Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Maugena]

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

We are confined to believe that everything has a beginning and end because everything we know of, ultimately has a beginning and end.
So we think.

[WidowMakers]

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 oft......

I am not quoting all of the post since it takes up space. I just wanted to quote some so that everyoen would be able to understand what I was referring back to in this post.

As far as your opinion on my definitions I am sorry. I post them because if I don't people will complain that I have not defined myself well enough. If I ask for definitions then no one post those either. it is impossible to have a rational conversation if the opposite side refuses to explain what exactly they believe and define it.

based on the conversations I have had here. The definitions I used, regardless if teh actual name of teh word is "proper" or "agreeable" with everyone, the meat of teh definition is valid.

Atheists believe there is no god, god, supernatural.
Atheists believe that only the physical world exists and that everything can be explained, somehow, within that framework.
So call that what you want. I chose to call it a Atheistic naturalism/materialism view.
It does not matter if you call it the Super Duper View or the View of the [fill in the blank].

Many people here just get caught up on definitions and don't want to discuss the actual topic.

So has that definition made more sense? Is that what atheists believe?
Because every atheist I have encountered here or in my non web world have held this belief.

So moving on........

MATH
I can see two options. If there are more then please post.
I hope that this is clear since I may have not made my point clear earlier.

1) The concepts have always existed and do not have any thing to do with man but the symbols and ways we communicate them have been invented
2) The concepts and tools were invented by man and have not always existed. There mathematical principles did not did not exist and could not be applied before man.

View #1 (I hold this view)
The concepts were already here and developed symbols to communicate them. Since these concepts require a mind and we were not always here to house these concepts another mind must exist. I say that mind is God. 1 thing put next to 1 thing just like it resulted in 2 things by each other. That is true whether or not humans exist. we did create teh symbols 1,2,3,4 etc and the=+-*/ but the concept and principle was there to be discovered.

View#2
Our minds created the concept ans symbols of math and logic. Basically that means that before humans existed, addition was not possible. 1 thing next to another thing did not equal 2 things. Before geometry and algebra were written down by men and documented, these principle did not apply to reality.


Pythagorean theorem

(a2+b2=c2 : is a relation in Euclidean geometry among the three sides of a right triangle / In any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle)

Here is an exampel of what view #2 wants to convey.
Before Pythagorean theorem was written down and documented or conceived by a man, triangles did not have these properties.
Does that make sense? Just because no one postulated the theorem, does not make it untrue.
Can any of you honestly say that triangle did not have this mathematical property before the theorem was written?

I agree that symbols and terminology were invented by man to help explains and better convey math. But the symbols were invented to express the concept that already existed.

Lets look at this inversely. What if all men dies and there was no more intelligent life in the universe. Would 2+2 still equal 4? I know it would not be much use but would the concept still exist. Would a right triangle still adhere to the Pythagorean theorem?

What if another intelligence popped up in the universe then. Would our math and logic still be valid or not? Would a triangle no longer adhere to the concept of the Pythagorean theorem because that new intelligence had not invented it yet?

LOGIC
I am not going to post much on this because I see that you don't really understand logic very well Player. i am not trying to be mean or rude but you fail to grasp what I said.
You keep twisting my words and are not reading what i am saying. These are not my definitions of logic ok. These are the definitions used by everyoen talking about it online. I am not making them up myself. So please stop making up examples of why me definitions of logic are incorrect.

And now to your idea that we invented logic. Do the logical principles apply to things in the universe if humans were never around? If they do then we did not invent logic.

==========================================================
One more thing player. It is hard for me to understand why you, who believes in a supernatural being, does not believe that that being is logical or understand the principles of math.

-For if we truly invented the concepts of math (addition and subtraction, etc) and logic, then did God never understand them until we invented them?
-But if God understand the concepts of logic and math (not specifically the symbols 1,2,3, or English notation of math but the concept of mathematical properties) and invented them himself, before us, then math and logic did exist before men and we did discover it not invent it.

