Conquer Club

Logic dictates that there is a God!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Does God exist?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby Neoteny on Wed May 26, 2010 9:12 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Lionz wrote:Player,

Are you not a creationist yourself even if you think He created humans using millions of years of violence and suffering and pain and death?

Also, how about we discuss stuff in a young earth creationism topic if you mean to claim there's no one you consider to be a young earth creationist who has put forth any real evidence?




Let it be known, I think she is a very confused person.


Is this some kind of schoolyard crush going on here?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby jay_a2j on Wed May 26, 2010 10:54 am

Neoteny wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Lionz wrote:Player,

Are you not a creationist yourself even if you think He created humans using millions of years of violence and suffering and pain and death?

Also, how about we discuss stuff in a young earth creationism topic if you mean to claim there's no one you consider to be a young earth creationist who has put forth any real evidence?




Let it be known, I think she is a very confused person.


Is this some kind of schoolyard crush going on here?



Are you serious????? I wouldn't be able to stand within earshot of her for more than 10 seconds!
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby MeDeFe on Wed May 26, 2010 3:01 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Let it be known, I think she is a very confused person.


Neoteny wrote:Is this some kind of schoolyard crush going on here?

Looks like there is.

jay_a2j wrote:Are you serious????? I wouldn't be able to stand within earshot of her for more than 10 seconds!
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby MrBenn on Wed May 26, 2010 4:31 pm

Logic dictates that some things are unprovable. The existence of God (or gods, for that matter) is therefore a matter of Faith (or faiths) than logic.
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby WidowMakers on Wed May 26, 2010 5:18 pm

Attention: This will be a long post. It will be long because there is much to say. These questions do not have two sentence answers. They is much to think about and setup required to properly go over the topics. If it is too long then by all means stop reading. But I just want to let everyone know I don’t just right stuff for fun and because I am bored. I am writing this because I feel it is important and that trying to put it into 4 little paragraphs and 300 words would not do the topic justice.

“---------------------------------------------------------“
Why I am writing this:
Before I get to the topic at hand I would like to say (or write) a few things.

I will get to explaining myself and viewpoint again but with hopes to do it more clearly. I will go over all my sections again. I think that my new responses will be able to answer any of MeDeFe’s questions from his post. If not, I will go back and answer them as well. And also Player, our posts tend to get “quote” crazy (lol). So instead of re-quoting our 45 quote post, I will try to answer your questions in my writing below. Many of your responses were short and very specific and I will try to get them all. But in case I do miss any, please don’t think I am trying to ignore the response.

And while I know many of you might think I am crazy or delusional for holding my beliefs, I try not to ignore any question. I do disagree with many of you and what you believe but not blindly disagree. It has come to my attention and understanding (after much posting) that I am not going to convince any of you differently about your beliefs. You don’t know me, I don’t know you. We don’t have the same type of relationship as growing up friends, coworkers, or family does. It is very hard to convince other people on an internet forum that they might be wrong. Automatically a shield goes up and we all defend out belief and don’t stop to think or really read what the other person is saying. It takes trust and time to be able to listen to a person and question whether they are right or wrong.

All I am trying to do is express my reasoning and rational towards why and what I believe. If you choose to listen then great, but if you choose to ignore then ok as well. Whether I am right/wrong or you are right/wrong or we are both wrong, we are only responsible for ourselves. We need to look at others viewpoints and see if they make sense. We should view others ideas and compare them to ours and see if our views hold up. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t but we owe it to ourselves in every facet of life to understand why we believe and make sure we can explain that to others. That is what I am attempting to do.

I don’t want you to think I just am stating things I was told as a child and have not thought them through. While many of my beliefs stem from my childhood, the reason that I have them now is due to the fact that I have made them my own. Not by ignoring others opinions/views or trying to shut out things I disagree with, but by looking at everything I come across and seeing if it checks out with what I see around me (reality, nature, my mind, etc). There are numerous topics from the discussion here at CC that has made me question my faith and ideas of how the world works. I have spent much time researching and reading alternative perspective and viewpoints of various topics. I believe what I believe, not because my parents, friends or church told me but, based on experiences and looking at all the facts.

Why do you believe things:
    -What makes the most sense? Why?
    -When I look at the ENTIRE picture of a topic, do my views and beliefs fit all that we see?
    -Am I being honest with myself in how I view different scenarios?
    -Do I ignore views that might have merit because I don’t wish them to be true?
    -Are there other explanations that I refuse to look at because the compromise my previous beliefs?
    -Do I try to sit back and view things for what they are or do I try to bend things to what I want?

And I, by NO MEANS, am exempt from these questions above! If I am honest with myself I always need to be open and fair to alternative opinions. It is the only way that I can learn and truly understand if I really should believe what I believe. We all need to approach these topics this way, with respect and an open mind. Not to attack each other but to present and contrast views for better understanding.

But not everyone can be correct. There are some views that, based on their makeup, do not allow alternative views to exist. These we need to make special care to understand for ourselves. Because disagreeing with a view because you don’t like it, does not make that view wrong. Dislike for a view does not render that view wrong. And thus here we are to this discussion. One side is right and one is wrong. There either is a supernatural or there is not.

