Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You can't make claims about God's behavior

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 4:55:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just because God can circumvent the laws of logic (not necessarily true, but whatever) doesn't mean he does. You act as if God is constantly changing and fluid (like people), so really you're the one who's making claims about Gods behavior. God could change to where logical argumentation doesn't prove his existence, but there's no reason for him to do that. He could also go berserk and annihilate everyone, but he doesn't do that either.

Think about it bro, here you have a being that is definitionally perfect. He has infinite power, so he can change himself but he's already perfect so why would he?

Similarly, if logic indicates that the truth of whatever religion is more probable than not, than you can make claims about God's behavior because hes said in that religion what his behavior is/will be like.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 4:58:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

I am inclined to agree.

Faith is irrational, by definition. The problem is when people try to rectify faith and reason, because people confuse irrational with inappropriate.

Christianity owes nothing to reason.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:01:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:55:32 PM, thett3 wrote:
Just because God can circumvent the laws of logic (not necessarily true, but whatever) doesn't mean he does. You act as if God is constantly changing and fluid (like people), so really you're the one who's making claims about Gods behavior. God could change to where logical argumentation doesn't prove his existence, but there's no reason for him to do that. He could also go berserk and annihilate everyone, but he doesn't do that either.

Think about it bro, here you have a being that is definitionally perfect. He has infinite power, so he can change himself but he's already perfect so why would he?

Similarly, if logic indicates that the truth of whatever religion is more probable than not, than you can make claims about God's behavior because hes said in that religion what his behavior is/will be like.

Anything with the potential to bypass logic casts uncertainty unto any argument pertaining to it. It doesn't really matter if he does or doesn't circumvent logic because we wouldn't know. What the "possibility" does do is make any arguments regarding his reasons and actions more uncertain than usual.

If 1+1 has the possibility of being 5, how certain would you be in saying it was 2?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:01:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:55:32 PM, thett3 wrote:
Just because God can circumvent the laws of logic (not necessarily true, but whatever) doesn't mean he does. You act as if God is constantly changing and fluid (like people), so really you're the one who's making claims about Gods behavior. God could change to where logical argumentation doesn't prove his existence, but there's no reason for him to do that. He could also go berserk and annihilate everyone, but he doesn't do that either.

Think about it bro, here you have a being that is definitionally perfect. He has infinite power, so he can change himself but he's already perfect so why would he?

Similarly, if logic indicates that the truth of whatever religion is more probable than not, than you can make claims about God's behavior because hes said in that religion what his behavior is/will be like.

Anything with the potential to bypass logic casts uncertainty unto any argument pertaining to it. It doesn't really matter if he does or doesn't circumvent logic because we wouldn't know. What the "possibility" does do is make any arguments regarding his reasons and actions more uncertain than usual.

I contend that we would know. Or would cease to exist. Think about it man, have you ever seen a (decent) argument for God thats like "Strawberries are red therefore God exists". I mean, if strawberries turned pink or whatever, it wouldn't fundamentally change the nature of the universe, the nature of us. Most arguments for God like the KCA or the first mover or the fine tuning argument are based off of fundamental principles of reality. Everything that began to exist has a cause. That's self evident. For God to change that, the entire universe our bodies are designed to survive in would have different laws. It just doesnt add up that he does change his nature.

Really dude, the BOP is on you. You're the one saying that theres a slight chance God might change logic so its illogical to believe in him using logic. Why would God want to do that? You're the one making behavioral claims just as much as me 0.0

If 1+1 has the possibility of being 5, how certain would you be in saying it was 2?

Who says I'm certain that 1+1=2? I'm making the assumption that I'm correct about it, but do you know how much independent evidence, outside of my observations there is that 1+1=2? None man. We have to operate under certain assumptions, like logic or math being valid and true, or else argumentation is just a waste of time.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:14:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a really interesting argument though. Does anyone have a video of a debate where it's been invoked? Or is it ike's brainchild?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:23:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

I agree with this. The question lies not at 'what is he like', but rather with 'is he real'. In order to move on to speculate as to how God acts, an objective truth about his existence altogether is needed. Without this anchor point, one essentially goes into a state of pseudo-theological speculation.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:26:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:14:14 PM, thett3 wrote:
This is a really interesting argument though. Does anyone have a video of a debate where it's been invoked? Or is it ike's brainchild?

