You can't have God and Logic.

[Toothlessjoe]

(The thread on Free will reminded me of this old post of mine, which I feel has relevancy and use to new posters and old.)


I'm not concerned with people who think a god or gods talk(s) to them. Nor am I concerned with people that believe that Jesus is there to save them when everything goes wrong. You guys, provided you're in that camp, are unsaveable. History will look upon you in much the same way it looks upon the Romans. That is: how can any rational person believe that shit?

No, I'm concerned with the great number of self-proclaimed agnostics I've noticed. I'm assuming that this is a side-effect of reform liberalism, but I still think it needs to be addressed. You're like a bunch of myopic progressives--you want to entertain the idea of a world without God, a god or gods, but you're too entrenched in today's society to admit it.

So, here's my thesis: if you believe in the validity of logic and its correlation to the real world (and you better; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Zoklet), you absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of a supernatural being or beings. Why? Because the existence of a supernatural being presupposes something outside of the law of cause and effect. And if anything--absolutely anything--lies beyond cause and effect, then cause and effect itself ceases to be a reliable observation.

For instance: suppose you are turning a gear, which is in turn attached to the teeth of another gear. Now obviously, the law of cause and effect will say that such-and-such gear will turn the such-and-such teeth of such-and-such gear when you apply kinetic energy to either of them, provided that they are in a logical configuration.

However, let's consider this: something is outside of the law of cause and effect. Even better, let's consider the popular idea that there's an omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence that lies beyond cause and effect, able to change it at will. If this were the case, then the action and reaction of those gears is no longer predictable. And not only those gears; nothing can be determined if anything exists outside of cause and effect. If something exists outside of cause and effect, then cause and effect becomes unreliable; which means, when you boil it down to ones and zeros, that logic itself is entirely unreliable.

Which means that you don't have machines. You don't have computers. You don't have life.

Of course, I'm sure that someone can come in and say: "What if that which lies beyond cause and effect decides not to interrupt the process?" That's all fine and dandy, except that every religion to date depends upon something outside of cause and effect in order for that religion to make any sense whatsoever. The Israelites enslaved by the egyptians? It wasn't cause and effect. It was God's Mandate, from without the material world.

Not only that tiny little fact, however, shows the fault in the "outside of cause and effect" argument. In order to justify such a statement, one must assume supreme knowledge of said supernatural being or beings. In essence, one must assume him/herself to be the supernatural being. Yet this, however much one might wish it into being, cannot possibly be the case. We ourselves are entirely bound by cause and effect in the material world, and if such a supernatural land of fairies and gremlins existed, we would never be able to comprehend it. We are bound to the world in which we exist, and that world is very plainly a law of cause and effect. Even if one could presume to know the nature of supernatural beings, he or she now has the burden of proof--for which there is none, nor will there ever be.

In addition, some agnostics may argue: "But Toothless! Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't there!" And my response: of course it doesn't mean that, but it does little to change my argument. My argument is that the validity of logic's entirety depends upon cause and effect, and anything beyond cause and effect introduces a variable that can't be predicted or factored into any cohesive argument. I could easily say that some people will be able to read this post, unless ghosts stop them from doing so! Such is the fault inherent in the agnostic argument: by introducing variables outside of logic, the process of logic itself becomes fruitless.

And, once again, I'm not interested in you goddies out there. I'm sure you're convinced that god exists because you feel a tingle in your spine whenever you go to church, which has an average temperature of 60 degrees. You guys just keep thinking that you're going to be saved, and go on trying to save people like me. I, on the other hand, would rather address real issues and solve real problems.

This post is for the agnostics of the world. And, in essence, my point is: your mind can be so open that your brain will fall out. If you claim to adhere to logic, then you simply cannot entertain the idea of the supernatural. You defeat the process in the process.

[postdiluvium]

Of course you can't have both. God created you and logic. So it is possible for you to have logic, but it is impossible for you to have God. But God can have both. Inheritance rules, good sir.

[ArmsMerchant]

OP seems to be making the same error of reasoning that many atheists do--that is, lumping all "goddies" together.

My main goal in life is to attain unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground of being (roughly waht a Christian calls going to heaven, or what a Buddhist calls attaining nirvana). This has nothing to do with being "saved"--saved from what?

Logic can be a useful tool, but it fails when the original premises are invalid. It is particularly useless in terms of metaphysics, since in that context, knowledge is a function of being, not the other way 'round.

[Gantz Graf]

I don't know, I think Aristotle (his idea of a primary, unmoved mover) or Aquinas would disagree with you.

[skyclaw441]

I have both every day. The difference is that I'm moderate and able to bring both together. Sadly, very few Christians have been able to do this. And it pisses me off.

[puzld]

I think that Schrodinger's cat and / or Godel's theorems might be applicable here; when I feel up to thinking, I'll post more. Meanwhile I'm going to drink more beer.

[skinny love]

what about a logical argument to believe in a god? if god doesn't exist, you don't lose anything after death. but if he does, you could be eternally punished for not believing.

[Ambient]

So the Jain conception of God is illogical; seeing as all religions have some kind of illogical premise of a supernatural being?

[threat]

Cause and effect do lose meaning when dealing with subatomic particles. This makes me want to believe in something bigger than us, but I wouldn't call it God. I'm talking of something like an energy and parallel universes. That would be awesome.