So while I do enjoy this debating and discussion about various topics that I feel (and you do as well) are important, I don’t want to keep going round and round rehashing the same stuff.

I plan, to the best of my ability, to state my purpose for this post and then let it be.
We can still keep talking but my 10,000 word posts are done (I know I already said that before). I just don’t want to be perceived as a guy who just wants to mentally fight and cause problems for the sake of problems.

Ok, onto the discussion.
“----------------------------------------------------------------“
I am going to try and answer all posts with this post. I probably did not state my post thesis well enough initially and that might have caused some confusion.

Thesis:
The atheistic naturalism/materialism view our universe cannot account for all things that we know to exist when analyzed and walked through step by step.

i.e. it does not account for everything we can know, feel, experience, conceive, imagine, morality, etc.
There just are things that are beyond this realm of the physical.

“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Definitions:
My purpose for all these definitions was not to take up more posting space or waste your time reading. It was to make sure we are all on the same page as far as what I am trying to say. There have been too many times that opinions vary from person to person due to a differing view on the definition of words used in the discussion. My hope is that by listing these out and referring to them as I go through my argument, any confusion towards what I specifically mean will be averted.

Atheism is commonly described as:
    (1) the position that there are no deities.
    (2) the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
    (3) the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that:
    (1) nature is all there is and whatever exists or happens is natural;
    (2) nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, mathematical laws, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist independently of the brain but are still somehow immanent in the physical structure of the universe;
    (3) nature operates by natural processes that follow natural laws and can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and
    (4) the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernatural is not real.

Materialism holds that:
    (1) the only thing that exists is matter;
    (2) that all things are composed of material and
    (3) all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

logic
    1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
    2. A system of reasoning

Reasoning
    The cognitive process of looking for reasons, beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings.

Cognition
    1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
    2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.
    3. The process of thought.

Thoughts
    1. Forms created in the mind, rather than the forms perceived through the five senses.
    2. Thought and thinking are the processes by which these imaginary sense perceptions arise and are manipulated.

Moral relativismis the philosophy that maintains that:
    (1) morality is relative and that people should try to be good, but only by following their own consciences.
    (2) the view that moral or ethical statements, which vary from person to person, are all equally valid and no one’s opinion of “right and wrong” is really better than any other. Moral relativism is a broader, more personally applied form of other types of relativistic thinking, such as cultural relativism.

Cultural relativism is the view that
    (1) no culture is superior to any other culture when comparing systems of morality, law, politics, etc.
    (2) all cultural beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the cultural environment.

immaterial
    1. not material; incorporeal; spiritual.
    2. not made up of matter and energy

“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Logic:

1.Can logic be explained with an atheistic naturalism/materialism (ANM) viewpoint?

As stated in the definitions above, an atheist believes there is no god and a naturalistic/materialistic person says that all there is nature (matter/energy) and that all that happens can be explained with the physical structure of the universe.

Based on my time here (and with other atheists) this seems to be the main viewpoint of them in regards to their beliefs. Nothing outside nature, science can explain and account for everything.

Per the definitions above, logic is a study of reasoning that uses mental processes of the mind. So does logic exist if minds don’t? Did logic exist before man evolved? If all of mankind died right now, would logic stop existing? If there are aliens out there and all of them died, and all other life was burned up in a giant explosion, would logic still exist?
Basically if nothing existed that had the capacity to have a mind and thus thoughts (i.e hydrogen or cobalt or other elements of compounds) would logic cease to exist?

The answer is no. Logic is not depended on humans or aliens or any other thing in our universe in order for it to exist.

Here again are the 3 laws of logic. They are concepts. According to the ANM view, they somehow exist in the physical universe we live in. But if all that existed in our universe was 1 hydrogen atom, they would still be valid. They would not very useful to us since we would not be here but still, no the less, valid.

3 Basic Laws of Logic
    1. The law of identity: p is p
    2. The law of non-contradiction: p and not-p cannot be true at the same time (i.e. It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time cannot be true)
    3. The law of the excluded middle: p or not-p must be true (i.e. either it is raining or it is not raining)

So…..
-The Laws of Logic exist
-The Laws of logic are immaterial, they are not the product of the universe
Logic is not made of matter or energy
-The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds
The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists.
-The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature
Logic is a process of the mind
-The Laws of logic are transcendent
The laws of logic are not dependent upon the universe since they are true whether or not the universe exists.
They are true no matter where you go in the universe and they are true no matter when you exist in the universe.
The laws of logic are conceptual, and transcendent.
Since the laws of logic are conceptual, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is transcendent.

Therefore, there is a transcendent mind in existence.

How do you account for logic? If you hold a ANM view then you must figure out how to explain the existence of logic in the physical realm. How do you do that? What makes up the laws of logic. What physical process developed them? Why are they here?


“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Math:

2.Can mathematics be explained with an atheistic naturalism/materialism (ANM) viewpoint?

