Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Making arguments for God

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 3:43:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
God does not exist in the Universe...he does not exist in the physical world. Obviously he must have properties that we have no knowledge of. He is also not bound by logic...and if you want to assume that he is, you need a warrant. I promise you that any attempt to find such a warrant will lead you to one of 2 places:

1. circularity
2. sheer absurdity

So given that you can't even justify why God is bound by logic and applicable to your human reasoning, where in the world do you get this idea that you can start making arguments for his existence, and start holding debates titled "God probably exists"....where in the world are you getting this "probably" from? You don't know if God is a being. You don't know if he is conscious. You don't know if he is an it. You know nothing. It isn't just on that basis, not only can't you know what God is, you can't conceive of what God is...you are aiming for a thing with a nature that is beyond every aspect of our being! What carelessness! What caprice! The kind of "environment" we are making claims about has a nature to which our knowledge holds no bounds! These unfounded, passively assumed conceptions on the fundamental nature of a being beyond all reason are logically irredeemable.

God is an enigma, a mere arbitrary postulation in an infinite pool of possibilities...that can only be intellectually ignored given the limitations of our intellect. I've had this frustration for a while, but had no way to put my finger on what was bothering me. This is it.
"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
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 3:44:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What about people who make arguments saying that God probably does not exist?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 3:51:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:44:56 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
What about people who make arguments saying that God probably does not exist?

Actually, atheists can get away with that, and I'm not just being bias to get on theists nerves.

The reason is this: All theists set the Godly paradigm...and since they are already constructing God within logic (which I find absolutely nonsensical), the atheist must address God within the theists' terms....lest he be attacking a strawman. So the atheist is not the one at fault.
"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
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 3:51:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:44:56 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
What about people who make arguments saying that God probably does not exist?
TheAsylum
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 3:52:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:

So given that you can't even justify why God is bound by logic and applicable to your human reasoning, where in the world do you get this idea that you can start making arguments for his existence, and start holding debates titled "God probably exists"....

To be fair ike, if people were not allowed to argue the existence of something without having all the facts at hand, then people wouldnt have been allowed to argue for gravity or a round Earth or the cause of natural disasters. The thing is though the arguments for the existence of God are WAAAAAAAAAAY harder to prove then the existecne of gravity, and just because humanity hasnt quite gotten its arguments together doesnt mean we still cant use the arguments at hand to try to argue the case for his existence.....

where in the world are you getting this "probably" from? You don't know if God is a being. You don't know if he is conscious. You don't know if he is an it. You know nothing.

Ok the 'probably' part is mostly a loophole used during debates as extra leverage in favor of theists so that if the con produces only a single argument against the existence of God, then it can be overlooked since its about probability. Its not a mathematical measurement or educated guess, its a tactic used to cover ones a** during a debate.

It isn't just on that basis, not only can't you know what God is, you can't conceive of what God is... You are aiming for a thing with a nature that is beyond every aspect of our being! What carelessness! What caprice! The kind of "environment" we are making claims about has a nature to which our knowledge holds no bounds! These unfounded, passively assumed conceptions on the fundamental nature of a being beyond all reason are logically irredeemable.

Well then sue humanity for being a little imaginative and creative. People have all different types of concepts for what God is or isnt and just because some people are a little off it doesnt mean the whole idea is ludicrous.

God is an enigma, a mere arbitrary postulation in an infinite pool of possibilities...that can only be intellectually ignored given the limitations of our intellect.

Limitations in intellect are relative to time period, years or decades or centuries form not our intellectual limitations will be much more distant then where they are right now, which means what may be intellectually ignored right now doesnt mean it cant possibly be changed or proven a reality.

I've had this frustration for a while, but had no way to put my finger on what was bothering me. This is it.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 3:55:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:51:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
Actually, atheists can get away with that, and I'm not just being bias to get on theists nerves.

The reason is this: All theists set the Godly paradigm...and since they are already constructing God within logic (which I find absolutely nonsensical), the atheist must address God within the theists' terms....lest he be attacking a strawman. So the atheist is not the one at fault.

An atheist who makes the claim "God does not exist" for absolutely no reason, is attacking whatever view they've constructed of God.

How is this any different from a theist making the claim "God exists"?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 3:56:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:

Limitations in intellect are relative to time period, years or decades or centuries form not our intellectual limitations will be much more distant then where they are right now, which means what may be intellectually ignored right now doesnt mean it cant possibly be changed or proven a reality.

My argument isn't for transient ignorance. Knowing anything about God is impossible. Human knowledge is increasing in our immediate physical world...the only world in which it can increase. God is in a world above all worlds! Any kind of theism is completely absurd!
"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
10/2/2012 3:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:55:12 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:51:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
Actually, atheists can get away with that, and I'm not just being bias to get on theists nerves.