[Jamie "fuck constipation" Lee Curtis]

When man was surrounded by chaos and "the trickster's woods" belief in the supernatural was almost the only way for man to have hope. Now, religion has lost it's necessity and also it's relevance. We have "conquered" most of the natural world, beating it back into recession as we see fit and at our command. What would have been "magic" 200 years ago, and gotten you burned at the stake, is now seen as a lowely flashlight, and yet the idea of a supreme being persisted through all of this advancement? What the fuck.
----
"The philosophy of cosmicism states that there is no recognizable divine presence, such as God, in the universe, and that humans are particularly insignificant in the larger scheme of intergalactic existence, and perhaps are just a small species projecting their own mental idolatries onto the vast cosmos, ever susceptible to being wiped from existence at any moment. This also suggested that the majority of undiscerning humanity are creatures with the same significance as insects in a much greater struggle between greater forces which, due to humanity's small, visionless and unimportant nature, it does not recognize
....blah blah....He believed in a meaningless, mechanical, and uncaring universe that human beings, with their naturally limited faculties, could never fully understand. His viewpoint made no allowance for religious belief, which could not be supported scientifically. The incomprehensible, cosmic forces of his tales have as little regard for humanity as humans have for insects."

[threat]

^^ Exactly! "In my opinion, life is a highly overrated phenomenon." -Dr Manhattan, Watchmen. <-- Good fucking movie.

[Ambient]

Cause and effect do lose meaning when dealing with subatomic particles. This makes me want to believe in something bigger than us, but I wouldn't call it God. I'm talking of something like an energy and parallel universes. That would be awesome.

Who says that is not a conception of God?

Can the term "God" not be applied to energy? i.e energy is not or cannot be a quality of God.

God being the derivation of all experience.

[threat]

What makes you come to that conclusion?

[Genesis93]

because your the first person to come up with this point of view?

Logic is man made, its what we apply to things "god" isn't logical god is outside everything we know he is not a part of the world we live in, you cannot even come close to understanding god, you cant even understand understanding him, he IS what he is, he doesn't play by our rules, which is why people say the day you understand god you are god.

Is ONE of many arguments, research paleys watch and all the other philosophers,

i myself an undecided in what i believe

[PirateJoe]

I have both every day. The difference is that I'm moderate and able to bring both together. Sadly, very few Christians have been able to do this. And it pisses me off.

No, you think you do, but you either haven't 1) really brought both together 2) haven't taken the implications of your beliefs to their logical end.

If you accept, and actively believe in, an entity for which no evidence exists, then open the door to a world in which everything you can imagine which doesn't have evidence for it is fair game for belief. Do you believe in unicorns, fairies, or invisible dragons waiting to slay you the moment you step out your door? No, of course not, but because all of those things have no evidence, then all of those things are equally likely to be true. You would live in constant fear and probably be diagnosed with schizophrenia.

But you don't, you limit your beliefs to a handfull of beings (who, coincidentally, are on your side). Then how do you differentiate between what you believe and what you don't believe?

[SyncMaster]

Belief in God without some overwhelming evidence (as it is to you) is illogical. The concept of God can, in ways, defy human logic. Causality is something we take to be true, but that is just because of our limited scope. Causality seems to be a given in most circumstances but it's another one of those ideas that can never be disproved.

[Bensozia]

This post is for the agnostics of the world. And, in essence, my point is: your mind can be so open that your brain will fall out. If you claim to adhere to logic, then you simply cannot entertain the idea of the supernatural. You defeat the process in the process.

If you are as closed-minded as the religious fuckheads you piss on, it's your choice. If you feel so threatened by the possible, yet unprovable, of a spiritual world then it's your problem.

And what is the most interesting in all of this, you say that we agnostics are not allowed to be open-minded else we deny the very existence of logic itself. Isn't it painfully ironic? From what I see, you are treating logic as your own personal God... You display the same bigotry to it as people who cling to their faith and proclaim its absolute righteousness...

Oh and about History's point of view, why should we care? We might appear as deluded as the Romans or the Greeks but the fact that we simply kept on open door to a possibility doesn't make us deluded. We can oppose bigotry and yet not feel the need to deny any possibility of a spiritual world, since there is no way to prove its non-existence. I believe this stance, in this particular matter, is the most reasonable.

Bottomline: Your conceptions may be valid, it doesn't mean that any other conception is invalid. You are not the unit of measure of the whole world and you are not entitled to enforce your beliefs on others.

[Toothlessjoe]

If you are as closed-minded as the religious fuckheads you piss on, it's your choice. If you feel so threatened by the possible, yet unprovable, of a spiritual world then it's your problem.[/B]

Do you beleive in Unicorns and Goblins?

[Bensozia]

Do you beleive in Unicorns and Goblins?

I don't believe in them but if people want to beleive in them, I don't care. It's none of my business.

Now maybe such creatures are ethereal and I can't see them. I don't know.

I believe in other things that are unproven scientifically such as ghosts and spirits.

[Cegstar]

what about a logical argument to believe in a god? if god doesn't exist, you don't lose anything after death. but if he does, you could be eternally punished for not believing.

I don't think a God would want to scare us into believing.

[Ambient]

Do you beleive in Unicorns and Goblins?

When i see unicorns and under-bed boogy monsters/flying spagetti monsters compared to the alpha- omega conception... i just lol inside.

Learn the difference between form and function people.

[Slapshot]

So, here's my thesis: if you believe in the validity of logic and its correlation to the real world (and you better; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Zoklet), you absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of a supernatural being or beings. Why? Because the existence of a supernatural being presupposes something outside of the law of cause and effect. And if anything--absolutely anything--lies beyond cause and effect, then cause and effect itself ceases to be a reliable observation.Cause and effect are not absolute and universal.

[Rust]

You are not the unit of measure of the whole world and you are not entitled to enforce your beliefs on others.


Who'se "enforcing their beliefs on others"? Has ToothlessJoe carried out some armed incursion into some Churches I don't know about? Is he keeping some true believers in his basement and forcing them to renounce their god?