Math is very similar to logic in that:
-Principles of math are immaterial i.e. not a product of our universe (matter/energy)
-The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds
They exist whether we do or not. The concept of 2+2 = 4 existed before us and will exist after us.
-Principles of math are conceptual.
Math is found in nature but the concept is a process of thought which is based on a mind.
-Principles of math are transcendent
They are true whether or not the universe exists. i.e. 2 things + 2 things always = 4 things

It is always said that mathematics is the universal language. That can only be possible if it is always the same. Which it is.
Math is conceptual, and transcendent.
Same argument as logic.
Since the principles of mathematics are conceptual, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the principles of mathematics is transcendent.
Therefore, there is a transcendent mind in existence.

How do you account for math? If you hold a ANM view then you must figure out how to explain the existence of logic in the physical realm. How do you do that? What makes up the principles of math. What physical process developed them? Why are they here?

“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Science:

3.Can the laws of nature (physical science) be explained with an atheistic naturalism/materialism (ANM) viewpoint?

Now before I go deep into this point I want to make myself clear. I am not trying to say that science cannot explain how stuff works and why it works. I mean that is crazy. We can all do science every day. We can observe and understand why things work.

What I am trying to say that the ANM view cannot explain where science comes from and why it IS repeatable.

According to the ANM view, our universe and all in it came about by chance. There was no direction or intelligence involved.
So basically my questions are, why don’t the laws of nature (science) change randomly and why did they stop changing (since they came from randomness) to make our universe possible?
    -Well if everything started randomly, why did it stop being random?
    -Why do we have consistent laws of science?
    -Why do certain quantities of elements make compounds?
    -Why does light work the way it does? Not how does it work but why?
    -Why is it that so many things just happened randomly and then stopped being random and fit in such a perfect way that the universe can exist?
    -What keeps them from changing?
    -What program or information at the beginning, setup the laws in which they are today?
    -How could random chance produce (out of “nothing”) an ordered system that obeys the laws we see today?

And how could something come out of nothing. If there was truly nothing and I mean nothing. No quantum vacuum, no foam, no particles, nothing, how could anything ever come out of that? A vacuum is something. Particles are something. Space is something. According to the ANM view, we still need something, no matter how small, to get things going. Quantum mechanics and all that stuff still requires that there be energy or quantum fluctuations to start the process. That does not sound like nothing to me.

It makes no sense that order and structure from “nothing” could happen. Based on that it only makes sense to think that the order, structure and rules from which the physical universe operates and functions must have been planned. And if it was planned it could not have been planned inside the universe that it functions in. Therefore whatever planned, ordered or designed the laws of science and how they work, must exist outside of them.

Therefore an intelligence (i.e. mind) beyond science must exists outside our universe.

The laws of science are ordered and intelligently put in place.

“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Morality:

4.Can morality be explained with an atheistic naturalism/materialism (ANM) viewpoint?

I know this has been beat to death and covered in many areas. But since it was part of my post to explain why I believe there is a God out there, I will continue.

These two definitions have been posted above, Moral relativism and Cultural relativism. Basically these state that morals vary from person to person and from culture to culture. No viewpoint is better or worse than any other. Do you agree with this?

By stating that there are no absolute morals then, by elimination of options, there are only relative morals. Many people in posts have said this. I know that the ANM view is that there are no absolutes and that society decides what is right and wrong. So there we have the setup. All things moral are relative to people and places and times and not absolute.

The problem I have with this is that it is not practiced by ANYONE. If everyone was truly honest with themselves they would agree that there are things that a person could (or has) done to them that they objected to. Has anyone ever lied to you? Stole from you? Hit you? Hurt you? Slandered you? Has anything ever been done that you object to but the other party does it anyway?

How do you explain your dislike for these actions against you? If morals are relative and that person wants to do something, how can your view (which is also relative to you) contradict the opposing view and be correct? You see if both parties feel they are correct and based on the actions, only 1 party is happy or pleased with the outcome, how can both views be correct? It makes no sense

EXAMPLE 1: Let’s look at the expansion of North America
Did the settlers do good or ill towards the native Americas? Was it ok for the Europeans to kill them to expand their territories in the New World? If so, then the native Americans must have agreed that it was OK. But we all know they did not. Their view was opposed to the Europeans. They did not want to be killed and have their land taken. Why not? Who was right and who was wrong? Was it wrong for the government and settlers to kill native Americans for land? The government said it was good. The settlers said it was good. Society said it was good. So it must have been good correct?

EXAMPLE 2: World War 2
Why did everyone make such a big deal about Hitler attacking Poland. Germany was obviously a stronger government and power. They felt it was OK and within their right to take the land. Was that ok? NO!!!! They also felt it was OK to kill 6 million Jews. Was that OK? NO!!!!! Why not? Hitler had views that it was. Other people had views that it wasn’t. Who was right? Again, we have two views on the same issue that cannot exist together at the same time. Once of them must not be true.

EXAMPLE 3: September 11th
Why was the USA so angry with the plane crashes? It was angry because over 3,000 people died and New York was in chaos. Terrorists attacked the USA on their home soil and to say we were angry does not give the actual emotion justice. But they were justified in their beliefs to kill us and we are justified in our beliefs to be against our destruction. Who was correct?