I just find it very hard to understand how someone who believes in the supernatural would argue against that supernatural beings ability to understand math and logic since we were not here yet to invent it.

Am I missing something here? Do you believe God is logical and capable of understanding mathematical principles before humans existed?

[WidowMakers]

Well I have stated my opinions and backed them up with what I feel is reasonable data. Obviously (as I stated before) I am not going to make many people switch views. But again that was not my point.

You asked what and why I believe, I sated it with as much detail as I know. I am sure that a face to face discussion would be better but we all know that will most likely never happen.
I have enjoyed the discussion and will continue to read and follow the talks but not really post more (unless I really need to respond to players answer from my last question)

Thanks

[PLAYER57832]

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 oft......

I am not quoting all of the post since it takes up space. I just wanted to quote some so that everyoen would be able to understand what I was referring back to in this post.

As far as your opinion on my definitions I am sorry. I post them because if I don't people will complain that I have not defined myself well enough. If I ask for definitions then no one post those either. it is impossible to have a rational conversation if the opposite side refuses to explain what exactly they believe and define it.

based on the conversations I have had here. The definitions I used, regardless if teh actual name of teh word is "proper" or "agreeable" with everyone, the meat of teh definition is valid.

True, but not the point. Yes, defining the terms does allow people to understand what you intend to say, as I acknowledged. The problem is that if these definitions don't have bearing on what other people actually think, then all you have is a set of defintions, but no real understanding.

Above, the problem was with your use of the term logic as if it were something tangible, something solid or even a system that "must" be. It is just a human creation, to organize our thoughts. Nothing more, nothing less. Your definition doesn't cover that, doesn't even get into that part. All you do is give us a rough definition, but then go on to talk about things that come from logic as if they were logic themselves.

I did not even go over the other definitions you just posted, because you set them up to all follow your first point. We pretty much all disagree with that first point. (except jay, that is)

[PLAYER57832]

Well I have stated my opinions and backed them up with what I feel is reasonable data. Obviously (as I stated before) I am not going to make many people switch views. But again that was not my point.

But you did not really provide data, only analysis and discussion.

You asked what and why I believe, I sated it with as much detail as I know. I am sure that a face to face discussion would be better but we all know that will most likely never happen.

Belief is fine. The problem is when you go beyond belief and say you have proof. And, the problem there is that much of what you think other people believe and accept or claim to be true is just not accurate. That is, it is not what other people really think.

So, what you wind up debating is your own constructed definitions, not anybody else. That's too bad, because I (I hazard to say "we") think you probably have some decent arguments, thoughts. We just wish you would talk to us and not your definitions of what you think we are saying.

P.S. I will go over your post again when I have the chance (might not for a couple of days, or might be tommorrow). Right now, I am tired. I stopped when I realized you had missed my first point.

[WidowMakers]

Ok then....

1) Please define for me what an atheist believes. Your definition please and I will use that.

2) Please respond to this.
It is hard for me to understand why you, who believes in a supernatural being, does not believe that that being is logical or understand the principles of math.

-For if we truly invented the concepts of math (addition and subtraction, etc) and logic, then did God never understand them until we invented them?
-But if God understand the concepts of logic and math (not specifically the symbols 1,2,3, or English notation of math but the concept of mathematical properties) and invented them himself, before us, then math and logic did exist before men and we did discover it not invent it.

I just find it very hard to understand how someone who believes in the supernatural would argue against that supernatural beings ability to understand math and logic since we were not here yet to invent it.

Am I missing something here? Do you believe God is logical and capable of understanding mathematical principles before humans existed?

[Maugena]

I see what you did thar.

[Maugena]

Ok then....

1) Please define for me what an atheist believes. Your definition please and I will use that.

2) Please respond to this.
It is hard for me to understand why you, who believes in a supernatural being, does not believe that that being is logical or understand the principles of math.