He made a post. That's it. That's not "forcing" or "enforcing" anything on anybody, so the melodramatic language isn't necessary...

[Ambient]

Cause and effect are not absolute and universal.

Well that is somewhat true.

Temporal order and accociation can be absolute, but never elimenting alternatives (those being the three elements of causality).

[Zok]

Of course you can't have both. God created you and logic. So it is possible for you to have logic, but it is impossible for you to have God. But God can have both. Inheritance rules, good sir.

This exactly. Just because we think we understand everything (or are capable of understanding everything) does not mean that we do. We will never be able to understand what's higher on the hierarchy than ourselves. We can certainly make assumptions and theories (based off of the effects of such systems) but we will never know with any degree of certainty.

[Bensozia]

Who'se "enforcing their beliefs on others"? Has ToothlessJoe carried out some armed incursion into some Churches I don't know about? Is he keeping some true believers in his basement and forcing them to renounce their god?

He made a post. That's it. That's not "forcing" or "enforcing" anything on anybody, so the melodramatic language isn't necessary...

Maybe I went overboard on that one so I'll just rephrase it: he is not entitled to tell us what to think and to tell us what we should believe. It's not his place.

I don't oppose all what he says, I'm just saying that his conception of things is not the only one that is valid. Period. Logic is a great tool but showing so much bigotry about it is indeed unnecessary.

[Rust]

This exactly. Just because we think we understand everything (or are capable of understanding everything) does not mean that we do. We will never be able to understand what's higher on the hierarchy than ourselves. We can certainly make assumptions and theories (based off of the effects of such systems) but we will never know with any degree of certainty.

How then, can you agree with him saying that God created logic? How does he know? For that matter, how do you know that we will never be able to understand what's on the hierarchy than ourselves?

Seems to me your doubt would apply to both your own statements and the statement you were agreeing with.

[TruthWielder]

Do you beleive in Unicorns and Goblins?

There is nothing quite so intelluctually incomprehensible as a person who conceptualizes the whole universe as something that is irrevocably chained by his minds current grasp.

[Archetype]

There is nothing quite so intelluctually incomprehensible as a person who conceptualizes the whole universe as something that is irrevocably chained by his minds current grasp.

There is nothing quite so pathetic as a person who will blindly put faith in a
higher power or supernatural phenomenon without a shred of actual scientific evidence supporting it's existence.

[tehporp]

There is nothing quite so pathetic as a person who will blindly put faith in a
higher power or supernatural phenomenon without a shred of actual scientific evidence supporting it's existence.

Just because you have never experienced anything that makes you believe in a higher power doesnt make everyone else's experiences invalid. Personally, I have had way too many spiritual experiences to believe otherwise.

Although I don't see why that should affect anyone other than myself.

[ArmsMerchant]

So the Jain conception of God is illogical; seeing as all religions have some kind of illogical premise of a supernatural being?

Um, according to the rules of rhetoric and semantics and such, I don't think a premise CAN be illogical, since that is what starts the process.

Logic is a process, not a thing.

[Archetype]

Just because you have never experienced anything that makes you believe in a higher power doesnt make everyone else's experiences invalid. Personally, I have had way too many spiritual experiences to believe otherwise.

Although I don't see why that should affect anyone other than myself.

You should see your doctor then, you clearly have a schizophreniform disorder.

[Archetype]

Um, according to the rules of rhetoric and semantics and such, I don't think a premise CAN be illogical, since that is what starts the process.

Logic is a process, not a thing.

Logic is a thing because processes are things, everything that exists is a thing, not just objects. You're right about the definition of a premise though, it can only be deemed illogical when proven to be so.

[Please insert username]

You can't have God and Logic

Yes you can:mad:

[tehporp]

You should see your doctor then, you clearly have a schizophreniform disorder.

:) I pity you.

[Archetype]

:) I pity you.

That simply reinforces the fact that you are schizotypal.

[Alamo]

I believe both can exist, its whether your choose to obey them and acknowledge is up to you. Logic is how you interpret what you as a human interface and react with in this mortal relam, when you get to "God" that is were your mind takes control of the sense's to relate how to react.

You can believe truly that a higher-power is this omnipotent being or which ever fits your preference but the fact that the presence, the existence, even the power come from you. You make this "God" who he is, he cant hurt you or affect you unless you want it to, so if you want your religion to "interfere" with your logic by all means do so. I like most choose specific parts of religions and apply them to my daily life rather than taking all of the "gibberish" and making myself a religious person in everyone's eyes and not mine.

Some people don't want to know deeper meaning then the candy coating on the outside and just want to exist. Ignore parts of logic and embrace all that is a higher power, a place of purpose is all they require.

You are your own god, limiting your limitless power.

[tehporp]

That simply reinforces the fact that you are schizotypal.

Thats fine, you can go ahead and label all you want. Enjoy a bitter and unfulfilled life.

[PirateJoe]

Thats fine, you can go ahead and label all you want. Enjoy a bitter and unfulfilled life.

Have you ever considered that maybe these spiritual experiences came not form an external source, but from an internal one?

[tehporp]

Have you ever considered that maybe these spiritual experiences came not form an external source, but from an internal one?

Of course. The Kingdom of God is within me.

[TruthWielder]

There is nothing quite so pathetic as a person who will blindly put faith in a
higher power or supernatural phenomenon without a shred of actual scientific evidence supporting it's existence.

You quote me and fail to address my claim. Scientific evidence means scientists have proved it in multiple studies substantiated by a scientific communities general approval. I mean....seriously?

[PirateJoe]

Of course. The Kingdom of God is within me.

What I mean is, why must there be an external source (God) for these feelings? Couldn't all these "spiritual" experiences you claim to have had could very well have happened anyway without any supreme being?