There are many more examples of war and opposing sides killing, stealing and causing destruction throughout human history. There are always at least two sides to a conflict. Both sides can justify themselves whether it be the aggressor or the defender. But the common things are that the views of what is right and wrong are not shared. And if the views of what is right and wrong are not shared, then there we have a relativistic viewpoint of the situation. SO is anyone wrong ever?

    -Does strength determine correctness?
    -Does the majority determine correctness?
    -Does evolution determine correctness?
If any of these can be said to be true, then as long as you are part of the stronger majority, you can justify anything.

Is slavery wrong? I say yes. I would not want to be put into slavery thus I need to hold that I cannot think it is good for another to be put into slavery.
Is rape wrong? I says yes again for the same reason about slavery. I would not want it to happen to me thus don’t want it to happen to others.
Is stealing my land wrong? Again yes for the same reasons.
Is my family being killed by a bomb or overtaking army wrong? Yes again.

See some things are wrong, regardless of your social status, origin of birth, language you speak, food you eat, job you have, whatever. Some things are just always wrong. But why are these things always wrong?
(ALSO: If you still think that these things are ok and that nothing is ever absolutely wrong, please explain and justify why. And remember if you believe that nothing is absolute and all things can be justified, don’t get mad if you are ever stolen from or attacked or hurt in any way by another individual)

But if we all agree that the things above are always wrong, then where did those ideas of wrongness come from?

MEN: They can’t be wrong because a man or group of men said so because a man or group of men can disagree. Hence all the wars and killing and stealing and disagreements throughout history. So men's views cannot be the source of the absolute morality we have.

EVOLUTION: Nope. There is no way that a random thing could produce a set of absolute morals. Evolution at its core is not specific or guided in any way. So there is no way to show that this random thing could have produced a common absolute thing inside of each one of us. Because if it was, then we could expect that humans could evolve to grow out of our current set of ethics. Thus in the future it would be ok (from both sides of the arguments) for slavery, murder, rape, etc. I am pretty sure that regardless of the time in history (past/present/future), the person getting the action towards them would not feel happy or satisfied with the arrangement.

THE GENERAL UNIVERSE (Space/Matter/Energy): There seems to be no reason that the universe is the source of our morals. Pretty easy to say that.

To summarize:
    1).There are actions and choices people make that we all agree are wrong. (slavery, rape,murder)
    2).If there are things we all agree as to be wrong, they are absolutes.
    3).If Men and evolution and the ANM view cannot account for the absolute morals, they must come from somewhere else.

Absolute morals exist.

I believe they exist because God exists.

“----------------------------------------------------------------“
SUMMARY:

So finally to summarize the entire post I feel that based on what we see in logic, math, science, and morality, there must be a supernatural being out there.

    1)The laws of logic are conceptual, and transcendent.
    2)Math is conceptual, and transcendent.
    3)The laws of science are ordered and intelligently put in place.
    4)Absolute morals exist.

None of these can be explained within the confines of the ANM viewpoint.
If we combine these aspects of just 4 things, we see that something is beyond out universe. Only a transcendent, mindful, intelligent, ordered, logical, absolute being could account for all of these 4 things to exist.

They exist, therefore I say God exists.

Thank You.


To MeDeFe:

I do believe that I answered your 4 questions quite well but just in case
    1)Where do they come from if not from a supernatural source?
    2)I did explain what I meant immaterial. I hope I cleared it up.
    3)I think I did a better job of explaining what I meant about the laws of science.
    4)Can’t say much more than I already did in section 4.

Hope I was able to answer your questions.
And I think most of Player's were answered as well.
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby jay_a2j on Wed May 26, 2010 9:42 pm

Read every word. That has to be the most well thought out reasoning in favor of the existence of God I have ever seen. Well done sir. =D>
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby jonesthecurl on Wed May 26, 2010 11:37 pm

1: logic. A summary of your argument:
Logic would exist if there were no minds. Therefore there's a supernatural mind. Uh, no.
Logic is an attempt to understand the universe. It is a product of the mind. And you can get nothing out of logic that you didn't put in. The universe appears to work in certain ways, and logic is a tool we have devised to determine what those ways are. BTW, your "logical laws" are highly questionable. The world is not binary.

2. Mathematics. Mathematics is a way of describing the universe, a sort of language. It is similarly a human invention, a tool. It is an attempt to describe the universe, not an intrinsic part of it.

3. Science: you just seem to be making random statements and questions here.

3. Morals : if there was such a thing as "Absolute Morals", then why in one time and place is slavery perceived as being fine, part of god's plan, but homosexuality is a sin deserving of eternal damnation, but in another time and place both slavery and homosexuality are fine, and in a third slavery is evil but homosexuality is fine? We can again try to give a reasonable basis for morals 0- whether it be god's word, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or the golden rule. But these rules do not come from outside us.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4600
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby WidowMakers on Thu May 27, 2010 4:49 am

jonesthecurl wrote:1: logic. A summary of your argument:
Logic would exist if there were no minds. Therefore there's a supernatural mind. Uh, no.
Logic is an attempt to understand the universe. It is a product of the mind. And you can get nothing out of logic that you didn't put in. The universe appears to work in certain ways, and logic is a tool we have devised to determine what those ways are. BTW, your "logical laws" are highly questionable. The world is not binary.

