Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 417 (26171)
12-10-2002 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by forgiven
12-08-2002 6:32 PM


hi forgiven,
quote:
as for your goblin (an issue i had to go read since it wasn't part of my original post), i tend to agree with gene that if we had people with strong personal convictions/interactions with a goblin then the "evidence" for its existence could be more easily accepted...
however, that analogy is the same that others use whether or not it's a pink unicorn, etc.. granted, the numbers of people who hold a view don't speak to the truth of that view, there is still weight to be attached to views held by large groups... in those cases, checking to see which group is more internally consistent would be appropriate
We're starting to arrive at an answer to my common theme - what are the reasons for believing in God over believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Goblins or whatever? Amalgamating yours and Gene's comments the principal reasons (i say principal as these are the ones you've offered up first) would appear to be:
  • strong feelings
  • strong testimonies
  • ceteris paribus - beliefs held by large groups to be favoured over smaller groups
I don't buy the "internally consistent" method of differentiation as the IPU is completely internally consistent (for more on the IPU see here).
quote:
it's a christian worldview in the sense that christians can claim to know from where metaphysical (or transcendental) entities come... the materialist not only can't make such a claim, they deny the existence of such entities
yes, logic is immaterial by definition... i never said an atheist shouldn't be interested in, nor even utilize, logic... having such concepts is fine, what isn't fine is being inconsistent in ones worldview... the atheist (materialist, anyway) uses reason and logic every day... unfortunately, she denies the very existence of that which she uses to deny the existence of ...
I think I'm finally beginning to understand your point (again ). To paraphrase, you're saying that a materialist is being inconsistent in that he uses transcendental objects to deny the existence of transcendental objects. To demonstrate what you mean, you use the fact that logic is a transcendental object, so we can specify your argument to "materialists use logic to deny the existence of logic", or even more sharply to "if only physical objects can be said to exist then logic does not exist".
By "physical objects", you would include gravity, electric charge and quark colour because they are "suspended in space and time". Can you explain what you mean by this? Take the example of gravity - gravity is what makes masses attract. And what makes masses attract? Well, gravity. Does this make it a thing, or an explanatory tool? If you look at a logic gate or a computer, then isn't logic also physically suspended in space time? Or are you saying that a materialist doesn't accept the existence of gravity etc either?
quote:
yes i did mean it... see p.e., the christian believes that being created in God's image means (among other things) being created with the attributes he possesses... we believe transcendental entities exist because God exists, therefore we have no inconsistencies in this area... to my knowledge no other worldview embraces such a concept
As did the Jews before the Christians and many cultures before that - to claim that materialists are borrowing from a Christian worldview is a major distortion.
quote:
if logic existed before life, why? is it an inherent property of the universe? was it "born" during bb? by what means?
You have to define exactly what you mean by logic before I can answer this? Why would it be surprising if it was a human invention? Did the concept of "humanity" exist before life? Again, you'll have to differentiate the two transcendental concepts for me.
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 6:32 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by forgiven, posted 12-10-2002 7:31 AM Primordial Egg has not replied
 Message 96 by John, posted 12-10-2002 10:06 AM Primordial Egg has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 417 (26173)
12-10-2002 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Primordial Egg
12-10-2002 7:19 AM


hi p.e.
quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
You have to define exactly what you mean by logic before I can answer this? Why would it be surprising if it was a human invention? Did the concept of "humanity" exist before life? Again, you'll have to differentiate the two transcendental concepts for me.
PE
this seems to be the crux of the problem... i define logic as based on the law of non-contradiction... i gave an analogy to john, i'll use it here... it's earth, 3.5 billion years ago... there is no life of any kind... none, zip, zilch... is the law of non-contradicion in effect? can earth both occupy it's portion of space/time and *not* occupy its portion at the same time in the same way? if not, logic existed...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 7:19 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by John, posted 12-10-2002 10:20 AM forgiven has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 417 (26178)
12-10-2002 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by forgiven
12-09-2002 9:25 PM