The reason is this: All theists set the Godly paradigm...and since they are already constructing God within logic (which I find absolutely nonsensical), the atheist must address God within the theists' terms....lest he be attacking a strawman. So the atheist is not the one at fault.

An atheist who makes the claim "God does not exist" for absolutely no reason, is attacking whatever view they've constructed of God.

How is this any different from a theist making the claim "God exists"?

okay no,..you're not listening. The Theists set the paradigm of what God is, and the atheists attack it within those terms....else what would the atheist have to attack? Theists are the only ones constructing an image of God.
"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
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 4:00:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
God does not exist in the Universe:
I absolute assertion, by you!
..he does not exist in the physical world.:
I would say that is existance is evident all around you but you ignore it.
Obviously he must have properties that we have no knowledge of.:
That is for sure.
He is also not bound by logic:
We are bound by His logic not vice versa. You are correct.
So given that you can't even justify why God is bound by logic and applicable to your human reasoning, where in the world do you get this idea that you can start making arguments for his existence, and start holding debates titled "God probably exists":
LOL, Simple the Bible. The Bible is the word given by God for you to understand his existance and traits.
....where in the world are you getting this "probably" from?:
Personnel experience and the Holy Bible.
You don't know if God is a being.:
Yes, I do. You can not show I do not, therefore this is a assertion.
You don't know if he is conscious.:
Yes, I do and agin a assertion.
You don't know if he is an it. You know nothing.:
My personnel experience through His revelation to me through His word, Yes I know plenty of enough.
It isn't just on that basis, not only can't you know what God is, you can't conceive of what God is...you are aiming for a thing with a nature that is beyond every aspect of our being!:
You are naive and have a absurd point of view. The Bible does give us that aspect.
What carelessness! What caprice!:
Perfect wording for your stance here.
The kind of "environment" we are making claims about has a nature to which our knowledge holds no bounds! These unfounded, passively assumed conceptions on the fundamental nature of a being beyond all reason are logically irredeemable.:
Well, we have the Bible that gives just that fundamental nature and reason, you just ignore that.
God is an enigma, a mere arbitrary postulation in an infinite pool of possibilities...that can only be intellectually ignored given the limitations of our intellect.:
What mental garbage.
I've had this frustration for a while, but had no way to put my finger on what was bothering me. This is it.:
It is a poor assement.
TheAsylum
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 4:04:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:59:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
okay no,..you're not listening. The Theists set the paradigm of what God is, and the atheists attack it within those terms....else what would the atheist have to attack? Theists are the only ones constructing an image of God.

Well, if by "God" you mean, "The Theist paradigm of what God is".

Otherwise, if it is (as you put it) "you can't conceive of what God is", then how can you attack the existence of God? You must conceive of God before you can claim existence of God either way, and so an atheist would be just as capable of constructing an image of God.

I simply don't understand how you claim knowledge about something that you can't conceive of.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 4:05:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 4:04:23 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:59:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
okay no,..you're not listening. The Theists set the paradigm of what God is, and the atheists attack it within those terms....else what would the atheist have to attack? Theists are the only ones constructing an image of God.

Well, if by "God" you mean, "The Theist paradigm of what God is".

Otherwise, if it is (as you put it) "you can't conceive of what God is", then how can you attack the existence of God? You must conceive of God before you can claim existence of God either way, and so an atheist would be just as capable of constructing an image of God.

I simply don't understand how you can claim knowledge about something that you can't conceive of.

Left out a word...
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 4:09:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:59:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
okay no,..you're not listening. The Theists set the paradigm of what God is, and the atheists attack it within those terms....else what would the atheist have to attack? Theists are the only ones constructing an image of God.

In fact, I now see a much better way of addressing what you wrote in response to me.

If an atheist living in Atheistopia, a land inhabited solely by those who actively disbelieve in the existence of God, one day declared "God does not exist!" who is setting the paradigm of what God is?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 4:09:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 4:04:23 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:59:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
okay no,..you're not listening. The Theists set the paradigm of what God is, and the atheists attack it within those terms....else what would the atheist have to attack? Theists are the only ones constructing an image of God.

Well, if by "God" you mean, "The Theist paradigm of what God is".

Otherwise, if it is (as you put it) "you can't conceive of what God is", then how can you attack the existence of God? You must conceive of God before you can claim existence of God either way, and so an atheist would be just as capable of constructing an image of God.

I simply don't understand how you claim knowledge about something that you can't conceive of.

The theist's conception of God is self-defeating... You can't place God at such a transcendent level, while making arguments for his existence. The former precludes the latter!