2. Mathematics. Mathematics is a way of describing the universe, a sort of language. It is similarly a human invention, a tool. It is an attempt to describe the universe, not an intrinsic part of it.

3. Science: you just seem to be making random statements and questions here.

3. Morals : if there was such a thing as "Absolute Morals", then why in one time and place is slavery perceived as being fine, part of god's plan, but homosexuality is a sin deserving of eternal damnation, but in another time and place both slavery and homosexuality are fine, and in a third slavery is evil but homosexuality is fine? We can again try to give a reasonable basis for morals 0- whether it be god's word, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or the golden rule. But these rules do not come from outside us.


Well you have completely misquoted me to twist my words and have ignored my questions. I will try to respond later today.
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu May 27, 2010 12:59 pm

Not ignoring your post widowmaker, I just spent most of my kids' naptime replying, only I forgot to copy it before hitting "submit" :( . So... I just don't have the energy, or time right now to redo it. I will, when I can.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby Maugena on Thu May 27, 2010 9:57 pm

WidowMakers wrote:-The Laws of logic are immaterial, they are not the product of the universe

I beg to differ.
We know of only one reality.
The universe, being all there is, is reality.
The universe and the laws that it follows are one in the same. They define each other, it could be said.
You cannot fathom an alternate reality. A real alternate reality. It is beyond everyone's comprehension, forever and ever simply because we are bound to this reality. (I am not speaking of an alternate reality in which some rules may or may not be the same. In any case, if there is even a single rule in an alternate reality that does not apply here and will never apply here, you are forever incapable of comprehending it.)

WidowMakers wrote:-Principles of math are immaterial i.e. not a product of our universe (matter/energy)

The principles of math, yet again, come from the universe.
Everything that we observe is a product of the universe.
There are no exceptions.

WidowMakers wrote:According to the ANM view, our universe and all in it came about by chance.

Chance?
You ruled out the whole "it has always existed and it shall always exist" idea?
I mean, that's a big concept of the christian god, is it not?

And in regards to morals.
They were established so the community could coexist instead of crumble beneath its own selfishness, in my opinion.
I really would say that all that morals really boil down to is an idea that limits selfishness. (In the case that everyone is not mentally ill and is not a danger to society through their sickness.)

I hope this throws you for a loop, because a large portion of what you said... assumes things.

Edit:
WidowMakers wrote:EVOLUTION: Nope. There is no way that a random thing could produce a set of absolute morals. Evolution at its core is not specific or guided in any way. So there is no way to show that this random thing could have produced a common absolute thing inside of each one of us. Because if it was, then we could expect that humans could evolve to grow out of our current set of ethics. Thus in the future it would be ok (from both sides of the arguments) for slavery, murder, rape, etc. I am pretty sure that regardless of the time in history (past/present/future), the person getting the action towards them would not feel happy or satisfied with the arrangement.

Lolusrs?
Our morals have evolved over time, in case ya haven't noticed.
Oh. That and they're different in each culture.
Commonality from morals come from common wants in ourselves.
Morals didn't just poof into existance.
We made them because we wanted order in place of chaos.
Renewed yet infused with apathy.
Let's just have a good time, all right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
User avatar
New Recruit Maugena
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby WidowMakers on Fri May 28, 2010 5:10 am

jonesthecurl wrote:1: logic. A summary of your argument:
Logic would exist if there were no minds. Therefore there's a supernatural mind. Uh, no.
Logic is an attempt to understand the universe. It is a product of the mind. And you can get nothing out of logic that you didn't put in. The universe appears to work in certain ways, and logic is a tool we have devised to determine what those ways are. BTW, your "logical laws" are highly questionable. The world is not binary.

2. Mathematics. Mathematics is a way of describing the universe, a sort of language. It is similarly a human invention, a tool. It is an attempt to describe the universe, not an intrinsic part of it.

3. Science: you just seem to be making random statements and questions here.

3. Morals : if there was such a thing as "Absolute Morals", then why in one time and place is slavery perceived as being fine, part of god's plan, but homosexuality is a sin deserving of eternal damnation, but in another time and place both slavery and homosexuality are fine, and in a third slavery is evil but homosexuality is fine? We can again try to give a reasonable basis for morals 0- whether it be god's word, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or the golden rule. But these rules do not come from outside us.


Well as I stated earlier, you completely misquoted and twisted my words.

1.I never said that “Logic would exist if there were no minds”. I said logic exists if there are no human minds. If logic is a tool then if we did not exist, neither would it. And that is false. Logic exists whether we do or not. It may be a tool but we did not invent it.

Are you saying that before humans, the laws of logic did not apply and that things could be both p and not p at the same time? Before humans, could a star be a star and not a star at the same time. (logical law)

And I never said the world is binary. All I am stating is that some of the logical laws are.

Example:
Humans exist >> A hydrogen atom cannot be a hydrogen atom and NOT a hydrogen atom at the same time. Correct. That is logical.
Humans DON’T exist >> A hydrogen atom cannot be a hydrogen atom and NOT a hydrogen atom at the same time. Correct. That is logical.