[Kilyke]

What I mean is, why must there be an external source (God) for these feelings? Couldn't all these "spiritual" experiences you claim to have had could very well have happened anyway without any supreme being?

Yes. However, the supernatural explaination is no more or less valid than other explainations. If the Divine existed, the only way for it to communicate with us would be through our nervous system, an "internal" mechanism.

OP: I agree- except have you considered that the gods exist in a metaphorical sense? I don't believe that there is literally some invisible creature running around throwing lightning bolts either. I do however, think that there is substantial evidence for there being forces beyond our ability to sense. Questions like whether "God" exists are just not questions we can answer, especially since everyone has so many different ideas about what god(s) are.

[Kilyke]

Logic can be a useful tool, but it fails when the original premises are invalid. It is particularly useless in terms of metaphysics, since in that context, knowledge is a function of being, not the other way 'round.

huh? :confused:

[PirateJoe]

Yes. However, the supernatural explaination is no more or less valid than other explainations. If the Divine existed, the only way for it to communicate with us would be through our nervous system, an "internal" mechanism.


1) Supernatural explanations are less valid because there is evidence to show that many spiritual experiences are simply byproducts of physical processes in the brain. Near death experiences, for instance.

2) I think you misinterpret what I'm saying. When it comes right down to it, everything is "internal" because everything is either created or processed by your brain. I am making the distinction between internal processes, like dreams, and external ones, like motion pictures. I'll give you an example: your basic newspaper astrology. Many people would read their sign, identify with it, and come to the conclusion that there are external forces at work. However, we know that they are written in such a way so that everyone can at least identify with part of it. Thus, any "meaning" comes completely from the internal. It is not external forces that dictate the personalities of people born in certain months, but the projection of meaning stemming from how the brain selectively processes information that causes the illusion that there are higher forces at work. Basically, that for every spiritual experience, there is a physical or psychological explanation that comes not from an external deity, but from the psyche/brain itself.

[tehporp]

1) Supernatural explanations are less valid because there is evidence to show that many spiritual experiences are simply byproducts of physical processes in the brain. Near death experiences, for instance.

2) I think you misinterpret what I'm saying. When it comes right down to it, everything is "internal" because everything is either created or processed by your brain. I am making the distinction between internal processes, like dreams, and external ones, like motion pictures. I'll give you an example: your basic newspaper astrology. Many people would read their sign, identify with it, and come to the conclusion that there are external forces at work. However, we know that they are written in such a way so that everyone can at least identify with part of it. Thus, any "meaning" comes completely from the internal. It is not external forces that dictate the personalities of people born in certain months, but the projection of meaning stemming from how the brain selectively processes information that causes the illusion that there are higher forces at work. Basically, that for every spiritual experience, there is a physical or psychological explanation that comes not from an external deity, but from the psyche/brain itself.

I'm not saying that my spiritual experiences have been the product of intervention from some divine being, but rather that they have been the product of all creation. Basically, each seemingly insignificant event in my life lead up to me being the right place in the right time, thinking the right thoughts which are reflected in my external environment. Its quite hard for me to find the words to explain this phenomenon to you because of how personal and subjective these events are. All in all, it stems from the knowledge that all is one and one is all.

[TruthWielder]

1) Supernatural explanations are less valid because there is evidence to show that many spiritual experiences are simply byproducts of physical processes in the brain. Near death experiences, for instance.

2) I think you misinterpret what I'm saying. When it comes right down to it, everything is "internal" because everything is either created or processed by your brain. I am making the distinction between internal processes, like dreams, and external ones, like motion pictures. I'll give you an example: your basic newspaper astrology. Many people would read their sign, identify with it, and come to the conclusion that there are external forces at work. However, we know that they are written in such a way so that everyone can at least identify with part of it. Thus, any "meaning" comes completely from the internal. It is not external forces that dictate the personalities of people born in certain months, but the projection of meaning stemming from how the brain selectively processes information that causes the illusion that there are higher forces at work. Basically, that for every spiritual experience, there is a physical or psychological explanation that comes not from an external deity, but from the psyche/brain itself.

I agree with you absolutely.

Where I diverge is that I may suggest that there is more to the spiritual experience (experience as the means of acquiring factual information) than what is readily apparent or observed. For example, the utter holism of the universe is a natural scientific concept only recently arriving from the realm of metaphysics by way of philosophical inquiry and religious speculation, into the understanding of the quantum physicist.

The way I understand it, there is no measurable limit to spiritual or supernatural experience. We only have our own experience and reason to go by when it comes to discriminating between correct and incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of reality. Assumptions indeed! As each barrier in science is shattered and each realm of math and physics is explored we find new ideas to shatter old ones, making the facts of the past merely the assumptions of the past, and this cycle might continue ad infinitum. In the view of the religious this cycle has an end in that the universe is explainable is some form or another. Usually this is explained by identifying the "prime mover" or "true reality" or "true being". Thus God, Nirvana, morality.

So why not? I find that essentially no man could explain religion away to a person that has seriously been affected by their faith because their experience is their own justification. Same with most atheists.

So then agnostics come along and say "hey lets keep an open mind about all this"

And then you have a problem with that? Sigh.

Too many atheists believe they are unveiling the true nature of the world to the ignorant and fundamentally befuddled masses. What they forget is that as the human mind is free to make its own choices it will explore whatever realms it will and, as a result, this may or may not affect a persons outlook. This does not make a person ignorant or pathetic as archetype tried to make it seem. It does not keep a person from questioning themselves or their existence and purpose. Institutions of force and power brainwash people, not ideas.