-For if we truly invented the concepts of math (addition and subtraction, etc) and logic, then did God never understand them until we invented them?
-But if God understand the concepts of logic and math (not specifically the symbols 1,2,3, or English notation of math but the concept of mathematical properties) and invented them himself, before us, then math and logic did exist before men and we did discover it not invent it.

I just find it very hard to understand how someone who believes in the supernatural would argue against that supernatural beings ability to understand math and logic since we were not here yet to invent it.

Am I missing something here? Do you believe God is logical and capable of understanding mathematical principles before humans existed?

For one, we really didn't invent anything.
We (as a species) discovered patterns and used our understanding of said patterns to form systems that exploit said understanding to our benefit.
Others have thought of things we haven't yet. And I'm not speaking of human beings, necessarily.
Now I don't actually know of any others that have done such things, but it's my belief, my firm belief that there are.
I suppose my argument would even hold true if (we as a species) discovered something a long time ago, forgot about it and then re-discovered it.

[AAFitz]

LOGIC
I am not going to post much on this because I see that you don't really understand logic very well Player. i am not trying to be mean or rude but you fail to grasp what I said.
You keep twisting my words and are not reading what i am saying. These are not my definitions of logic ok. These are the definitions used by everyoen talking about it online. I am not making them up myself. So please stop making up examples of why me definitions of logic are incorrect.

And now to your idea that we invented logic. Do the logical principles apply to things in the universe if humans were never around? If they do then we did not invent logic.

Its good that you dont post much on logic since its obvious you're the one that does not understand the meaning of the word, or understand the subjective nature of logic.

The title of this thread is case in point. Logic dictates that there is a God. But more specifically, Jays Logic dictates that there is a God. One can also logically state that Logic dictates that there is no God. Logic refers to the amount of weight that one gives any piece of evidence when reviewing said logic.

For while Jay can say its logical that there must be a God, because he can think of nothing else, someone else can also say that its logical that there is no God, simply because they have presented possible alternatives, which they choose to believe instead.

Logically speaking then, both the statement Logic dictates that there is a God, and logic dictates there is no God, are equally logical, from one point of view, and equally illogical from another.

As far as inventing logic, every person indeed invents their own version of logic, and logically, the word means nothing outside of the beliefs of the person using said logic.

Arguing about what is logical in that case, is simply illogical, as is arguing about whether there is a God or not. Only God can prove there is a God, and nothing can ever prove there is not one. However, that does not mean something cannot prove there is not a God, to every person on earth...except as Jay said earlier...to him. For him, he will believe and ignore all other evidence that there may not be a God no matter what and never abandon that belief. He considers that logical. Some do not, but logically one cannot say it is logical or not definitively, it is a matter of perception.

[Mach1tosh]

Furthermore if evolution is always happening WHY do we not see it all around us??? Perhaps a bird with gills or a lizard with feathers?? Even a single fossil of a gekko growing a wing bone! EVOLUTION IS A LIE.... much like the drivel you posted.

Do you never watch the Discovery Channel, read a National Geographic magazine or pay attention EVER in class?
Or are you simply further evidence (not proof) that even though no one has ever seen one, Neanderthal man is not really extinct? Come out of your cave simpleton.

Oh and I couldn't answer your poll, no check box for agnostic. You know there might be a God, or it could all just be random, or fate or a giant illusion a'la Matrix. It's just that no one's proven which to me yet.

[Maugena]

Furthermore if evolution is always happening WHY do we not see it all around us??? Perhaps a bird with gills or a lizard with feathers?? Even a single fossil of a gekko growing a wing bone! EVOLUTION IS A LIE.... much like the drivel you posted.

Do you never watch the Discovery Channel, read a National Geographic magazine or pay attention EVER in class?
Or are you simply further evidence (not proof) that even though no one has ever seen one, Neanderthal man is not really extinct? Come out of your cave simpleton.

Oh and I couldn't answer your poll, no check box for agnostic. You know there might be a God, or it could all just be random, or fate or a giant illusion a'la Matrix. It's just that no one's proven which to me yet.