Well, I pulled a similar argument about unknowability in a debate I did over the irrationality of theistic belief. We have sort of similar conclusions, but my setup was a little different.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:39:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:26:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:14:14 PM, thett3 wrote:
This is a really interesting argument though. Does anyone have a video of a debate where it's been invoked? Or is it ike's brainchild?

Well, I pulled a similar argument about unknowability in a debate I did over the irrationality of theistic belief. We have sort of similar conclusions, but my setup was a little different.

and you were offended when I said we think alike :p
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:43:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:08:44 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:01:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:55:32 PM, thett3 wrote:
Just because God can circumvent the laws of logic (not necessarily true, but whatever) doesn't mean he does. You act as if God is constantly changing and fluid (like people), so really you're the one who's making claims about Gods behavior. God could change to where logical argumentation doesn't prove his existence, but there's no reason for him to do that. He could also go berserk and annihilate everyone, but he doesn't do that either.

Think about it bro, here you have a being that is definitionally perfect. He has infinite power, so he can change himself but he's already perfect so why would he?

Similarly, if logic indicates that the truth of whatever religion is more probable than not, than you can make claims about God's behavior because hes said in that religion what his behavior is/will be like.

Anything with the potential to bypass logic casts uncertainty unto any argument pertaining to it. It doesn't really matter if he does or doesn't circumvent logic because we wouldn't know. What the "possibility" does do is make any arguments regarding his reasons and actions more uncertain than usual.

I contend that we would know. Or would cease to exist. Think about it man, have you ever seen a (decent) argument for God thats like "Strawberries are red therefore God exists". I mean, if strawberries turned pink or whatever, it wouldn't fundamentally change the nature of the universe, the nature of us. Most arguments for God like the KCA or the first mover or the fine tuning argument are based off of fundamental principles of reality. Everything that began to exist has a cause. That's self evident. For God to change that, the entire universe our bodies are designed to survive in would have different laws. It just doesnt add up that he does change his nature.

You're presupposing that God would maintain the law of noncontradiction. Let's get rid of that too....that means that there's a possibility that God could defy logic in some way without changing a thing in the Universe. So, we still wouldn't know.

Really dude, the BOP is on you. You're the one saying that theres a slight chance God might change logic so its illogical to believe in him using logic. Why would God want to do that? You're the one making behavioral claims just as much as me 0.0

If 1+1 has the possibility of being 5, how certain would you be in saying it was 2?

Who says I'm certain that 1+1=2? I'm making the assumption that I'm correct about it, but do you know how much independent evidence, outside of my observations there is that 1+1=2? None man. We have to operate under certain assumptions, like logic or math being valid and true, or else argumentation is just a waste of time.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:44:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

This statement itself seems to refute the argument. It shows a distinct, logical understanding of your perception of God that is both limiting and specific.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:56:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:58:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

I am inclined to agree.

Faith is irrational, by definition. The problem is when people try to rectify faith and reason, because people confuse irrational with inappropriate.

Christianity owes nothing to reason.

Wait, what? So you're saying Christianity is illogical?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 5:59:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:44:17 PM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

This statement itself seems to refute the argument. It shows a distinct, logical understanding of your perception of God that is both limiting and specific.

I'm supposing that God is omnipotent and that God is the divine author of all things (including logic). I know these are both assumptions on his behavior, but if they were false, then he wouldn't be God. He would just be some random being on the periphery of existence.

You're right though, saying that God is above logic forms a paradox. But God MUST be above logic to BE God. The conclusion is that the conception of god is impossible, I guess.

This is a play on the stone paradox, except with God in whole, and not just omnipotence.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 6:03:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:58:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

I am inclined to agree.

Faith is irrational, by definition. The problem is when people try to rectify faith and reason, because people confuse irrational with inappropriate.

Christianity owes nothing to reason.

Haha, oh wow, there's still fideists? o_O
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 6:06:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:39:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:26:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/3/2012 5:14:14 PM, thett3 wrote:
This is a really interesting argument though. Does anyone have a video of a debate where it's been invoked? Or is it ike's brainchild?

Well, I pulled a similar argument about unknowability in a debate I did over the irrationality of theistic belief. We have sort of similar conclusions, but my setup was a little different.

and you were offended when I said we think alike :p

Nah, bro. I just think it's inaccurate and supported by spotlighting. :)
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 6:35:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

Your above statement is correct. God is beyond our understanding. God is outside our limitations. Though God is not above reason and you make the point. You are explaining God yourself(correctly I mite add) therefore God is reasonable. Just because you unable to grasp the full dynamics of God does not mean his presence is unreasonable.
TheAsylum
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 8:41:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 5:56:20 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:58:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

I am inclined to agree.