quote:
investigating what? how to explain a transcendental entity from within a worldview that denies such entities?
No. YOu said that athiests couldn't explain where logic and reason came from, and that Christians could.
I pointed out that Evolutionary Psychology is investigating the origins of logic and reasoning ability.
quote:
schraf, you have misread the posts, i believe... it doesn't matter whether or not one says God or pink unicorns, the materialist denies *all* metaphysical entities while utilizing those same entities in her arguments... the christian doesn't... so you are mistaken, christians can constently utilize transcendental entities, there is no problem from their worldview... materialists (i've taken to using that word since not all atheists subscribe to materialism) can't.. i hope that clears it up for you
The problem is your use of the word "explain."
"Explain" means something different to the materialist than it does to the mystic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by forgiven, posted 12-09-2002 9:25 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by forgiven, posted 12-11-2002 8:14 PM nator has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 417 (26184)
12-10-2002 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Chara
12-09-2002 8:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
You know what ... I do! Everytime I find out a little bit about the workings of the human body, I am awed by the complexity and design.
Ya know. I feel that same amazement, but awe doesn't equate to 'it had to have been designed'
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Chara, posted 12-09-2002 8:56 PM Chara has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 417 (26191)
12-10-2002 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Primordial Egg
12-10-2002 7:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
As did the Jews before the Christians and many cultures before that - to claim that materialists are borrowing from a Christian worldview is a major distortion.
I made this same point. Apparently, forgiven considers the Christian worldview as having permiated the universe since its creation, even though such worldview hadn't been verbalized until circa 200 AD. Thus, these various peoples ALL borrowed from this sort-of thing in itself christian worldview.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 7:19 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 10:25 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 417 (26193)
12-10-2002 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by forgiven
12-10-2002 7:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i define logic as based on the law of non-contradiction...
Is logic the law of contradiction, or is it a verbal mathematics based upon the law of contradiction? I think you are confusing the two.
quote:
it's earth, 3.5 billion years ago... there is no life of any kind... none, zip, zilch...
... probably was life here then
quote:
is the law of non-contradicion in effect?
You are talking about physics, not logic. You said yourself that logic was BASED ON the LoNC. This does not make it the same as. Tell me that logic IS the LoNC. I dare you, because once you do you are stuck there. The sum of logic is the LoNC. Derivatives won't be logic mind you, if logic IS the LoNC.
quote:
can earth both occupy it's portion of space/time and *not* occupy its portion at the same time in the same way?
Well, there is this concept in quantum physics called the superposition of states.... Sub-atomic particles, even atoms, do it all the time. Most physicists seem to concure that superposition breaks down just over atomic scale, but a few disagree. Even so, travel far enough back in time and the whole universe likely exhibited just this sort of weirdness.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by forgiven, posted 12-10-2002 7:31 AM forgiven has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 417 (26195)
12-10-2002 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by John
12-10-2002 10:06 AM


quote:
I made this same point. Apparently, forgiven considers the Christian worldview as having permiated the universe since its creation, even though such worldview hadn't been verbalized until circa 200 AD. Thus, these various peoples ALL borrowed from this sort-of thing in itself christian worldview.
Aha, so she's not using Christian in the sense of "religion founded by Jesus Christ" but in the sense of "a prehistoric absolute"?
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by John, posted 12-10-2002 10:06 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by John, posted 12-10-2002 11:41 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5038 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 99 of 417 (26197)
12-10-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by funkmasterfreaky
12-07-2002 8:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
First thing here John.
quote:
Sorry, the easy way out is 'a book told me so'
Where do you get your information and knowledge?
Now Brian
quote:
funky,
This sort of backs up my theory that it takes a certain kind of person to believe in God, all you have done is substituted one addiction with another, it is part of your nature to be addicted to something.
Also, just like the drug addict, you will do anything and say anything to get your 'god-kick'
I'm going to ignore the fact that I feel insulted here. It doesn't take a certain kind of person to believe in God. I think the bible is pretty clear that the blood of Jesus was shed for everyone not just for drug addicts who want to trade up.
So you know my nature now do you? Boy you're brilliant must be phsycic or something. That aside yes it USED to be my nature to be addicted to something. This is the incredible thing here! This being drunk on the Spirit I mentioned is not something I go out of my way to attain, it's not a high in the usual sense of the word. It's just something that happens when you allow the Holy Spirit to dwell within you, when you listen to his gentle urges and allow him to make you God's instrument. It's that proximity to God, to be in his graces that leaves your spirit exhilerated and rejuvinated.