Most atheists overlook that fact and attack God within theistic terms, adopting their preconceptions and attacking it within logic. In a sense, this is also illogical, but again, the theist would be the more blameworthy for setting that example.
"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
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 4:10:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:56:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:

Limitations in intellect are relative to time period, years or decades or centuries form not our intellectual limitations will be much more distant then where they are right now, which means what may be intellectually ignored right now doesnt mean it cant possibly be changed or proven a reality.

My argument isn't for transient ignorance. Knowing anything about God is impossible. Human knowledge is increasing in our immediate physical world...the only world in which it can increase.

Does philosophy and psychology have its roots entirely in the physical world? There are some sciences that people are very fluent in that lie in the realms of thought and morality, both of which, along with other sciences, arent chained to the physical world....

God is in a world above all worlds! Any kind of theism is completely absurd!

That sounds pretty opinionated...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 4:11:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 4:09:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2012 4:04:23 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:59:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
okay no,..you're not listening. The Theists set the paradigm of what God is, and the atheists attack it within those terms....else what would the atheist have to attack? Theists are the only ones constructing an image of God.

Well, if by "God" you mean, "The Theist paradigm of what God is".

Otherwise, if it is (as you put it) "you can't conceive of what God is", then how can you attack the existence of God? You must conceive of God before you can claim existence of God either way, and so an atheist would be just as capable of constructing an image of God.

I simply don't understand how you claim knowledge about something that you can't conceive of.

The theist's conception of God is self-defeating... You can't place God at such a transcendent level, while making arguments for his existence. The former precludes the latter!

Most atheists overlook that fact and attack God within theistic terms, adopting their preconceptions and attacking it within logic. In a sense, this is also illogical, but again, the theist would be the more blameworthy for setting that example.

Alright then. I can agree with that.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 4:19:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 4:10:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:56:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:

Limitations in intellect are relative to time period, years or decades or centuries form not our intellectual limitations will be much more distant then where they are right now, which means what may be intellectually ignored right now doesnt mean it cant possibly be changed or proven a reality.

My argument isn't for transient ignorance. Knowing anything about God is impossible. Human knowledge is increasing in our immediate physical world...the only world in which it can increase.

Does philosophy and psychology have its roots entirely in the physical world? There are some sciences that people are very fluent in that lie in the realms of thought and morality, both of which, along with other sciences, arent chained to the physical world....

Morality is subjective, and is an abstraction...so has no consistent basis by which it may be studied. Moral behavior, conversely, is a physical study based on things that are physically observable. Psychology is based on studying behavior and the human brain...both empirical...both physical. All of our knowledge is garnered from the physical world, whether in one lifetime of observation and studying, or becoming intuitive through evolution.

God is in a world above all worlds! Any kind of theism is completely absurd!

That sounds pretty opinionated...

really? Sounds pretty objective to me...
"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
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 4:39:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 4:19:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2012 4:10:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:56:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:

Limitations in intellect are relative to time period, years or decades or centuries form not our intellectual limitations will be much more distant then where they are right now, which means what may be intellectually ignored right now doesnt mean it cant possibly be changed or proven a reality.

My argument isn't for transient ignorance. Knowing anything about God is impossible. Human knowledge is increasing in our immediate physical world...the only world in which it can increase.

Does philosophy and psychology have its roots entirely in the physical world? There are some sciences that people are very fluent in that lie in the realms of thought and morality, both of which, along with other sciences, arent chained to the physical world....

Morality is subjective, and is an abstraction...so has no consistent basis by which it may be studied.

Just because it doenst have a consistent basis to be studied, it doesnt mean that morality still has to be a physical world science.

Moral behavior, conversely, is a physical study based on things that are physically observable. Psychology is based on studying behavior and the human brain...both empirical...both physical.

Ok true. But does something that can only be studied in the physical sense automatically rule out any conclusions that can be made off of them that dont relate to the physical world?

All of our knowledge is garnered from the physical world, whether in one lifetime of observation and studying, or becoming intuitive through evolution.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 6:27:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
God does not exist in the Universe...he does not exist in the physical world. Obviously he must have properties that we have no knowledge of. He is also not bound by logic...and if you want to assume that he is, you need a warrant. I promise you that any attempt to find such a warrant will lead you to one of 2 places:

1. circularity
2. sheer absurdity

So given that you can't even justify why God is bound by logic and applicable to your human reasoning, where in the world do you get this idea that you can start making arguments for his existence, and start holding debates titled "God probably exists"....where in the world are you getting this "probably" from? You don't know if God is a being. You don't know if he is conscious. You don't know if he is an it. You know nothing. It isn't just on that basis, not only can't you know what God is, you can't conceive of what God is...you are aiming for a thing with a nature that is beyond every aspect of our being! What carelessness! What caprice! The kind of "environment" we are making claims about has a nature to which our knowledge holds no bounds! These unfounded, passively assumed conceptions on the fundamental nature of a being beyond all reason are logically irredeemable.

God is an enigma, a mere arbitrary postulation in an infinite pool of possibilities...that can only be intellectually ignored given the limitations of our intellect. I've had this frustration for a while, but had no way to put my finger on what was bothering me. This is it.

What if God, whatever He might be, left clues for us about Himself, or were powerful enough to be able to communicate Himself to us?? This would make your whole rant simply nothing more than an opinion. What caprice !!!!!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 11:06:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
God does not exist in the Universe...he does not exist in the physical world. Obviously he must have properties that we have no knowledge of. He is also not bound by logic...

The sophisticated theists would disagree. They will tell you that logic is binding to God's nature just like morality.

and if you want to assume that he is, you need a warrant.

Where is your warrant for claiming he is not bound by logic?

I promise you that any attempt to find such a warrant will lead you to one of 2 places:

1. circularity
2. sheer absurdity

How so?


So given that you can't even justify why God is bound by logic and applicable to your human reasoning, where in the world do you get this idea that you can start making arguments for his existence, and start holding debates titled "God probably exists"....

It's only logical to assume everything is bound by logic, including God if he exists. It wouldn't be like God created logic, it would be more like it's a part of his nature and being.

where in the world are you getting this "probably" from? You don't know if God is a being. You don't know if he is conscious. You don't know if he is an it. You know nothing.

I agree with this, "God" is a just a word. If there is an ultimate underlining reality, we are in no position to speak on things like it's ability to love or to be self-aware.

It isn't just on that basis, not only can't you know what God is, you can't conceive of what God is...you are aiming for a thing with a nature that is beyond every aspect of our being! What carelessness! What caprice!

Not everything...Once more, no theist worth the skin he/she inhabits believes God is above logic or is not bound by it. Why? Because it would be illogical to claim that even one thing didn't have to follow the rules of logic.

The kind of "environment" we are making claims about has a nature to which our knowledge holds no bounds! These unfounded, passively assumed conceptions on the fundamental nature of a being beyond all reason are logically irredeemable. .

Even if God was beyond logic, I see no reason why you couldn't use logical arguments to prove it's existence. The nature of the conclusion in question need not be inherently tied to the application of reaching that conclusion. Until you show that it does, you really have no case.


God is an enigma, a mere arbitrary postulation in an infinite pool of possibilities... that can only be intellectually ignored given the limitations of our intellect. I've had this frustration for a while, but had no way to put my finger on what was bothering me. This is it.

If your whole argument is:

P1: If God exists, he is above logic
C: Logic cannot be used to demonstrate God's existece

...Then it fails. Not only is the entire argument a non-sequitor, but there is a missing premise which is required for a logical connection to the conclusion. Also, you have not backed up P1 with anything.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 1:08:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Morality can be measure by your interaction with your environment: whether you and your environment gain organization and momentum or lose it because of your interaction. Up or down.

Morality is established as a one way internal downward 2 vector flow of laser white light, the central pillar of the pirmary torus formed at "Let there be light" I takes this shape because it's in a "heavens" sphere around an "earth" (not this earth) point.

Light takes the shape of a torus to remain moving at the speed of light and be in harmony with itself in motion.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 1:09:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 4:39:30 PM, imabench wrote:

Ok true. But does something that can only be studied in the physical sense automatically rule out any conclusions that can be made off of them that dont relate to the physical world?

All of our knowledge is garnered from the physical world, whether in one lifetime of observation and studying, or becoming intuitive through evolution.

What if God was Life and Light and perfect mathematica?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 5:23:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 11:06:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
God does not exist in the Universe...he does not exist in the physical world. Obviously he must have properties that we have no knowledge of. He is also not bound by logic...

The sophisticated theists would disagree. They will tell you that logic is binding to God's nature just like morality.


and if you want to assume that he is, you need a warrant.

Where is your warrant for claiming he is not bound by logic?

Come again? Last I checked the burden of proof lies on those making the positive claim. You can't just passively assume things without any kind of justification to accompany your assumption. Until it can be proven or reasoned that God is bound by logic, we cannot make any assumptions on that matter. And argumentatively speaking, the lack of such an assumption makes God unapproachable until that assumption is warranted, which would be tantamount to saying he isn't bound by logic altogether. While we shouldn't necessarily say that he is not bound by logic, the omission of the assumption that he is, produces the same argumentative results as though he weren't. Do you see my point?

Attempting to justify why God is bound by logic is actually quite impossible, because you would need logic to make such a justification, which would be viciously circular.
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 3:00:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 5:23:39 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2012 11:06:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/2/2012 3:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
God does not exist in the Universe...he does not exist in the physical world. Obviously he must have properties that we have no knowledge of. He is also not bound by logic...

