Maxwell511
Contributor
- Jun 12, 2005
- 6,073
- 260
- 41
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
yes but all that means is that IF I existed I'd be conceince of it. But it doesn't prove that I actully exist.
sorrylet me see if I can make it clearier. Most atheists will say that if something is illogical than it's untrue. i disagree with this because life itself is illogical. You were right to say that science gives you understanding... but it doesn't give you proof, it only gives you logic. Science is logic and is best kept in the box of logic. It is never meant to be a means to prove that God, ghosts, the supernatural or whatever don't exist. You can't use science that way. Science studies logic... but there are alot of illogical stuff to that we must use spiritail eyes to see.
Life is not illogical.
As I said my existence is an absolute truth. I am not making any claims about anything else. I cannot claim anything else to be absolutely true.
A question for you....
if God exists; can he make it absolutely true that he never existed?
Does God define truth?
thanks for keep dodging the question. Now i know where to "prod and poke" atheists.
we got here... somehow. Evultion explains the means but it doesn't explain the begining. it's like explaining how an orange tree first appearied in your yard by explaing the function of the orange itself. You can't start in the middle and thats what sceince tends to do. you have to start at the begining. My bible claims that at the begining there was nothing and science seems to agree with this point. In the begining there was nothing, life is illogical.
well i'm tiredwe'll finish this debate tommorrow
Actually it does. What it doesn't prove is what is reality. "I think therefore I am". That doesn't define reality though.yes but all that means is that IF I existed I'd be conceince of it. But it doesn't prove that I actully exist.
I agreeand I'm not one of those kooks who get down on scientific logic. I'm a very strong beleiver in science. it's just i don't beleive science can answer everything and I beleive science and faith should NEVER cross.
this is why I'm so thankful that evoltuion and creation can exist in the same argumentyour looking at a theistic evultionist
How is life illogical?sorrylet me see if I can make it clearier. Most atheists will say that if something is illogical than it's untrue. i disagree with this because life itself is illogical.
You were right to say that science gives you understanding... but it doesn't give you proof, it only gives you logic. Science is logic and is best kept in the box of logic. It is never meant to be a means to prove that God, ghosts, the supernatural or whatever don't exist. You can't use science that way. Science studies logic... but there are alot of illogical stuff to that we must use spiritail eyes to see.
One doesn't need to examine all possible avenues to come to non-belief in something. If I were to tell you that a teapot is in orbit around the Sun, would you have to examine every inch of the sky to prove me wrong to be justified in your disbelief? No, you only need ask, "show me." If I cannot show you, then you have every right to drop the issue there and rightly doubt my claim.
(This is a concept called Russell's Teapot.)
Branwen,
Oh, I'm really bored tonight and for some reason I remembered this post, so I think I'll destroy Russell's Teapot real quick. My initial response was to give the moral argument as a reason for belief in God while there is no reason to believe in the teapot thing. It didn't get much of a look, so I'll go ahead and finish the teapot story off so I'll never have to see it in here again.
First, your argument has a fallacy of equivication. You equate God to a teapot. This is a terrible comparrison. A teapot is of course a manmade object and cannot be orbiting the sun, moon, or whatever without a human putting it there. God is transcendent and nothing like a manmade object, much less a teapot. So the teapot is a bad example and is very "ad hoc". So 2 major fallacies with Russell's Teapot (1) equivicatoin (2) ad hoc. But you could always think of something else to get the point across so I'll head off those bad examples too.
What you're really driving at and what your real point is, is that "absense of evidence is evidence of absense". Well, unfortunately for you, this is also fallacious. Absense of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absense. For example, if I said there is an elephant in your house, then definately, the absense of the elephant means there is no elephant in your house. However, if I said that there is a flea in your house, then absense of evidence does not equal evidence of absense. There could very well be a flea in your house and you would have no evidence whatsoever.
In the case with God, you must show 2 things. (1) That God would leave more evidence for His existence than He did and (2) That we have adequately surveyed all the evidence for God's existence. This is of course a huge burden of proof that I need to see before I can concede that absense of evidence for God's existence is evidence of His absense. Not an easy task.
Since I've seen you reference Bertrand Russell several times before, I assume you have read him. So you must also know of a problem Russell runs into called the inductive principle or principle of the uniformity of nature. It's a principle that says that the future will be relatively similiar to the past or that nature and everything behaves in a somewhat predictible fashion. Without this pinciple, we could not make sense out of anything.
For exmple, the earth will be orbiting the sun tomorrow because of the laws of nature. My bed will not turn into a T-Rex and chomp me up tonight because matter does not reorganize itself like that. The laws of logic and the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow as they were today and yesterday. I can do science because nature behaves in a predictible fashion (inductive principle).