So atheists, do me a favor ok? If you want an enemy to fight, make it what you actually claim to be fighting; ignorance and closemindedness, while trying not to close your own minds in the process.

Because really all their is when it comes to seeking truth is observing your own ignorance, sharing views, quiet contemplation, and the unceasing wish to understand. If you have that, atheist, theist, or agnostic, you will benefit from all the ideas of the world.

[Ambient]

What I mean is, why must there be an external source (God) for these feelings? Couldn't all these "spiritual" experiences you claim to have had could very well have happened anyway without any supreme being?

Gnosticism :cool:

[tehporp]

I agree with you absolutely.

Where I diverge is that I may suggest that there is more to the spiritual experience (experience as the means of acquiring factual information) than what is readily apparent or observed. For example, the utter holism of the universe is a natural scientific concept only recently arriving from the realm of metaphysics by way of philosophical inquiry and religious speculation, into the understanding of the quantum physicist.

The way I understand it, there is no measurable limit to spiritual or supernatural experience. We only have our own experience and reason to go by when it comes to discriminating between correct and incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of reality. Assumptions indeed! As each barrier in science is shattered and each realm of math and physics is explored we find new ideas to shatter old ones, making the facts of the past merely the assumptions of the past, and this cycle might continue ad infinitum. In the view of the religious this cycle has an end in that the universe is explainable is some form or another. Usually this is explained by identifying the "prime mover" or "true reality" or "true being". Thus God, Nirvana, morality.

So why not? I find that essentially no man could explain religion away to a person that has seriously been affected by their faith because their experience is their own justification. Same with most atheists.

So then agnostics come along and say "hey lets keep an open mind about all this"

And then you have a problem with that? Sigh.

Too many atheists believe they are unveiling the true nature of the world to the ignorant and fundamentally befuddled masses. What they forget is that as the human mind is free to make its own choices it will explore whatever realms it will and, as a result, this may or may not affect a persons outlook. This does not make a person ignorant or pathetic as archetype tried to make it seem. It does not keep a person from questioning themselves or their existence and purpose. Institutions of force and power brainwash people, not ideas.

So atheists, do me a favor ok? If you want an enemy to fight, make it what you actually claim to be fighting; ignorance and closemindedness, while trying not to close your own minds in the process.

Because really all their is when it comes to seeking truth is observing your own ignorance, sharing views, quiet contemplation, and the unceasing wish to understand. If you have that, atheist, theist, or agnostic, you will benefit from all the ideas of the world.

Great post! :thumbsup: I love when someone else is able to put my uncollected and scattered thoughts into cohesive sentences.

In other words, I agree 100% with everything you just said.

[Akagi]

I believe both can exist.

Yep.

It's called compartmentalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)), aka. doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)).

[Cytosine]

Question, agnostics: If God is a shadowy figure that is so beyond our understanding that we will never fully grasp its existence; why bother? Shouldn't we all just become atheists functionally? The God most agnostics propose doesn't seem to do anything except explain things they can't be absolutely certain about. ie. the creation of the cosmos

The reason I see agnostics as fence-sitters is that they're really scared of being proven wrong. I'm fairly certain that God does not exist, and I would be surprised by any actual evidence that proves otherwise. I'm not making a definite claim, but I'm confident with the evidence I have. In my position, with the same evidence, many agnostics choose to sit on the fence as they want a body with a smoking gun, so to speak. I understand that such a proof will never exist as things aren't that simple.

I don't, and won't, adhere to the "God is beyond your proof" because it's bullshit. Each day I deal with material things in an absolute way. If God cannot influence that world in any way, then I can't really be bothered to care. I take no security in it, and would probably still be bored.

[razlyubleno]

Question, agnostics: If God is a shadowy figure that is so beyond our understanding that we will never fully grasp its existence; why bother? Shouldn't we all just become atheists functionally?
Surely an agnostic is just a different kind of atheist, right? They aren't theists, they don't hold religious beliefs, they don't practice rites or ceremonies, they don't believe that "faith" is a good enough reason to adopt a religion. For most practical purposes, they are just atheists. Functionally, there's not much difference, besides the fact that agnostics don't much care for the term "atheism."

This almost makes a good point (doesn't quite nail it home, though): http://atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/atheist-vs-agnostic

razly

[PirateJoe]

I agree with you absolutely.

Where I diverge is that I may suggest that there is more to the spiritual experience (experience as the means of acquiring factual information) than what is readily apparent or observed.

I guess this is where we diverge. I would say that a spiritual experience falls under the "subjective" category and thus is not factual at all. You're projecting the internal onto the external. It may be a cool feeling, but that's all it is.

The way I understand it, there is no measurable limit to spiritual or supernatural experience. We only have our own experience and reason to go by when it comes to discriminating between correct and incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of reality.


If humans are limited beings, then how are our spiritual experiences unlimited?

True, we have only our own experience, but where does that experience come from? Does it come from a dream (internal) or everyday interactions with the world around you (external (a controlled experiment would be a subset of that)? Mixing those two up is a grave mistake.


Assumptions indeed! As each barrier in science is shattered and each realm of math and physics is explored we find new ideas to shatter old ones, making the facts of the past merely the assumptions of the past, and this cycle might continue ad infinitum.

Not assumptions at all. In the more well-established areas of science these theories have mountains of evidence. That is to say, scientists are not going to wake up one day and discover that gravity follows the inverse cube law instead of the inverse square. They might discover a special case where gravity behaves slightly differently (einstein and relativity), but that is how we learn! (just as we still use newtonian physics even in light of einstein's discovery)

In the view of the religious this cycle has an end in that the universe is explainable is some form or another. Usually this is explained by identifying the "prime mover" or "true reality" or "true being". Thus God, Nirvana, morality.
A convenient explanation does not reality make. I can make up any old explanation for any old natural phenomenon but that doesn't make it true. I could say that lightning comes from god-wars above the firmament, but we know that is false.