Faith is irrational, by definition. The problem is when people try to rectify faith and reason, because people confuse irrational with inappropriate.

Christianity owes nothing to reason.

Wait, what? So you're saying Christianity is illogical?

In the most broad sense, I'm saying all faith is irrational.
Tsar of DDO
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 10:33:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

Completely false.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 10:38:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 10:33:55 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

Completely false.

Except for the "creator of the rules" part. Didn't mean to bold that. But anyways, few theologians believe God transcends logic.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:10:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 10:38:42 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 10:33:55 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

Completely false.

Except for the "creator of the rules" part. Didn't mean to bold that. But anyways, few theologians believe God transcends logic.

The Fool: well we are very glad that is false.
1. lets say God trancendces logic, then he could never be justified with logic. So there could never be a rational argument for God. There cannot be logical argument to anything supernatural in the sense that all human understanding cannot be demonstrate. It makes it beyond Human understanding, and therefore logic is not applicable.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:12:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: so not only can you not use logic, you can't assert the truth that he even trancends it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:14:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 11:12:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: so not only can you not use logic, you can't assert the truth that he even trancends it.

I don't even think it's safe to say that...
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:24:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 10:38:42 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 10:33:55 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

Completely false.

Except for the "creator of the rules" part. Didn't mean to bold that. But anyways, few theologians believe God transcends logic.

The God that cannot transcend logic is not God. What this means is that there are a set of existing rules which are not of his design and/or not within his power to alter.

In the case that God cannot alter logic, this means that he is limited, he is not omnipotent...which gives birth to the question, what are the limits of his power? We frankly don't and can't know.

In the case that logic is not of God's design this means that he is not the divine author of all things. He is not the architect of all rules. There exists a set of rules and a reality that he did not create and he is bound by.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:29:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even though I don't believe in that type of God, for sake of interest I'll assume it to be so and approach it from a more neutral standpoint as I have yet to gain a firm belief on the matter.

If God transcends logic he still orders logic in a certain fitted way. Thus, even though 1+1 might equal 5 tomorrow it still equals 2 today. Logic would be assumed relative in such a case. However, that doesn't change much. Laws can change. Facts can change. The moment they change, they lose their meaning; but so long as they are in place, their meaning is retained. Simple mathmatics are firm facts today simply because God wishes it to be so. It is the same with all reasoning and logic. It might change tomorrow if God wishes it, but it still proves things as it stands today. It's a simple matter of law. God set out the rules of the universe. Rules that are subject to change, but rules nontheless. Just because they might change, doesn't make reasoning any less valid. Therefore, just as we can say with sufficient certainty that 1+1 equals 2, we can also relly on logically justifying God.

(All hypothetically)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:37:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 11:24:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/3/2012 10:38:42 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 10:33:55 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

Completely false.

Except for the "creator of the rules" part. Didn't mean to bold that. But anyways, few theologians believe God transcends logic.

The God that cannot transcend logic is not God. What this means is that there are a set of existing rules which are not of his design and/or not within his power to alter.

In the case that God cannot alter logic, this means that he is limited, he is not omnipotent...which gives birth to the question, what are the limits of his power? We frankly don't and can't know.

In the case that logic is not of God's design this means that he is not the divine author of all things. He is not the architect of all rules. There exists a set of rules and a reality that he did not create and he is bound by.

You assume omnipotence to entail the ability to do everything when really that's only one definition of omnipotence. http://en.wikipedia.org... Wikipeida gives five and you'll find they don't all corrospond with your view. I believe in an omnipotence that entails the ability to do any and everything that corrosponds with logic. You also assume God has to be the creator of all things without justification.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:40:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
God can transcend logic and not transcend logic at the same time. He is able to do this not because he is all-powerful and all-knowing, not because he is omnipresent and/or omnipotent, but simply because he is God, and God is God is God. Should he be anything else, the word 'God' itself would be ineffectual and unnecessary.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:45:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 11:14:13 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 8/3/2012 11:12:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: so not only can you not use logic, you can't assert the truth that he even trancends it.

I don't even think it's safe to say that...