We use this principle every day. It is unavoidable. Now the problem is, where does this principle come from? Why is it there? If you say it's a product of the human mind you would be incorrect. This principle exists weather we do or not. Logic and natural laws exist independent of us and they were in existence before we were. If you say it's a product of evolution you would be incorrect. If this principle is subject to evolving and changing, the laws of logic and natural laws would cease to exist and we would have nothing.
You, like Russell, and like the rest of us, live and use this principle every day. The problem is that as an athiest you just assume it for some arbitrary reason. It's something that exists and is absolute and transcendent and I want to know where you think it comes from. If you assume it without reason or call it a brute fact then you commit the fallacy of begging the question....where does it come from and why is it there? Also, watch out for circular reasoning when thinking of the answer.
Maybe after this we can both agree to never call on Betrand Russell again.
Do you think logic comes from God?
Personally I would argue that logic must be transcedent of any being that exists. Since logic is the formation of truths from axiomatic principles.
If we accept that that exists cannot have not existed as axiomatic it is impossible to for a being that exists to make it that they never existed, that includes God.
Logic and truth transcend God, assuming he exists. In fact such transcendence is a necessary condition of he's existance and the existance of anything that he creates.
Think about it, can God make it logically true that he never existed? Does God control logic?
Sound very much like Euthyphro's delima with a different twist. I would argue that God is, among other things, logic by his very nature, that He is perfectly logical, and that God is the transcendent mind that is the source of logic.
Not really Euthyphros dilemma. What I am at least trying to say is that logic and truth are prerequists of existance. In essence if a being exists it must be true that beings can exist or not exist and also illogical, for at least that being anyway to say, that it doesn't exist. Therefore truth and logic are prerequists of existance.
If logic comes from God and logic is required for him to exist, then God must create logic in order for him to exist. But in order for God to create logic he must exist. Logic cannot come from God.
Does that make sense?
I see exactly what you're saying. As a Christian, I also believe God is the Perfect and Necessary Being. God has all perfect and great making properties. For example, He is perfectly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent...etc..etc... all the way to include logic as one of His attributes. Now a perfectly great being is either impossible or necessary. If it is possible for a perfectly great being to exist, then this being is necessary because it is more perfect and greater to exist in reality rather than in possibility.
So when I say God is, among other attributes, Logic, I'm saying that His non-existence implies a contradiction. So He is the Necessary Being and cannot not-exist. This would explain, somewhat, why He told Moses that His name was "I AM".
Hope that made sense.
That last post may have been somewhat unclear. Sorry if it was. I can try to reword and explain differently if needed.
It is better and greater to exist in reality than just in possibility. That was what I was getting at.Why is it perfect to exist?
I wasn't trying to argue for attributes of God in this thread. I was just using them as an illustration of great making properties. Weather he creates all them or not would probably be best for another discussion. I'm simpily saying that he has great making properties and I was just trying to give an illustration as to what I meant.Also apparent attributes of God such as omniscience, ominpotent, omnipresent etc I don't consider to be innate attributes. Since they are attributes of his own creation, for example in order to be omnipresent God must create space in which to be omnipresent.
OK, maybe omnipresence should be a totally different discussion. Maybe a differentation should be made between being potentially omnipresent and actually omnipresent since omnipresence enatail a relationship with another object, namely space. Of course you could say that we are potentially omnipresent....but we are not omnipotent so we could never actualize this potential. If God is omnipotent then it is certainly possible and arguably necessary, though I'm probably not the one to argue that, that He would be omnipresent when creating a relationship between Himself and space. Maybe sometime, not necessarily right now, you could show how God could create His own omnipotence and omniscience.Of course these properties are not necessary for the exitance of God. For example a God that is not omnipresent can concievably exist, either by simply not creating space or creating space and not bothering to make itself present in all of it.
Of course I would disagree that He creates His own attributes. I would say they are probably necessary to His existence and cohere and compliment each other.Assuming God exists he creates his own attributes. These attributes cannot be used to prove him.
Your assumption is that it's possible that God could not-exist which is impossible for a Necessary Being. If God is a Necessary Being then logic would not be a prerequisite, but a necessity to His mind. It couldn't be a prereq. since He is necessary. But it's existence must still be accounted for to which the solution, and I think the only solution, is that God is Logic. (If there are christians reading who need me to give verses, I can do that, just ask). I think that for a Necessary Being, logic would be a necessary property, and I'm prepared to explain why if I need to, and since both are necessary, they must exist since their non-existence implies a contradiction. Which leads to the next point:Logic imo is inherently different to the others because as I said before is a prerequisite to existance. A prerequisite to existance cannot be an attribute. If God has any attributes that are not of his own making I would think it would just be that he has the ability to create, maybe existance if you want to argue that existance is a property, though I don't think it is.
In order to say logic was non-existent (a law of logic) or that contradictions (a law of logic) didn't exist, logic would first have to exist. You must assume that logic exists in order to say that it can not-exist. The non existence of logic is most definately a contradiction.The non-existance of logic would not imply a contradiction. Simply because contradictions don't exist if logic does not exist. Now if a contradiction was caused by the non existance of logic that would imply a contradition.
Im not sure how authoratative this thread can be in answering questions as a bunch of questions directed at an atheist or group of atheists is like asking what the group for people who hate the colour blue, feel about an issue.
Atheism lacks an ideology so any and all answers will be varied unless it only sticks to "do(es) god(s) exist?"
It is better and greater to exist in reality than just in possibility. That was what I was getting at.
I wasn't trying to argue for attributes of God in this thread. I was just using them as an illustration of great making properties. Weather he creates all them or not would probably be best for another discussion. I'm simpily saying that he has great making properties and I was just trying to give an illustration as to what I meant.
OK, maybe omnipresence should be a totally different discussion. Maybe a differentation should be made between being potentially omnipresent and actually omnipresent since omnipresence enatail a relationship with another object, namely space. Of course you could say that we are potentially omnipresent....but we are not omnipotent so we could never actualize this potential. If God is omnipotent then it is certainly possible and arguably necessary, though I'm probably not the one to argue that, that He would be omnipresent when creating a relationship between Himself and space. Maybe sometime, not necessarily right now, you could show how God could create His own omnipotence and omniscience.
My point was just to illustrate what I meant by great making properties. Maybe I should have limited them to things such as omniscience, omnipotence, logic, and goodness in order to try to keep from straying off topic.
Of course I would disagree that He creates His own attributes. I would say they are probably necessary to His existence and cohere and compliment each other.
Your assumption is that it's possible that God could not-exist which is impossible for a Necessary Being. If God is a Necessary Being then logic would not be a prerequisite, but a necessity to His mind. It couldn't be a prereq. since He is necessary. But it's existence must still be accounted for to which the solution, and I think the only solution, is that God is Logic. (If there are christians reading who need me to give verses, I can do that, just ask). I think that for a Necessary Being, logic would be a necessary property, and I'm prepared to explain why if I need to, and since both are necessary, they must exist since their non-existence implies a contradiction. Which leads to the next point:
In order to say logic was non-existent (a law of logic) or that contradictions (a law of logic) didn't exist, logic would first have to exist. You must assume that logic exists in order to say that it can not-exist. The non existence of logic is most definately a contradiction.
Back to the original problem. How do you account for the inductive principle or logical absolutes?
OK, and, hopefully, you will see below where your fallacy is. Besides, blatant refusal to address it is very close to if not completely conceding the point.Sorry I am not going back to your original problem. You'll at the end of this post why it is a non dicussion for me.
Becuase existence would make it possible to actually possess and use great making properties.And I basically asked why it is better and greater to exist in reality than just in possibility?
I would say they are dependent on a mind; in particular a transcendent mind.I used omnipresence as an example because it is the easiest one to show the relationship that most exist in order for attribute and the definition is always the same. In this fundamental level I believe omniscience, omnipotence and goodness to be attributes that are dependent on the existance of other things besides just God. Logic as I said cannot be an attribute.
If God's attributes are necessary to His Being, then by definition, they are not created. I still fail to see why God must create Himself.And I would say that if Gods attributes are necessary for the existance of God and these attributes depend on things that God must create. God must then create himself, which is impossible and God does not exist.
Fine.I still fail to see why God is a necessary being.
I can try, though I may not be the best at explaining. Maybe "property" and "attribute" weren't the best terms and I'm not sure just yet of better ones; I'll have to think of better ways to define what I mean. I will try to explain what I mean though, maybe you will have some insight into better terms.Can you explain how logic can be a property of a being? Nevermind a necessary property.
Yes it would be a contradiction to say that logic does not exist. As I have been saying logic is a prerequisite of existance, we exist therefore logic exists.
You are begging the question and being arbitrary. You have no justification for the inductive principle or logical absolutes without using circular reasoning or question begging and ultimately, being arbitrary. This is the true definition of blind faith. Why even bother to reason with me since you no have justification for reasoning?I don't it just is. Simply enough.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?