So why not? I find that essentially no man could explain religion away to a person that has seriously been affected by their faith because their experience is their own justification. Same with most atheists.
The difference is where that experience comes from, and how we come to conclusions about those experiences.

So then agnostics come along and say "hey lets keep an open mind about all this"

And then you have a problem with that? Sigh.

I don't have a problem with people having a open mind. I kinda have a problem with people selectively giving credence to ideas that have absolutely no grounding in reality.

Too many atheists believe they are unveiling the true nature of the world to the ignorant and fundamentally befuddled masses. What they forget is that as the human mind is free to make its own choices it will explore whatever realms it will and, as a result, this may or may not affect a persons outlook. This does not make a person ignorant or pathetic as archetype tried to make it seem. It does not keep a person from questioning themselves or their existence and purpose. Institutions of force and power brainwash people, not ideas.

The human mind can explore all it wants. That doesn't mean you should think that whatever conclusions you come to are true in reality.

My whole deal is this: if you get an idea about reality that comes from an experience or thought process not grounded in reality, how can you ever know that it is true? The mind plays tricks on you all the time, and, when you get right down to it, is unreliable in many cases. There's a reason why physical evidence is valued much higher than eyewitness testimony in court.

So, knowing our brains' ability to 1) make mistakes 2) see patterns where there are none 3) make connections where there are none 4) see what it wants to see, how could you possibly give any credence to any conclusion that you reach ONLY through your internal facilities? And if the conclusion is right, it should manifest itself in the physical world, in which case you can test it to see if you are right.

Also, that's not to say spiritual experiences are useless, at all. They can be extremely powerful and moving experiences, but understanding where they come from and keeping them there is the name of the game here.

[Archetype]

You quote me and fail to address my claim. Scientific evidence means scientists have proved it in multiple studies substantiated by a scientific communities general approval. I mean....seriously?

By "scientific", I was referring to knowledge obtained through observation that is undeniable fact. This is something unaffected by the bias of either belief because it is blatantly obvious. Eg. "That ball currently weighs a gram on Earth", this is a fact that cannot be challenged because it is intrinsically true, no matter whether you are religious or not.

[JoePedo]

Sigh. What the hell. I'll bite.

So, here's my thesis: if you believe in the validity of logic and its correlation to the real world you absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of a supernatural being or beings.

It was not previously established or proven that all instances of $Deity are supernatural, rather than natural, in form.

Ergo, your thesis is already shot down. Nonetheless, I think - even though I don't have to - I'll knock down your second, new goalpost as well.

Of course, to do that, this nebulous term "supernatural" would need a definition.


Because the existence of a supernatural being presupposes something outside of the law of cause and effect.

Aha! A definition, and as good a definition for "supernatural" if there ever was one.

Now... what is the cause for the presence of existance? As opposed to, say, nonexistance?

1. If you have an answer - does your proposed answer even exist? ;)

2. If you do not have an answer, well... it is you who presupposes something outside cause-and-effect. I'm just sitting here remaining agnostic to it all.

Anyways... I, umm...

Think that's checkmate, dude. So much for...

This post is for the agnostics of the world. And, in essence, my point is: your mind can be so open that your brain will fall out.

^^ this.

Seems it turns out that one can be so closed-minded they miss where they dig their own grave, whereas "I don't claim to have any fucking idea, dude," is occasionally merely an accurate observation.

But I could be wrong - on the first half. What is the cause of existance versus nonexistance, and if you claim there was one, does it exist? Or for that matter, what causes this 'law' of cause and effect?

[...my.final.dream...]

Sigh. What the hell. I'll bite.



It was not previously established or proven that all instances of $Deity are supernatural, rather than natural, in form.

Ergo, your thesis is already shot down. Nonetheless, I think - even though I don't have to - I'll knock down your second, new goalpost as well.

Of course, to do that, this nebulous term "supernatural" would need a definition.




Aha! A definition, and as good a definition for "supernatural" if there ever was one.

Now... what is the cause for the presence of existance? As opposed to, say, nonexistance?

1. If you have an answer - does your proposed answer even exist? ;)

2. If you do not have an answer, well... it is you who presupposes something outside cause-and-effect. I'm just sitting here remaining agnostic to it all.

Anyways... I, umm...

Think that's checkmate, dude. So much for...



^^ this.

Seems it turns out that one can be so closed-minded they miss where they dig their own grave, whereas "I don't claim to have any fucking idea, dude," is occasionally merely an accurate observation.

But I could be wrong - on the first half. What is the cause of existance versus nonexistance, and if you claim there was one, does it exist? Or for that matter, what causes this 'law' of cause and effect?

After you die had anything actually happened? .. think about THAT one for a bit.

[fallinghouse]

Two logical arguments against Toothlessjoe's assertions about God and Logic.

Argument 1.

Premise 1. One axiom set for classical logic is as follows: Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle, Commutativity, Associativity, Distributivity. These axioms are atemporal, which is to say, they exist without reference to time.

Premise 2. A necessary condition for causality is the possibility of temporal antecedence, which is to say, in order that some event be caused by another event, events must be able to occur before other events. (note: there is a distinction between causality and logical entailment).

Premise 3. A necessary condition for the possibility of temporal antecedence is time, so a necessary condition for causality is time.

Conclusion. There exists a distinction between causality and logic, and the failure of causality does not imply the failure of logic.


Argument 2.

Premise 1. The existence of God is in disagreement with causality. So if one believes in the existence of God, one believes in one case where causality does not hold.

Premise 2. We have numerous examples of cases where the concept of causality has accurately described the observed processes of the universe.

Premise 3. If one has numerous examples of cases where a concept has been accurate, but only one case when it was inaccurate, then it is not unreasonable to use that concept as a tool for making predictions about future results.

Conclusion. Belief in the existence of God does not require a reasonable person to totally reject that causality is a useful tool for understanding the universe.

[mrgoodbar]

So as far as we know, we have four dimensions in our limited scope. three spacial dimensions and a time dimension which composes space-time. Now, lets assume that there is another dimension (perhaps a manifold), which we will call X, that interstects with space-time at a point. Now lets suppose that something (God), existing on X affects space-time at the point of intersection. Space as well as time must be affected because the two are interlinked. From our perception, we would observe an effect seemingly without a cause.

Now, based on this shitty supposition, we have an unperceivable cause and an effect. Until you find a cause for every effect in the universe, you cannot prove that this supposition is wrong however unlikely it may be. Therefor, the existance of a God is still possible. Near as I can tell, this is not beyond cause and effect.

Im really fuckin sleepy. Someone tell me why this dosnt make sense.

toothless, I commend you sir. That was one hell of a complex thought.

Good job fallinghouse

[frater_fll]

So as far as we know, we have four dimensions in our limited scope. three spacial dimensions and a time dimension which composes space-time. Now, lets assume that there is another dimension (perhaps a manifold), which we will call X, that interstects with space-time at a point. Now lets suppose that something (God), existing on X affects space-time at the point of intersection. Space as well as time must be affected because the two are interlinked. From our perception, we would observe an effect seemingly without a cause.

Now, based on this shitty supposition, we have an unperceivable cause and an effect. Until you find a cause for every effect in the universe, you cannot prove that this supposition is wrong however unlikely it may be. Therefor, the existance of a God is still possible. Near as I can tell, this is not beyond cause and effect.

Im really fuckin sleepy. Someone tell me why this dosnt make sense.

toothless, I commend you sir. That was one hell of a complex thought.

Good job fallinghouse

Is this sort of like saying, well, let's assume that there is a magic wand that causes an explosion; well then its possible to have spontaneous human combustion.

well, yeah, duh. If you assume an X manifold, then anything is possible on that manifold, but that's one heck of an assumption. Its assuming the existence of something for which we do not have any specific evidence for or against.

I think your argument is great, don't get me wrong, it kinda proves my point, but it does not prove that there's any special likeliness that God exists.

I know it was not your point to prove the likeliness of the existence of God, only the possibility and for what its worth I, lowly I, think you did.

[Kilyke]

So as far as we know, we have four dimensions in our limited scope. three spacial dimensions and a time dimension which composes space-time. Now, lets assume that there is another dimension (perhaps a manifold), which we will call X, that interstects with space-time at a point. Now lets suppose that something (God), existing on X affects space-time at the point of intersection. Space as well as time must be affected because the two are interlinked. From our perception, we would observe an effect seemingly without a cause.

Now, based on this shitty supposition, we have an unperceivable cause and an effect. Until you find a cause for every effect in the universe, you cannot prove that this supposition is wrong however unlikely it may be. Therefor, the existance of a God is still possible. Near as I can tell, this is not beyond cause and effect.

Im really fuckin sleepy. Someone tell me why this dosnt make sense.

toothless, I commend you sir. That was one hell of a complex thought.

Good job fallinghouse


Is this sort of like saying, well, let's assume that there is a magic wand that causes an explosion; well then its possible to have spontaneous human combustion.

well, yeah, duh. If you assume an X manifold, then anything is possible on that manifold, but that's one heck of an assumption. Its assuming the existence of something for which we do not have any specific evidence for or against.

I think your argument is great, don't get me wrong, it kinda proves my point, but it does not prove that there's any special likeliness that God exists.

I know it was not your point to prove the likeliness of the existence of God, only the possibility and for what its worth I, lowly I, think you did.


Edit: sorry, I forgot to logout my s/o

[Kilyke]

...and now I can't delete the first posting I submitted. Crap.

[zooting22]

My main goal in life is to attain unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground of being


:confused:

[knights55]

Toothless... If you believe so much in logic and cause and effect then doesn't there need to be a First Cause? Can you enlighten me on what that is... and you say all religions depend on an "active" god (not the word you used but something familiar). I am not a deist but Deism believes in a god that created the universe and now sits back and watches what happens, supposedly.

[DJ Meaty Cheeks]

what about a logical argument to believe in a god? if god doesn't exist, you don't lose anything after death. but if he does, you could be eternally punished for not believing.

That arguement is fail because how are you supposed to choose which of the mutually exclusive beliefs to buy into? Why not make up your own zany religion because hey, it may be right after all.

Reminds me of this cartoon:

http://www.angryflower.com/thussp.gif

To love another person is to see the face of god. Because we are all god in our own right, no god however is all seeing and knowing. Because we made up that idea so we'd feel better about what we can't fathom.

[Jamie "fuck constipation" Lee Curtis]

The philosophy of cosmicism states that there is no recognizable divine presence, such as God, in the universe, and that humans are particularly insignificant in the larger scheme of intergalactic existence, and perhaps are just a small species projecting their own mental idolatries onto the vast cosmos, ever susceptible to being wiped from existence at any moment. This also suggested that the majority of undiscerning humanity are creatures with the same significance as insects in a much greater struggle between greater forces which, due to humanity's small, visionless and unimportant nature, it does not recognize.