The sophisticated theists would disagree. They will tell you that logic is binding to God's nature just like morality.


and if you want to assume that he is, you need a warrant.

Where is your warrant for claiming he is not bound by logic?

Come again? Last I checked the burden of proof lies on those making the positive claim. You can't just passively assume things without any kind of justification to accompany your assumption.

Aren't you making the positive claim that if God exists, God is above logic?

Until it can be proven or reasoned that God is bound by logic, we cannot make any assumptions on that matter.

Everything is bound by logic.

And argumentatively speaking, the lack of such an assumption makes God unapproachable until that assumption is warranted, which would be tantamount to saying he isn't bound by logic altogether. While we shouldn't necessarily say that he is not bound by logic, the omission of the assumption that he is, produces the same argumentative results as though he weren't. Do you see my point?

Attempting to justify why God is bound by logic is actually quite impossible, because you would need logic to make such a justification, which would be viciously circular.

Once more, your argument is terrible. The nature of a conclusion need not adhere to the process which lead to that conclusion. Thus, even if God himself is not bound by logic, that wouldn't mean you cannot use logic to prove his existence. End of story.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 3:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 3:00:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 5:23:39 AM, 000ike wrote:

Come again? Last I checked the burden of proof lies on those making the positive claim. You can't just passively assume things without any kind of justification to accompany your assumption.

Aren't you making the positive claim that if God exists, God is above logic?

Until it can be proven or reasoned that God is bound by logic, we cannot make any assumptions on that matter.

Everything is bound by logic.

And argumentatively speaking, the lack of such an assumption makes God unapproachable until that assumption is warranted, which would be tantamount to saying he isn't bound by logic altogether. While we shouldn't necessarily say that he is not bound by logic, the omission of the assumption that he is, produces the same argumentative results as though he weren't. Do you see my point?

Attempting to justify why God is bound by logic is actually quite impossible, because you would need logic to make such a justification, which would be viciously circular.

Once more, your argument is terrible. The nature of a conclusion need not adhere to the process which lead to that conclusion. Thus, even if God himself is not bound by logic, that wouldn't mean you cannot use logic to prove his existence. End of story.

Wow...really. This is getting to be like how you said flaws are objective which has to be the most inordinately incoherent assertion I've heard from a serious member on this site thus far. You substitute actual argumentation with blunt dismissals and bravado....continuing with the assertion that everything is bound by logic without any warrant.

You MUST justify why God is bound by logic, otherwise you have no right to make that assertion....all claims require warrant if they are to have any argumentative significance. If you can't do that (which you can't) , then you've lost this argument. Period.
"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
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 3:56:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 3:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
God does not exist in the Universe...he does not exist in the physical world. Obviously he must have properties that we have no knowledge of. He is also not bound by logic...and if you want to assume that he is, you need a warrant. I promise you that any attempt to find such a warrant will lead you to one of 2 places:

1. circularity
2. sheer absurdity

So given that you can't even justify why God is bound by logic and applicable to your human reasoning, where in the world do you get this idea that you can start making arguments for his existence, and start holding debates titled "God probably exists"....where in the world are you getting this "probably" from? You don't know if God is a being. You don't know if he is conscious. You don't know if he is an it. You know nothing. It isn't just on that basis, not only can't you know what God is, you can't conceive of what God is...you are aiming for a thing with a nature that is beyond every aspect of our being! What carelessness! What caprice! The kind of "environment" we are making claims about has a nature to which our knowledge holds no bounds! These unfounded, passively assumed conceptions on the fundamental nature of a being beyond all reason are logically irredeemable.

God is an enigma, a mere arbitrary postulation in an infinite pool of possibilities...that can only be intellectually ignored given the limitations of our intellect. I've had this frustration for a while, but had no way to put my finger on what was bothering me. This is it.

000ike Good post BUT..
I hate to point this out to you.. The KINGDOM of God is in the world.. ON EARTH!
The Holy Catholic Church is the BODY of God!
God is in heaven, under the earth and ON the earth!

The Kingdom started on earth the first day of Pentecost!
Peter went out and ADDED 3000 people to Jesus' holy Body by baptizing them, the very first day of Pentecost the Body of Jesus grew by 3000 disciples!

Mark 9:1
And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."

Luke 9:27
"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

000ike Baptism ADDS Christians to Jesus' holy Body!
NOTE: No one can die twice.. Thus all "IN the risen Jesus can't die"; It is just this simple!! ALL...
000ike All in the risen body of Jesus are "IN THE KINGDOM!!!"
1 Peter 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also"not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Dogknox
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:04:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 3:15:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/3/2012 3:00:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 5:23:39 AM, 000ike wrote:

Come again? Last I checked the burden of proof lies on those making the positive claim. You can't just passively assume things without any kind of justification to accompany your assumption.

Aren't you making the positive claim that if God exists, God is above logic?

Until it can be proven or reasoned that God is bound by logic, we cannot make any assumptions on that matter.

Everything is bound by logic.

And argumentatively speaking, the lack of such an assumption makes God unapproachable until that assumption is warranted, which would be tantamount to saying he isn't bound by logic altogether. While we shouldn't necessarily say that he is not bound by logic, the omission of the assumption that he is, produces the same argumentative results as though he weren't. Do you see my point?

Attempting to justify why God is bound by logic is actually quite impossible, because you would need logic to make such a justification, which would be viciously circular.

Once more, your argument is terrible. The nature of a conclusion need not adhere to the process which lead to that conclusion. Thus, even if God himself is not bound by logic, that wouldn't mean you cannot use logic to prove his existence. End of story.

Wow...really. This is getting to be like how you said flaws are objective which has to be the most inordinately incoherent assertion I've heard from a serious member on this site thus far.

Nice Red Herring. Also, I said flaws were epistemically objective if there is specific goal in mind, so please try to put my argument in context before you pile up the Straw Mans. If someone said "build the most round 3D object for example", and I built a sphere and you built a sphere with a corner indented into it, your object would have an epistemically objective flaw with it. By objective, I simply mean not based on any opinion. Also according to your logic, there is no real flaw in the equation "2+2=5", when of course there is, it's so flawed it's false.

You substitute actual argumentation with blunt dismissals and bravado....continuing with the assertion that everything is bound by logic without any warrant.

Once more, you have the burden of proof because you are the one making the positive claim. You are saying God is above logic if he exists, what have you backed this up with? Oh yes, absolutely nothing, like usual.


You MUST justify why God is bound by logic, otherwise you have no right to make that assertion....

Nice shift the Burden of Proof. You started a thread making the claim that God is above logic, and you are telling everyone else to prove he isn't? How embarrassing.

all claims require warrant if they are to have any argumentative significance. If you can't do that (which you can't) , then you've lost this argument. Period.

I think the shoe fits on the other foot there buddy, too bad you are too delusional to see it.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:14:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 6:04:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Nice Red Herring. Also, I said flaws were epistemically objective if there is specific goal in mind, so please try to put my argument in context before you pile up the Straw Mans. If someone said "build the most round 3D object for example", and I built a sphere and you built a sphere with a corner indented into it, your object would have an epistemically objective flaw with it. By objective, I simply mean not based on any opinion. Also according to your logic, there is no real flaw in the equation "2+2=5", when of course there is, it's so flawed it's false.

yeah...right.....Flawed is not equivalent to false,...as flaw is dependent on the ideals to which the subject must reach, ....ideals which are by nature relative. That's why you lost.

You substitute actual argumentation with blunt dismissals and bravado....continuing with the assertion that everything is bound by logic without any warrant.

Once more, you have the burden of proof because you are the one making the positive claim. You are saying God is above logic if he exists, what have you backed this up with? Oh yes, absolutely nothing, like usual.


You MUST justify why God is bound by logic, otherwise you have no right to make that assertion....

Nice shift the Burden of Proof. You started a thread making the claim that God is above logic, and you are telling everyone else to prove he isn't? How embarrassing.

Always such insular thinking, like also when you said words had objective meanings. Let me re-state my point since you seem to be missing it.

"the lack of such an assumption makes God unapproachable until that assumption is warranted, which would be tantamount to saying he isn't bound by logic altogether. While we shouldn't necessarily say that he is not bound by logic, the omission of the assumption that he is, produces the same argumentative results as though he weren't. "
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:25:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 6:14:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/3/2012 6:04:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Nice Red Herring. Also, I said flaws were epistemically objective if there is specific goal in mind, so please try to put my argument in context before you pile up the Straw Mans. If someone said "build the most round 3D object for example", and I built a sphere and you built a sphere with a corner indented into it, your object would have an epistemically objective flaw with it. By objective, I simply mean not based on any opinion. Also according to your logic, there is no real flaw in the equation "2+2=5", when of course there is, it's so flawed it's false.

yeah...right.....Flawed is not equivalent to false,...as flaw is dependent on the ideals to which the subject must reach, ....ideals which are by nature relative. That's why you lost.

"Flaw" and "Error" mean the same thing. If you honestly believe that math equations don't have objective errors, then I sincerely hope you never become a scientist. Also, "perfect" just means "that which is without a flaw", since theists believe in an objective perfection (God), then they obviously must believe that flaws can be objective as well. You would have to explain why a common conception of God (objective perfection), is incoherent for your attack against my position to work. Either way, congrats on your win in our debate all those months ago, but the conclusion of your argument is still false regardless.