Human existence does not dictate logic. Logic is defined not created. Names, words and statements about logic are mane by man but those words themselves describe what is there, they are not responsible for bringing logic into being.

Logic CANNOT be the product of the human mind if it existed before human minds.

2.If math is a tool we invented then it did not exist before we invented it right? So before man 2+2=what? If it was invented then 2 did not exist and the square root of 16 did not exist. Math existed before man, we discovered it. Where did it come from and what is it made of? Why is it here?

Example:
Humans exist >> 2+2=4, the sqrrt of 16 = 4, 5*6=30. These are correct math statements.
Humans DON’T exist >> 2+2=4, the sqrrt of 16 = 4, 5*6=30. These are correct math statements.

Human existence does not determine mathematics. Math was discovered not created. Math is proven not created. Names and theorems to describe how it works are derived but the derivation of them does not bring the math behind them into existence.

We refer to math as a universal language. We send out signals with prime numbers in hope that other life will see it and understand. If math was a product of our minds, why would we think that other minds would understand? We know that math is universal and transcendent.

Mathematics CANNOT be the product of the human mind if it existed before human minds.


3.Then you did not read the post carefully. I was asking why things happen the way they do. Explain how out of random chaos and disorder, a completely ordered and intricate system of laws, rules, parameters and fine tuned pieces fit together. Why do things exist the way they do?

Plus I was not questions for the sake of typing words. I wanted people to actually answer them.
I would like an atheistic naturalism explanation as to why the universe is so ordered and setup by random chance and chaos.

4. So 9/11 was ok? Hitler in WW2 was justified and right? Killing native Americans for land was ok too then correct? You ignored my questions and post and went straight to misquoting the Bible to support your idea that the Bible is wrong and contradictory and therefore there are no moral absolutes.

This sums it up well. http://www.gotquestions.org/bible-slavery.html

The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families.

“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

Plus my point was not to quote the Bible, you brought that up. Oh and God never designed man to be homosexuals. He created man and woman and that they should be made as one.

I was showing there are things that happen to each of us or our societies or friends that we don’t like. There are moral conflicts. Human opinions do not dictate correctness.
WHO IS RIGHT?
WHO DECIDEDS WHAT IS CORRECT?

If man is truly the deciding factor of right and wrong, then nothing it truly ever right or wrong since given enough power, money, time, or sheer numbers, humans can justify anything they want. That makes no sense and if you are honest with yourself, you don't believe that either.
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby WidowMakers on Fri May 28, 2010 5:18 am

Maugena wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:-The Laws of logic are immaterial, they are not the product of the universe

I beg to differ.
We know of only one reality.
The universe, being all there is, is reality.
The universe and the laws that it follows are one in the same. They define each other, it could be said.
You cannot fathom an alternate reality. A real alternate reality. It is beyond everyone's comprehension, forever and ever simply because we are bound to this reality. (I am not speaking of an alternate reality in which some rules may or may not be the same. In any case, if there is even a single rule in an alternate reality that does not apply here and will never apply here, you are forever incapable of comprehending it.)

WidowMakers wrote:-Principles of math are immaterial i.e. not a product of our universe (matter/energy)

The principles of math, yet again, come from the universe.
Everything that we observe is a product of the universe.
There are no exceptions.

Then what are logic and math made of? If they are a product of our universe then when did they come to be and what made them?
I say they are transcendent you say they are not.
I have given my reasoning for why they are.
Please give me your reasoning for why they are not.

Show me where in the universe Math and logic were created. Even an idea.
If math and logic are products and creations of our universe, then before they existed, their principles were not valid since they were not around. Correct?

Maugena wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:According to the ANM view, our universe and all in it came about by chance.

Chance?
You ruled out the whole "it has always existed and it shall always exist" idea?
I mean, that's a big concept of the christian god, is it not?


The universe could not have always existed. Entropy. If it was infinite it would have used all of its energy. Plus if the universe did have an infinite past, we could never get to today because an infinite amount of time would have needed to pass to get from infinity past to today. Even scientists today say the universe had a beginning, I just disagree with them on the origin.
Last edited by WidowMakers on Fri May 28, 2010 4:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby Snorri1234 on Fri May 28, 2010 1:25 pm

WidowMakers wrote:
1.I never said that “Logic would exist if there were no minds”. I said logic exists if there are no human minds. If logic is a tool then if we did not exist, neither would it. And that is false. Logic exists whether we do or not. It may be a tool but we did not invent it.

Are you saying that before humans, the laws of logic did not apply and that things could be both p and not p at the same time? Before humans, could a star be a star and not a star at the same time. (logical law)


Logic is a system based entirely on itself. It is completely derived from definitions and axioms we assume. Much like math. 2+2=4 is not some fundamental law of the universe, it's simply a case of definition. In a different universe where things could be p and not p at the same time or where two things added to eachother become three things it wouldn't change the fact that our math and logic systems are still objectively true.