Perhaps the most prominent theme in cosmicism is the utter insignificance of humanity. Lovecraft believed that "the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'. Only egotism exists."[2] Cosmicism shares many characteristics with nihilism, though one important difference is that cosmicism tends to emphasize the inconsequentiality of humanity and its doings, rather than summarily rejecting the possible existence of some higher purpose (or purposes). For example, in Lovecraft's Cthulhu stories, it is not so much the absence of meaning that causes terror for the protagonists as it is their discovery that they have absolutely no power to effect any change in the vast, indifferent, and ultimately incomprehensible universe that surrounds them. Whatever meaning or purpose may or may not be invested in the actions of the cosmic beings in Lovecraft's stories is completely inaccessible to the human characters, in the way an amoeba (for example) is completely unequipped to grasp the concepts that drive human behavior.

I agree with this.

[mrgoodbar]

Reminds me of this cartoon:

http://www.angryflower.com/thussp.gif


hahaa

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

(The thread on Free will reminded me of this old post of mine, which I feel has relevancy and use to new posters and old.)


I'm not concerned with people who think a god or gods talk(s) to them. Nor am I concerned with people that believe that Jesus is there to save them when everything goes wrong. You guys, provided you're in that camp, are unsaveable. History will look upon you in much the same way it looks upon the Romans. That is: how can any rational person believe that shit?

No, I'm concerned with the great number of self-proclaimed agnostics I've noticed. I'm assuming that this is a side-effect of reform liberalism, but I still think it needs to be addressed. You're like a bunch of myopic progressives--you want to entertain the idea of a world without God, a god or gods, but you're too entrenched in today's society to admit it.

So, here's my thesis: if you believe in the validity of logic and its correlation to the real world (and you better; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Zoklet), you absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of a supernatural being or beings. Why? Because the existence of a supernatural being presupposes something outside of the law of cause and effect. And if anything--absolutely anything--lies beyond cause and effect, then cause and effect itself ceases to be a reliable observation.

For instance: suppose you are turning a gear, which is in turn attached to the teeth of another gear. Now obviously, the law of cause and effect will say that such-and-such gear will turn the such-and-such teeth of such-and-such gear when you apply kinetic energy to either of them, provided that they are in a logical configuration.

However, let's consider this: something is outside of the law of cause and effect. Even better, let's consider the popular idea that there's an omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence that lies beyond cause and effect, able to change it at will. If this were the case, then the action and reaction of those gears is no longer predictable. And not only those gears; nothing can be determined if anything exists outside of cause and effect. If something exists outside of cause and effect, then cause and effect becomes unreliable; which means, when you boil it down to ones and zeros, that logic itself is entirely unreliable.

Which means that you don't have machines. You don't have computers. You don't have life.

Of course, I'm sure that someone can come in and say: "What if that which lies beyond cause and effect decides not to interrupt the process?" That's all fine and dandy, except that every religion to date depends upon something outside of cause and effect in order for that religion to make any sense whatsoever. The Israelites enslaved by the egyptians? It wasn't cause and effect. It was God's Mandate, from without the material world.

Not only that tiny little fact, however, shows the fault in the "outside of cause and effect" argument. In order to justify such a statement, one must assume supreme knowledge of said supernatural being or beings. In essence, one must assume him/herself to be the supernatural being. Yet this, however much one might wish it into being, cannot possibly be the case. We ourselves are entirely bound by cause and effect in the material world, and if such a supernatural land of fairies and gremlins existed, we would never be able to comprehend it. We are bound to the world in which we exist, and that world is very plainly a law of cause and effect. Even if one could presume to know the nature of supernatural beings, he or she now has the burden of proof--for which there is none, nor will there ever be.

In addition, some agnostics may argue: "But Toothless! Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't there!" And my response: of course it doesn't mean that, but it does little to change my argument. My argument is that the validity of logic's entirety depends upon cause and effect, and anything beyond cause and effect introduces a variable that can't be predicted or factored into any cohesive argument. I could easily say that some people will be able to read this post, unless ghosts stop them from doing so! Such is the fault inherent in the agnostic argument: by introducing variables outside of logic, the process of logic itself becomes fruitless.

And, once again, I'm not interested in you goddies out there. I'm sure you're convinced that god exists because you feel a tingle in your spine whenever you go to church, which has an average temperature of 60 degrees. You guys just keep thinking that you're going to be saved, and go on trying to save people like me. I, on the other hand, would rather address real issues and solve real problems.

This post is for the agnostics of the world. And, in essence, my point is: your mind can be so open that your brain will fall out. If you claim to adhere to logic, then you simply cannot entertain the idea of the supernatural. You defeat the process in the process.

I'm on par with your point of view, but the whole point of a supreme being is just that. They are supreme beyond comprehension, and you are only guranteed their sanctuary (I think) if you have faith.

You could say that a good definition of logic is 'the best possible way understand and react with the world' (to fullfill you're own agenda, of course). But with this in mind, logic is limited to your own perspective. I'll try to explain this with an example:

You can point at an apple and say 'the apple is red', but the apple is only red because you see it as red.

Further more you can learn (from a young age) the laws of cause an effect, after all, from your perspective, it is logical that fire is hot, and if you touch it, you'll get hurt.

But what you have to remember, is that these laws are only observed by our senses, and judged upon by our intelligence, and therefore, they are only understood from our perspective.

If god is beyond human understanding, than this argument is valid. With this in mind, it's possible to believe that a supreme being is not beyond reason, just beyond our own reason.

I think I read a post by greyfox that said that his understanding of god is that god is in essense, everything. If the essense of god is everywhere, it could be argued that it is merely beyond our mental/physical reach, but still there none the less.

Good post :thumbsup:

[Obbe]

God is not something supernatural, somehow outside of nature. God is nature itself.

Logic is the science of the justification of why the now is the way it is. "Logical explanations" are metaphors of illogical experiences.