Debate/Proof?

[Nanopants]

Hi John...

Isn't that all we have, though... what we can prove with science?

Basically what you are saying is that anyone who tries to logically reason a god into existence will fail... because god transcends logic? That is ultimately what I have difficulty with. If a god has given me this logical brain, why would he make his existence so difficult for my mind to handle?

Our brains exist within this physical reality, and if God is real, then as the Creator of this reality God must somehow exist beyond it.

Just my $0.02

 

[GodlessJezabel]

Our brains exist within this physical reality, and if God is real, then as the Creator of this reality God must somehow exist beyond it.

Just my $0.02

This is where it becomes nonsensical for me - god can't be explained by any rational or scientific means. Therefore, those that believe in god are forced to use irrational means to explain god's existence.

 

[GodlessJezabel]

Ok, good.

So, ideally, if a judge could be perfectly fair, how would you say this judge should go about the business of judging others?

The judge should adhere to the rules of his/her society.

 

[Nanopants]

This is where it becomes nonsensical for me - god can't be explained by any rational or scientific means. Therefore, those that believe in god are forced to use irrational means to explain god's existence.

You're right, it doesn't make sense, which is why I began by saying I can't provide rational proof. However, I disagree that believers are limited to irrational means of experiencing the existence of God; non-rational means perhaps, as it would involve some means apart from natural reason, but not irrational means, as that would imply logical contradiction, which is impossible in a non-rational context.

 

[Nanopants]

The judge should adhere to the rules of his/her society.

What I'm interested in is how you would define fairness.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I lost my faith a number of years ago, and logic and reason have only confirmed it. I am fairly knowledgable about the bible and am looking for anyone who may be able to debate me/show me evidence in a god's favor.

The bible is all about women and their role in the universe. Because the story is largely negative women have trouble accepting it. I'm guessing that you reject God more for emotional reasons than logic and reason.

 

[GodlessJezabel]

The bible is all about women and their role in the universe. Because the story is largely negative women have trouble accepting it. I'm guessing that you reject God more for emotional reasons than logic and reason.

Really? I thought the bible was supposed to be about god... thank you for enlightening me. You are correct that the bible clearly paints a negative picture of women. However, I've taken great pains to take the emotional part out of why I reject the bible - and I've specifically focused on the logical reasons. The logical reasons have led me to my current lack of belief in a god.

 

[drich0150]

At one point, I thought I had proof - and I have since petitioned numberous times with no answer. That is why I am here and asking for debate right now.

what were the questions?

 

[GodlessJezabel]

What I'm interested in is how you would define fairness.

It depends on what society you live in... what's fair in the US may be different that what's fair in another part of the world.

 

[golgotha61]

Hi John...

Isn't that all we have, though... what we can prove with science?

Basically what you are saying is that anyone who tries to logically reason a god into existence will fail... because god transcends logic? That is ultimately what I have difficulty with. If a god has given me this logical brain, why would he make his existence so difficult for my mind to handle?

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true?Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory. Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God (Dr. Jason Lisle).

 

[GodlessJezabel]

what were the questions?

Oh, where do I begin...

Why are there so many clear contradictions in the bible? Why would a loving god allow such suffering in the world? Which god is the right god? How do I reconcile (if I'm a believer) that many of my friends/loved ones are going to burn in a fiery pit because they don't believe?

Just off the top of my head - but there are so very many more.

 

[Johnnz]

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true?Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory. Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God (Dr. Jason Lisle).

I'm not at all opposed to logic. Hopefully my replies show some evidence of that . It's the limitations of human rationality I have raised in this thread. Trying to 'prove god' by logic and an appeal to the scientific method as the overriding criteria cannot be done. That does not then imply that faith is opposed or contrary to reason, just that other criteria apply, such as historical, evidential and experiential added to revelation.

John
NZ

 

[GodlessJezabel]

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true?Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory. Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God (Dr. Jason Lisle).

This only makes sense if you accept god...

 

[Nanopants]

It depends on what society you live in... what's fair in the US may be different that what's fair in another part of the world.

If a judge were to treat individuals of one society differently than individuals of another society, doesn't that show the judge to be treating people with partiality and therefore unfairly? Impartiality is something essential to fairness isn't it?

 

[GodlessJezabel]

I'm not at all opposed to logic. Hopefully my replies show some evidence of that . It's the limitations of human rationality I have raised in this thread. Trying to 'prove god' by logic and an appeal to the scientific method as the overriding criteria cannot be done. That does not then imply that faith is opposed or contrary to reason, just that other criteria apply, such as historical, evidential and experiential added to revelation.

John
NZ

If it cannot be done, then I am at a loss. I am searching for emperical evidence, and have found none.

Faith, as you describe, is contrary to reason because it belief without evidence or justification.

 

[GodlessJezabel]

If a judge were to treat individuals of one society differently than individuals of another society, doesn't that show the judge to be treating people with partiality and therefore unfairly? Impartiality is something essential to fairness isn't it?

In your example, I would agree - that if one judge treated two individuals differently, then that would indicate unfairness. However, a judge in the US is held to different rules than a judge in Iraq - and a person guilty of a crime would be subject to whatever judgement comes with that crime within that country.

 

[Nanopants]

In your example, I would agree - that if one judge treated two individuals differently, then that would indicate unfairness. However, a judge in the US is held to different rules than a judge in Iraq - and a person guilty of a crime would be subject to whatever judgement comes with that crime within that country.

So what if a judge, in an effort to treat everyone in all contexts equally, were to issue the death penalty. It wouldn't matter if the accused had done something horrible or had just stolen a loaf of bread, the penalty is the same.

Do you think that is fair for everyone?

 

[golgotha61]

This only makes sense if you accept god...

Not really. There is a known (logic, since you have already stated its existence) and the unknown (God, whom you seem to doubt does exist).

I postualte that the known entity originates with (in your case) the unknown entity. If you disagree, then tell me, where does logic originate?

 

[GodlessJezabel]

So what if a judge, in an effort to treat everyone in all contexts equally, were to issue the death penalty. It wouldn't matter if the accused had done something horrible or had just stolen a loaf of bread, the penalty is the same.

Do you think that is fair for everyone?

In some countries, stealing is an offense punishable by death. It is irrelevant what I think is fair, since the punishments are doled out by whatever society you are living in.

 

[GodlessJezabel]

Not really. There is a known (logic, since you have already stated its existence) and the unknown (God, whom you seem to doubt does exist).

I postualte that the known entity originates with (in your case) the unknown entity. If you disagree, then tell me, where does logic originate?

Just because there is an unknown does not point to a god.