But they're true in the same way that the statement "a bachelor is unmarried" is true. It is defined as such.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby jay_a2j on Fri May 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Maugena wrote:I beg to differ.
We know of only one reality.
The universe, being all there is, is reality.
The universe and the laws that it follows are one in the same. They define each other, it could be said.
You cannot fathom an alternate reality. A real alternate reality. It is beyond everyone's comprehension, forever and ever simply because we are bound to this reality. (I am not speaking of an alternate reality in which some rules may or may not be the same. In any case, if there is even a single rule in an alternate reality that does not apply here and will never apply here, you are forever incapable of comprehending it.)




This is entirely speculation. "We KNOW of one reality" does not mean there is no reality beyond what we know of.
"You can not fathom an alternate reality" Really? Hollywood does it all the time, it's called science fiction.
And you have made absolute statements as if it has been proven that the only reality is what we already know of. Christopher Columbus already proved that to be wrong as well as many others.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby Frigidus on Fri May 28, 2010 3:09 pm

jay_a2j wrote:And you have made absolute statements as if it has been proven


Oh man, you totally can't talk about that.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby jonesthecurl on Fri May 28, 2010 3:50 pm

Frigidus wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:And you have made absolute statements as if it has been proven


Oh man, you totally can't talk about that.

:lol:
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4600
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby Maugena on Fri May 28, 2010 5:59 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Then what are logic and math made of? If they are a product of our universe then when did they come to be and what made them?
I say they are transcendent you say they are not.
I have given my reasoning for why they are.
Please give me your reasoning for why they are not.

I firmly believe that the universe did not begin and nor will it end.
This so called "dark energy" theory makes me laugh, to be honest.
Matter will always be attracted to matter. That's a fact.
Also. What was that one law of physics... oh yes. "you cannot create or destroy matter/energy?"

WidowMakers wrote:Show me where in the universe Math and logic were created. Even an idea.
If math and logic are products and creations of our universe, then before they existed, their principles were not valid since they were not around. Correct?

I kinda already said that the universe and the laws it goes by are one in the same. And yes, to your question, assuming the universe did not always exist.

WidowMakers wrote:The universe could not have always existed. Entropy. If it was infinite it would have used all of its energy. Plus if the universe did have an infinite past, we could never get to today because an infinite amount of time would have needed to pass to get from infinity past to today. Even scientists today say the universe had a beginning, I just disagree with them on the origin.

How would you know?
Need I remind you... "You cannot create or destroy matter/energy."
You're also assuming that time is real. That's a tough concept to swallow, I know, but I don't think that time is real.
Renewed yet infused with apathy.
Let's just have a good time, all right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
User avatar
New Recruit Maugena
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby Maugena on Fri May 28, 2010 6:04 pm

jay_a2j wrote:This is entirely speculation. "We KNOW of one reality" does not mean there is no reality beyond what we know of.
"You can not fathom an alternate reality" Really? Hollywood does it all the time, it's called science fiction.
And you have made absolute statements as if it has been proven that the only reality is what we already know of. Christopher Columbus already proved that to be wrong as well as many others.

Hollywood does not.
You seem to have absolutely no idea as to what I'm getting at, here.
My definition of an alternate reality is where there are rules there that are not present here. Hence: alternate.
Hollywood just does fantasy and a whole lot of what-if's.
You cannot think outside of the box, the box being the universe. It is impossible.
Renewed yet infused with apathy.
Let's just have a good time, all right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
User avatar
New Recruit Maugena
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby jay_a2j on Fri May 28, 2010 6:25 pm

Frigidus wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:And you have made absolute statements as if it has been proven


Oh man, you totally can't talk about that.



Just like the media, pulling stuff out of context. Your credibility is plummeting.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby jay_a2j on Fri May 28, 2010 6:28 pm

Maugena wrote: It is impossible.


Obviously, you don't know my God. ;)
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby Maugena on Fri May 28, 2010 6:32 pm

jay_a2j wrote:
Maugena wrote: It is impossible.


Obviously, you don't know my God. ;)

I doubt you even know your "god".
Renewed yet infused with apathy.
Let's just have a good time, all right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
User avatar
New Recruit Maugena
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri May 28, 2010 6:56 pm

WidowMakers --
First, I thank you for taking the time to read and answer posts. I have always found you respectful, and even if you don't agree, feel you do consider everything people say to you.

I don't have time for a full answer tonight (most likely won't until next week.. family stuff). However, one thing I did want to say. I don't consider you at all crazy. Partly, I share some of your beliefs, partly, well.. disagreeing doesn't make you crazy.

However, it is apparent that you often used definitions that superficially seem similar to what is used in the "wider world", but when you delve down are not really. In fact, you use definitions and sometimes words that are created specifically by conservative Christians and often specifically so they can define and idea and then disparage it.

Problem is, those definitions don't really and truly apply to much of anyone. One example was your reference, a few months ago to "scientificism". Now you bring in this term "naturalism", etc.

Here is the deal. If you want to talk Evolution, try reading what evolutionists really and truly say and don't think you are going to get a clear understanding by just reading what Creationist websites say. Here, you make similar errors. You want to define this narrow world, but you won't step back and realize that you are only talking about your own defintions, not reality.

Take your first assumption. Logic is not this "thing" that exists "out there" and was somehow to be "dicovered", like a new plant or animal species. It is a tool. It is a tool that human beings created, largely to help us avoid heavy bias that we all have inherently. It was created to distinguish between emotion and other things, not just things that can be proven, but things that can be categorized, etc. Logic is not anything but a tool. What you are referring to when you talk about "logic must have always been" is not really logic itself, it is the discoveries, some of the conclusions that humans have made through logic.

Your next error is in limit of experience. Take the rain/not rain bit. Seems simple, except.. it might be raining here, but not over there. I might be raining, stop, start again, then trickle. What if it is misting? What if the rain begins to freeze, when, exactly, does it stop being rain and become sleet.. or snow? Even in such a simple answer, there is not real and true simple answer unless you use a lot more words to define it.

These are errors you make over and over and over. It is great that you do put out definitions. Then at least we can get a jiist of what you intend. However, if you go creating your own definitions for words, you wind up miscommunicating. Not everyone will read the definitions. Most people feel they have a pretty good grasp of English and won't necessarily look for a definition of something as well-defined already as "logic", etc.

Its worse when you create your own words or use words created by a portion of the Christian community. As above, usually those definitions have only one purpose, to allow speakers to frame thier arguments narrowly. Problem is that works in many cases, because a lot of people just don't know enough about these subjects. You offer a definition of "naturalism" and they get this vague idea. Yoy define it and they assume, oh, that applies to this group of people over there. Except, it really doesn't. But, its a trap. You take the time to talk to one person, find that they meet part of the definition, but not the reast and ... well, "they are an exception". I am commonly considered an "exception". However, in truth the main way I am an exception is that I speak more openly than most about what I think. Here, in this forum, you have a group of people who are pretty well informed and very well schooled at looking through arguments to find the truth.

If you want to engage again, I suggest you stop at the first paragraph, the first definition. Not because your post is too long, but because you go on and on, piling assumption after assumption. When the first part is wrong, the rest is as well. Better to just start with the first part and then go on.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby WidowMakers on Fri May 28, 2010 7:32 pm

Maugena wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Then what are logic and math made of? If they are a product of our universe then when did they come to be and what made them?
I say they are transcendent you say they are not.
I have given my reasoning for why they are.
Please give me your reasoning for why they are not.

I firmly believe that the universe did not begin and nor will it end.
This so called "dark energy" theory makes me laugh, to be honest.
Matter will always be attracted to matter. That's a fact.
Also. What was that one law of physics... oh yes. "you cannot create or destroy matter/energy?"

WidowMakers wrote:Show me where in the universe Math and logic were created. Even an idea.
If math and logic are products and creations of our universe, then before they existed, their principles were not valid since they were not around. Correct?

I kinda already said that the universe and the laws it goes by are one in the same. And yes, to your question, assuming the universe did not always exist.

WidowMakers wrote:The universe could not have always existed. Entropy. If it was infinite it would have used all of its energy. Plus if the universe did have an infinite past, we could never get to today because an infinite amount of time would have needed to pass to get from infinity past to today. Even scientists today say the universe had a beginning, I just disagree with them on the origin.

How would you know?
Need I remind you... "You cannot create or destroy matter/energy."
You're also assuming that time is real. That's a tough concept to swallow, I know, but I don't think that time is real.


The Universe exists

1. The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
2. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
3. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

This was the point I was trying to make about how an infinite past is impossible. The universe had to start somehow.

Some chose to think it started itself. (impossible since nothing cannot be the cause of something
I choose to think something outside of it existed and started it.
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri May 28, 2010 7:35 pm

WidowMakers wrote:[
The Universe exists

1. The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.

First, this is not necessarily true.
Second, even if it is, you still have to explain where God came from. Saying "he was always here" (what I believe, of course) is not an answer, because the problem of God's origin is exactly the same as the beginning of the universe. The only other possibility is that God lies outside our universe, but then you have another beginning to explain.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Postby Maugena on Fri May 28, 2010 8:08 pm

WidowMakers wrote: 1. The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.

This. THIS. Made me laugh my ass off.
How can you say that "god" has always existed?
Was he created?
PLAYER57832 wrote:First, this is not necessarily true.
Second, even if it is, you still have to explain where God came from. Saying "he was always here" (what I believe, of course) is not an answer, because the problem of God's origin is exactly the same as the beginning of the universe. The only other possibility is that God lies outside our universe, but then you have another beginning to explain.

I'm loving WidowMakers, PLAYER57832. He's got a great sense of humor.

There are things that sentient beings will never be able to understand, let alone comprehend.
Is matter infinitely small? (How can you comprehend that? Can you actually understand that?)
Is the universe infinitely large? (How can you comprehend that? Can you actually understand that?)
Was there a beginning, and if so, how did it happen, and why? (How can you comprehend that? Can you actually understand that?)
Need I go on?

My suggestion to WidowMakers is to take a lot of philosophy courses that aren't biased one way or another.
Then come back here and discuss again.
Renewed yet infused with apathy.
Let's just have a good time, all right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
User avatar
New Recruit Maugena
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:07 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users