Wait, who said that?
You'd think that there being multiple types of people would be evidence enough of evolution.
Some people just can't see what's in front of them. -It's as if they're trying to look beyond the obvious.

[notyou2]

Is widowmaker fitz's multi?

[jay_a2j]

How can you say that "god" has always existed?
Was he created?

Because He is eternal.
No, He is eternal.
ETERNAL, look it up.

[jonesthecurl]

God can't have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing...or so I heard.

[jay_a2j]

God can't have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing...or so I heard.

God was here before nothing.

[Lionz]

Maugena,

I'm not sure who Mach1tosh quoted and evolution can be defined quite a number of ways perhaps. There were various original kinds of creatures created and they have brought forth variety after their kinds maybe. What if the polar bear and the brown bear share common ancestry and yet the polar bear and the butterfly don't? What suggests to you that they do if something does?

[Calidus]

Well, I'm not really understanding the way you talk sometimes, perhaps? I'd like to say that we all share a common ancestry at an atomic level...not speaking for Maugena by the way.

[Lionz]

A common ancestry at an atomic level? What do you mean? Maybe you don't understand me and I don't understand you. : )

[jonesthecurl]

God can't have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing...or so I heard.

God was here before nothing.

Where did he come from? what was he doing before the universe?

[2dimes]

God can't have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing...or so I heard.

God was here before nothing.

Where did he come from? what was he doing before the universe?

Complaining, "I'm sooooooo bored. There's nothing to do."

[Mach1tosh]

Maugena,

I'm not sure who Mach1tosh quoted and evolution can be defined quite a number of ways perhaps. There were various original kinds of creatures created and they have brought forth variety after their kinds maybe. What if the polar bear and the brown bear share common ancestry and yet the polar bear and the butterfly don't? What suggests to you that they do if something does?

I was quoting the starter of the thread. Apparently you and he get together in each other's caves and have denial meetings.
There were various kinds of sticks and rocks and they have brought forth variety after their kinds definately. One of you is dumb as a post, and the other is smart as a brick.
You epitomize the archetypical head in the sand/won't even consider any RATIONAL explanation of how things really are persona, you'd just rather go on believing in the Creationist fairy tales.

[Lionz]

How about we try to have a discussion without flaming? What suggests to you that polar bears and butterflies share a common ancestor if something does? Has life come from non-life once and only once?

[Mach1tosh]

God can't have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing...or so I heard.

God was here before nothing.

Has life come from non-life once and only once?

So before nothing, all there was was this big dude in flowing white robes with a bitchin' beard and first generation Birkenstocks?

Then He figured he'd create a diversion for Himself because as you all know nothing is pretty boring. So in a week he made everything that there is in the Universe.

On our little dust mote of said same universe he put a miniature replica of himself (in his own image) and a chick. Wonder where he got the idea for that 'cause I don't ever recall hearing of Mrs. God?

So this dude, the miniature replica, and the chick do what God said at least once, "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply" (by which he must have meant act like Richard Simmons and do math puzzles) because when the dude and the chick did the requisate act for fruitful multiplication he kicked them to the curb.

Ever since then there have been uncountable acts of reprehensible behaviour performed in religious fervour "in God's name". There have even been reprehensible acts performed against the most devout, raping of nuns comes to mind, which if there really were a God it begs the question, "Why?" Instead of "testing" the pour nuns faith, just give them a pass to heaven. Why must the altar boys suffer at the hands of priests?

Need I go on?

Religion is a crutch, plain and simple, and I for one don't need that. I don't believe in your God because he is unbelievably hypocritical.

[jonesthecurl]

God can't have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing...or so I heard.

God was here before nothing.

Where did he come from? what was he doing before the universe?

Complaining, "I'm sooooooo bored. There's nothing to do."

Who to?

[jay_a2j]

God can't have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing...or so I heard.

God was here before nothing.

Where did he come from? what was he doing before the universe?

Complaining, "I'm sooooooo bored. There's nothing to do."

Who to?

The Son and the Spirit.