You substitute actual argumentation with blunt dismissals and bravado....continuing with the assertion that everything is bound by logic without any warrant.

Once more, you have the burden of proof because you are the one making the positive claim. You are saying God is above logic if he exists, what have you backed this up with? Oh yes, absolutely nothing, like usual.


You MUST justify why God is bound by logic, otherwise you have no right to make that assertion....

Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. You started a thread making the positive claim that God is above logic, supported it with nothing, and are now asking me to show proof of the opposite?


Nice shift the Burden of Proof. You started a thread making the claim that God is above logic, and you are telling everyone else to prove he isn't? How embarrassing.

Always such insular thinking, like also when you said words had objective meanings. Let me re-state my point since you seem to be missing it.

"the lack of such an assumption makes God unapproachable until that assumption is warranted, which would be tantamount to saying he isn't bound by logic altogether. While we shouldn't necessarily say that he is not bound by logic, the omission of the assumption that he is, produces the same argumentative results as though he weren't. "

Once more, you started the thread. You claimed that God is above logic if he exists, and now you want me to demonstrate how he isn't. Please, just hang up the gloves big guy...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 6:25:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 6:14:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/3/2012 6:04:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Nice Red Herring. Also, I said flaws were epistemically objective if there is specific goal in mind, so please try to put my argument in context before you pile up the Straw Mans. If someone said "build the most round 3D object for example", and I built a sphere and you built a sphere with a corner indented into it, your object would have an epistemically objective flaw with it. By objective, I simply mean not based on any opinion. Also according to your logic, there is no real flaw in the equation "2+2=5", when of course there is, it's so flawed it's false.

yeah...right.....Flawed is not equivalent to false,...as flaw is dependent on the ideals to which the subject must reach, ....ideals which are by nature relative. That's why you lost.

"Flaw" and "Error" mean the same thing. If you honestly believe that math equations don't have objective errors, then I sincerely hope you never become a scientist. Also, "perfect" just means "that which is without a flaw", since theists believe in an objective perfection (God), then they obviously must believe that flaws can be objective as well. You would have to explain why a common conception of God (objective perfection), is incoherent for your attack against my position to work. Either way, congrats on your win in our debate all those months ago, but the conclusion of your argument is still false regardless.

God your thinking is so insular...Error is created on a relative basis. The common objective of any math problem is to find the factual answer, and insofar as that is the objective, a false equation (like 2+2=5) would be erroneous. Where there was, for instance, a goal of demonstrating what NOT to do when solving math problems, and the teacher equated 2+2 to 5, we can say that the false equation was INTENTIONAL...and hence the teacher made no error pursuant of his or her goal. An error is a mistake, something that is INCONDUCIVE toward a desired end...so false will not always equate to error...and nor will it equate to flaw. Your thinking is too narrow.


You substitute actual argumentation with blunt dismissals and bravado....continuing with the assertion that everything is bound by logic without any warrant.

Once more, you have the burden of proof because you are the one making the positive claim. You are saying God is above logic if he exists, what have you backed this up with? Oh yes, absolutely nothing, like usual.


You MUST justify why God is bound by logic, otherwise you have no right to make that assertion....

Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. You started a thread making the positive claim that God is above logic, supported it with nothing, and are now asking me to show proof of the opposite?


Nice shift the Burden of Proof. You started a thread making the claim that God is above logic, and you are telling everyone else to prove he isn't? How embarrassing.

Always such insular thinking, like also when you said words had objective meanings. Let me re-state my point since you seem to be missing it.

"the lack of such an assumption makes God unapproachable until that assumption is warranted, which would be tantamount to saying he isn't bound by logic altogether. While we shouldn't necessarily say that he is not bound by logic, the omission of the assumption that he is, produces the same argumentative results as though he weren't. "

Once more, you started the thread. You claimed that God is above logic if he exists, and now you want me to demonstrate how he isn't. Please, just hang up the gloves big guy...

Okay, I'm sorry it came across as though I was making the positive claim that God is above logic. That isn't my intention. I probably need to fix some wording in the OP. HOWEVER, my argument is that we have no knowledge on whether God is bound or not bound by logic,...and theists are the only ones that require such knowledge (justification of which would always be circular, and hence impossible). Until theists can justify why God is bound by logic (which will never happen), we cannot make the assumption that he is, and the argumentative consequence is similar to that of the scenario in which he weren't.
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 7:03:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 6:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/3/2012 6:25:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 6:14:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/3/2012 6:04:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Nice Red Herring. Also, I said flaws were epistemically objective if there is specific goal in mind, so please try to put my argument in context before you pile up the Straw Mans. If someone said "build the most round 3D object for example", and I built a sphere and you built a sphere with a corner indented into it, your object would have an epistemically objective flaw with it. By objective, I simply mean not based on any opinion. Also according to your logic, there is no real flaw in the equation "2+2=5", when of course there is, it's so flawed it's false.

yeah...right.....Flawed is not equivalent to false,...as flaw is dependent on the ideals to which the subject must reach, ....ideals which are by nature relative. That's why you lost.