The Fool: And what is your demonstration.??
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:49:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 11:29:54 PM, phantom wrote:
Even though I don't believe in that type of God, for sake of interest I'll assume it to be so and approach it from a more neutral standpoint as I have yet to gain a firm belief on the matter.

If God transcends logic he still orders logic in a certain fitted way. Thus, even though 1+1 might equal 5 tomorrow it still equals 2 today. Logic would be assumed relative in such a case. However, that doesn't change much. Laws can change. Facts can change. The moment they change, they lose their meaning; but so long as they are in place, their meaning is retained. Simple mathmatics are firm facts today simply because God wishes it to be so. It is the same with all reasoning and logic. It might change tomorrow if God wishes it, but it still proves things as it stands today. It's a simple matter of law. God set out the rules of the universe. Rules that are subject to change, but rules nontheless. Just because they might change, doesn't make reasoning any less valid. Therefore, just as we can say with sufficient certainty that 1+1 equals 2, we can also relly on logically justifying God.

(All hypothetically)

This all follows assuming we know when logic changes and what parts of it have changed. If 1+1 has the potential to be 5 at any arbitrary moment without your knowledge, you would never be confident in saying that it was 2. That's what I want to apply to the concept of God. If he may defy logic at any point, without us knowing, then using logic to explain his existence/behavior would be futile. We would have no certainty that the rules we're arguing with even apply to him.

You assume omnipotence to entail the ability to do everything when really that's only one definition of omnipotence. http://en.wikipedia.org...... Wikipeida gives five and you'll find they don't all corrospond with your view. I believe in an omnipotence that entails the ability to do any and everything that corrosponds with logic. You also assume God has to be the creator of all things without justification.

I consider that to be the safest definition. We have absolutely no idea what kind of omnipotence God has and assuming the power to do anything and everything is the most broad and unspecific, which fits our lack of knowledge. To take it a step further, defiance of logic is the most probable kind of omnipotence for a God to have. Since you created logic, he can modify it.

If God isn't the creator of all things what is he? Nothing. He's a random being on the periphery of existence. He's merely a player in an even grander design. A God by definition is the creator of all things with ultimate power. Otherwise, he's just a random, unimportant being.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:54:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 11:37:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 11:24:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/3/2012 10:38:42 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 10:33:55 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/3/2012 4:39:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
The creator of the rules has all power to bend the rules or simply make it inapplicable to himself. A God, by nature, by description, by definition cannot be forcibly bound by logic. So using these arguments to "explain" God's supposed actions and God's desires and his laws are nothing short of irrational. There can be no reason to believe in God, because God is above reason. If he is not, then what exactly makes him almighty?

Completely false.

Except for the "creator of the rules" part. Didn't mean to bold that. But anyways, few theologians believe God transcends logic.

The God that cannot transcend logic is not God. What this means is that there are a set of existing rules which are not of his design and/or not within his power to alter.

In the case that God cannot alter logic, this means that he is limited, he is not omnipotent...which gives birth to the question, what are the limits of his power? We frankly don't and can't know.

In the case that logic is not of God's design this means that he is not the divine author of all things. He is not the architect of all rules. There exists a set of rules and a reality that he did not create and he is bound by.

You assume omnipotence to entail the ability to do everything when really that's only one definition of omnipotence. http://en.wikipedia.org... Wikipeida gives five and you'll find they don't all corrospond with your view. I believe in an omnipotence that entails the ability to do any and everything that corrosponds with logic. You also assume God has to be the creator of all things without justification.

The Fool: you are assuming Wikipedia is the authority on a supernatural being omnipotents. I mean is this another one of the words God meant and not meant at the same time. or part of the riddle?? haha humans figure out what I REALLY MEAN by omnipotent, The Etymology says its just the word ALL/omni+powerful/pontent So all other claim of what it mean. Cannot be known. Mind you POWERFULL is completly ambigious. All could mena in every way which is completely ambigious making all claim of God power irrational and ambigious at best. Also there is NOTHING ABOUT LOGIC IN THE BIBLE.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 12:05:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 11:54:19 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
EDIT
!
the authority on a supernatural being omnipotents.

Is this another one of the words God meant and not meant at the same time? More of the Bibles Riddles?

The Etymology says its just the word ALL/omni+powerful/pontent So all other claim of what is meant, cannot be known.

The 'word' Powerful: is completly ambigious.
The "word" All: is a universal category

Also there is NOTHING ABOUT LOGIC IN THE BIBLE.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL