictions and fallacies. Everyone should just take the positive rules that each religion have in common and live by those and scrap all the other ones.

People are generally compelled to be moral because of evolution. Because we evolved in a way that made the foundations of society guarantee our fitness to survive. The fact that you can go to a religion, even your own, and select the passages that you feel are most valid shows a discrimination that is inherent in man and unrelated to religious teaching.

[ara87]

Re: God

I don't need to disprove the existence of a god. It is the theist that must provide the proof for a god and it is impossible for him to do so because it is not a testable hypothesis. At this point elementary logic would conclude that belief in a god is illogical because there is no epistemological reason to believe it. Period.

but isn't logic illogical? like i said according to logic something had to have come before you, but in order for everything to start, that means something must have come before everything and from nothing and just always existed, i know that sound illogical, but how else can you logically explain something coming out of nothingness? However this statement does not prove the existence of the Abrahamic God or any other god(s) of any religion, because all of them have major contradictions and fallacies. Everyone should just take the positive rules that each religion have in common and live by those and scrap all the other ones.

[yerazhishda]

Re: God

You're not grasping that fact that it doesn't matter what its limitations are.

Why doesn't it matter? This is just an easy way for you to escape the limitations of the human mind.

I said it is not based on the senses of a single individual. That's why you have peer review. You can still argue that even that is somehow potentially fallible but again that doesn't matter because it is the best way to gather knowledge and there for it is our logical responsibility to adhere to the principles.

Nevertheless, you cannot show with absolute certainty that logic or reason is the best way to comprehend the universe. At best using logic and reason to comprehend the universe is a subjective choice.

I see where you want to take this. You're essentially arbitrarily categorizing things as being either in the realm science or in the realm of philosophy opening up the possibility of relegating religious dogma to philosophy and therefore not in the reach of science. That becomes a game of semantics and word manipulation.

What are you talking about? I am not "arbitrarily categorizing" - I am saying that God and philosophy in general are unfalsifiable. All philosophical ideas are unfalsifiable - this does not mean that they are untrue. Certainly you are not a nihilist?

I'll first repeat that even philosophy needs to be logical and that a fallacious argument, philosophically is utterly useless. Further, it is inescapable that believing in a god as a cause is an attempt to make conclusions about the physical nature of the universe and therefore subject to scientific scrutiny.

Philosophy needs to be logical? By what standard of value? You are using your own value set and applying it to what you think philosophy should be. Western philosophy generally accepts this fact (at least in the past it has) but Eastern philosophy does not necessarily agree with this. Does this render Eastern philosophy obsolete or "wrong"? Not necessarily.

As Anonymouse so aptly and concisely explained, the issue of God is outside the realm of science. Both atheism and theism are taken on faith.

Like I've said, the fallibility is a non-issue.

You've said it, but have yet to explain it.

Some physical laws "break down" in black holes. And appear to "break down" in quantum physics. This is no argument. I don't see the point. All you are saying is that science does not know everything and that is something the scientific community already accepts. It is a principle in science. And it has nothing to do with this debate. It is a red herring.

It is an argument to consider when someone, such as yourself, comes along and upholds the virtues of logic and reason as the only way to percieve the universe. The principles of logic are not, and cannot be axioms. I am assuming you are familiar with Godel.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

I've explained this in the post above but you seem to have ignored it. Logic and Reason are not absolutes. This is a fact you must acknowledge. The laws of science break down at specific points in the history of the universe. How do you reconcile this fact with your claim that logic is the best/only way to comprehend the universe?

In the past I've made the same mistake of viewing Reason as infallible. It's just not true.

That quote was in response to someone else, I hope you know.

It is not the "laws of science". It is laws of physics. You cannot discredit the scientific process by throwing in the word science where it doesn't belong. Such language manipulation is a "straw man" fallacy. And there is nothing to reconcile. The scientific method is the best way to gain the best available knowledge at any given moment in time. Period. That doesn't mean that science is never wrong; it means that science is what is most right. And it doesn't mean that science currently has all the knowledge and understanding possible. That's ridiculous.

Incredible. I never said anything was infallible. Are you even reading my posts or are you just reading the website "The Best of Stark Evade: 1001 Phrases Misinterpreted by the Catholic Church."