"Flaw" and "Error" mean the same thing. If you honestly believe that math equations don't have objective errors, then I sincerely hope you never become a scientist. Also, "perfect" just means "that which is without a flaw", since theists believe in an objective perfection (God), then they obviously must believe that flaws can be objective as well. You would have to explain why a common conception of God (objective perfection), is incoherent for your attack against my position to work. Either way, congrats on your win in our debate all those months ago, but the conclusion of your argument is still false regardless.

God your thinking is so insular...Error is created on a relative basis. The common objective of any math problem is to find the factual answer, and insofar as that is the objective, a false equation (like 2+2=5) would be erroneous. Where there was, for instance, a goal of demonstrating what NOT to do when solving math problems, and the teacher equated 2+2 to 5, we can say that the false equation was INTENTIONAL...and hence the teacher made no error pursuant of his or her goal. An error is a mistake, something that is INCONDUCIVE toward a desired end...so false will not always equate to error...and nor will it equate to flaw. Your thinking is too narrow.

You claim my thinking is too narrow or insular, however your thinking is illogical all together. First off, you created another Straw Man by inferring that I believe "false" always equates to a "flaw". Secondly, when it comes to math equations, one can get an objectively false conclusion due to an objective error in the mathematical reasoning. You are basically adhering to the absurd position that there cannot be any objective mathematical flaws in reasoning.

Also, to claim my position is wrong, you would have to show why the idea of an objectively perfect God (Which the vast majority of Christians believe in) is incoherent. This is because, if objective perfection exists, then objective flaws exist necessarily.



You substitute actual argumentation with blunt dismissals and bravado....continuing with the assertion that everything is bound by logic without any warrant.

Once more, you have the burden of proof because you are the one making the positive claim. You are saying God is above logic if he exists, what have you backed this up with? Oh yes, absolutely nothing, like usual.


You MUST justify why God is bound by logic, otherwise you have no right to make that assertion....

Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. You started a thread making the positive claim that God is above logic, supported it with nothing, and are now asking me to show proof of the opposite?


Nice shift the Burden of Proof. You started a thread making the claim that God is above logic, and you are telling everyone else to prove he isn't? How embarrassing.

Always such insular thinking, like also when you said words had objective meanings. Let me re-state my point since you seem to be missing it.

"the lack of such an assumption makes God unapproachable until that assumption is warranted, which would be tantamount to saying he isn't bound by logic altogether. While we shouldn't necessarily say that he is not bound by logic, the omission of the assumption that he is, produces the same argumentative results as though he weren't. "

Once more, you started the thread. You claimed that God is above logic if he exists, and now you want me to demonstrate how he isn't. Please, just hang up the gloves big guy...

Okay, I'm sorry it came across as though I was making the positive claim that God is above logic. That isn't my intention. I probably need to fix some wording in the OP. HOWEVER, my argument is that we have no knowledge on whether God is bound or not bound by logic,...and theists are the only ones that require such knowledge (justification of which would always be circular, and hence impossible).

It's more reasonable to assume that logic applies to everything, than logic applies to everything, but one thing (this would seem like Special Pleading). If your position is that logic applies to everything but one thing, then you might as well throw logic out the window because we would have no clue where else in reality logic didn't apply. Thus, if God exists, it's more reasonable to assume that logic applies to him than not. If your claim is that if 'x' exists, it's possible it 'x' not bound by logic, then it is you taking the illogical position, because that opens to door to anything not being bound by logic. I think this is sufficient reasoning to support the notion that God follows the rules of logic if he exists.

Until theists can justify why God is bound by logic (which will never happen), we cannot make the assumption that he is, and the argumentative consequence is similar to that of the scenario in which he weren't.

I'm not theist by any stretch of the imagination, but as I stated above, I would argue that everything that exists is bound by logic. The person who says this isn't the case, is basically throwing logic out the window. It also seems like Special Pleading (everything is bound by logic...except this one thing). Therefore, if God exists, it's only logical to assume he is bound by logic.

Regardless, I would like to know how the nature of something in a conclusion, must entail same nature as the process which lead to that conclusion. Until you explain this further, I see no reason why one couldn't logically argue for God's existence even if he is above logic.