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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Toothlessjoe

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]

Originally Posted by Bensozia

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]

Originally Posted by Toothlessjoe

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Ambient]

Originally Posted by Toothlessjoe

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]

Originally Posted by Toothlessjoe

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]

Originally Posted by Bensozia

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]

Originally Posted by Slapshot

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Rust

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]

Originally Posted by Zok

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]

Originally Posted by Toothlessjoe

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]

Originally Posted by TruthWielder

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]

Originally Posted by Archetype

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]

Originally Posted by Killallthewhiteman420

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]

Originally Posted by tehporp

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]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

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

[tehporp]

Originally Posted by Archetype

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

I pity you.

[Archetype]

Originally Posted by tehporp

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]

Originally Posted by Archetype

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]

Originally Posted by tehporp

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]

Originally Posted by PirateJoe

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.