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

what's wrong with being illogical?

Illogic is not a way to gain knowledge. If one makes conclusions about the nature of the universe one is implying the arrival to knowledge. If those conclusions are dependent on illogic they must be treated as false. I should not have to explain this.

[yerazhishda]

Re: God

I don't need to disprove the existence of a god. It is the theist that must provide the proof for a god and it is impossible for him to do so because it is not a testable hypothesis. At this point elementary logic would conclude that belief in a god is illogical because there is no epistemological reason to believe it. Period.

I've explained this in the post above but you seem to have ignored it. Logic and Reason are not absolutes. This is a fact you must acknowledge. The laws of science break down at specific points in the history of the universe. How do you reconcile this fact with your claim that logic is the best/only way to comprehend the universe?

In the past I've made the same mistake of viewing Reason as infallible. It's just not true.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

I wouldn't put psuedo pop-philosopher Richard Dawkins in the same league as Spinoza. There are much better philosophers who espouse atheism without being as militaristic and hateful.

I am perfectly happy putting him in the same sentence. Thanks. He is neither militaristic or hateful.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

I am familiar enough with logic to know that it is limited.

You're not grasping that fact that it doesn't matter what its limitations are.

So we do not use our eyes, ears, nose, hands and sometimes mouth (!) to gather and interpret the world around us? At the end of the day, humans are the intemediary in interpreting scientific data and thus is subject to the deception/limitation of the senses.

I said it is not based on the senses of a single individual. That's why you have peer review. You can still argue that even that is somehow potentially fallible but again that doesn't matter because it is the best way to gather knowledge and there for it is our logical responsibility to adhere to the principles.

I know that the goal of science is to collect verifiable knowledge. However, knowledge in the context of science is limited to objects that are falsifiable. This means that the Scientific Method cannot be, and should not be, carried over to philosophy; it has been done before with disasterous effects.

I see where you want to take this. You're essentially arbitrarily categorizing things as being either in the realm science or in the realm of philosophy opening up the possibility of relegating religious dogma to philosophy and therefore not in the reach of science. That becomes a game of semantics and word manipulation. I'll first repeat that even philosophy needs to be logical and that a fallacious argument, philosophically is utterly useless. Further, it is inescapable that believing in a god as a cause is an attempt to make conclusions about the physical nature of the universe and therefore subject to scientific scrutiny.

Like I've said before logic and reason are fallible - never mind the fact that two people can be asked the same question and arrive at two different answers "logically".

Like I've said, the fallibility is a non-issue.

It depends what arguments you are looking at. If you are looking at these types of arguments or Aquinas' Proofs then of course you are going to think they are fallacious. If you look at arguments by esteemed philosopher-theologian Hans Kung then I think you will be presently surprised at how he deals with the issues of modern philosophy, atheism, and God head on.

I will admit that I have not read anything by Hans Kung. But I don't think he is going to surprise me. I have read/heard/participated in many debates and have never heard an argument that was successful. If his logic is as convincing as you say it is I probably would not be having this argument with you right now.

But essentially the "infiniteness of the universe" cannot be empirically verified. I could say the same thing that you said, only this time referring to God. "It cannot be empirically verified, but I believe it for logical reasons."

It can be shown to be a logical conclusion with current knowledge and that is what is important. I am not an astrophysicist so I can not help you with the details.

The same thing can be said about the Law of Gravity - it is something that we cannot see at this point. We can identify it as being a "force of energy" that makes planets orbit and such but we cannot say with certainty that it is completely True. We can only rely, on faith, that our senses are not decieving us and that what we are observing is actually happening.

I'll just briefly repeat that we are not talking about the sense of a single individual. This is like saying that 1+1 may not equal 2 and that we may have come to that conclusion by deceived senses. It's a terrible argument. Something is either worth your confidence or it is not, based on certain criteria. That is what is important. You are trying to turn things into black and white: either something is faith-based or it is not. This is misleading.

By the way, I'm sure you know that all physical laws break down at the beginning of the universe, right?

Some physical laws "break down" in black holes. And appear to "break down" in quantum physics. This is no argument. I don't see the point. All you are saying is that science does not know everything and that is something the scientific community already accepts. It is a principle in science. And it has nothing to do with this debate. It is a red herring.