*I'm going to ignore the fact that I feel insulted here.*
Why would you feel insulted? This delusion you have is not really your fault.
*It doesn't take a certain kind of person to believe in God.*
Yes it does, just as it takes a certain kind of person NOT to believe in God.
It takes a certain kind of person who believes through faith rather than empirical evidence.
It takes a certain type of person who is so gullible that they will ignore all contrary evidence to their beliefs.
It takes a certain kind of person who will never admit that the Bible is wrong about many things.
*I think the bible is pretty clear that the blood of Jesus was shed for everyone not just for drug addicts who want to trade up.*
Let’s look a bit closer at this. *The blood of Jesus was shed for everyone.* Presumably his blood is to save all mankind from eternal torment in Hell. This is pretty illogical as it was Jesus’ mistakes (as creator) in the first place that condemns everyone to Hell. Maybe if God had created perfect humans then the first sin would not have happened, Jesus was pretty dumb.
Now we are asked to believe that God requires that his Son (himself really) to be tortured and killed to wipe out the mistakes that God made in the first place! LOL, God requires that God be killed to make things right between God and his creation again. This is really an ignorant faith that has been responsible for untold suffering; Christianity has been an abomination on mankind since it was dreamed up.
*..not just for drug addicts who want to trade up.*
So you admit then that it is similar to being a drug addict, thank you for confirming my theory.
*So you know my nature now do you?*
Evidently.
*Boy you're brilliant must be phsycic or something.*
Nope, just educated and experienced.
*That aside yes it USED to be my nature to be addicted to something.*
So I was correct then? Funky, you cannot change your nature, you can try to suppress certain parts of it, but if it is in you nature then it is in your nature.
*This is the incredible thing here!*
Yes it is incredible, that’s certainly one word for it.
*This being drunk on the Spirit I mentioned is not something I go out of my way to attain, it's not a high in the usual sense of the word.*
But it is still a high that you are obviously addicted to because it is in your nature, as you admit.
*It's just something that happens when you allow the Holy Spirit to dwell within you,*
You contradict yourself here, you say that you don’t go out of your way to get drunk on the Holy Spirit but then you also allow it to dwell within you. You appear not to go out of your way to AVOID it either! Your addictive nature again.
Are you a passive participant or can you reject the Holy Spirit’s intrusions into your life?
*when you listen to his gentle urges and allow him to make you God's instrument.*
What does he say, what are you an instrument for, what does an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God need with a former drug addict?
*It's that proximity to God, to be in his graces that leaves your spirit exhilerated and rejuvinated.*
Exhilarated and rejuvenated like the affect artificial stimulants have on a person? All these highs and you don’t have to spend all your money on it, or steal from your friends and family or beg, great!!
I am actually glad that the belief in God has saved you from your former life; God does have his uses.
Now that God has got you out of this tragic lifestyle, ditch God and take up fishing, or writing, or some other hobby. Holding onto belief in god in the obsessive way you have shown at this forum will do you serious long term psychological damage, you might get a bit cold and wet while fishing but you can always dry yourself off and warm yourself up at a fire.
Best Wishes
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-07-2002 8:59 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by graedek, posted 12-10-2002 7:57 PM Brian has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 417 (26204)
12-10-2002 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by forgiven
12-09-2002 7:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
my entire series of posts was aimed at showing, not that atheists (and several times i qualified the word to mean materialists) don't utilize or even depend on metaphysical entities, but that they can't account for those entities... while denying the existence of such things they still feel comfortable arguing that God doesn't exist, all the while failing to understand that the means by which they frame their arguments have to be borrowed from those who *don't* deny their existence
It still doesn't make sense. I don't see the need for metaphysical entities, unless you are claiming that physical laws are, well, metaphysical. And that is kind of silly.
quote:
how, my thinking went, can someone ask for proof of a transcendent entity while utilizing just such an entity to form his arguments? and it is inconsistent, if you think about it...
But there is no need for a trancendent entity to frame the argument. The law of non-contraciction, as you have defined logic, is a description of how things appear to work, it isn't an independently existing thing. It doesn't even hold universally. Subatomic particles happily ignore it all the time.
quote:
i am troubled that you seem to confuse the result of such an entity (billiard balls for example) with the entity itself (laws of physics, for example)...
Wow. You are more of a Platonist than I thought. There is no need for a collection of Laws-of-Physics Entities sitting like Kings on metaphysical thrones. There is observation and our interpretation of it. We call this interpretation a law of physics. They are description of physical processes.
quote:
and also by the obvious (to me) truth that before life existed on earth, logic did...
I don't think you answered my question about the French language? Did French exist before people spoke it?
quote:
quarks, i thought, were a good example of that...
Quarks? I don't really know what you mean, but I have a hard time understanding how quark weirdness can help your case.
quote:
something can exist without anyone knowing of it, correct?
Colloquially, sure. Something can exist without anyone knowing about it. But does it exist? You seem to be begging this question.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by forgiven, posted 12-09-2002 7:26 PM forgiven has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 417 (26205)
12-10-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Primordial Egg
12-10-2002 10:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Aha, so she's not using Christian in the sense of "religion founded by Jesus Christ" but in the sense of "a prehistoric absolute"?
PE

Right-o. The debate in this thread about logic and how it can exist prior to human existence? That started because forgiven made a claim to the effect that logic existed before humans. The Christian worldview likewise existed before Christianity. I have a problem with both of these assertions.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 10:25 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 11:51 AM John has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 417 (26207)
12-10-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by John
12-10-2002 11:41 AM


quote:
That started because forgiven made a claim to the effect that logic existed before humans. The Christian worldview likewise existed before Christianity. I have a problem with both of these assertions.
The second one I agree with you. I'm not sure about the first (open to persuasion tho') - it seems to me to lie within the definition of "logic". If you define logic as that which comes out of a logic gate, then logic becomes a tangible measurable quantity, like charge or gravity. If you define logic as a method of assigning relationships between things, then it only exists before life inasmuch as "methods for assigning relationships" existed before life.
It does smack a little of "how many angels can dance on a head of a pin?" to me tho', I must admit. Maybe I haven't had the relevance properly explained to me?
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 12-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by John, posted 12-10-2002 11:41 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by John, posted 12-10-2002 12:26 PM Primordial Egg has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 417 (26210)
12-10-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Primordial Egg
12-10-2002 11:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
The second one I agree with you. I'm not sure about the first (open to persuasion tho') - it seems to me to lie within the definition of "logic".
Exactly.
quote:
If you define logic as that which comes out of a logic gate, then logic becomes a tangible measurable quantity, like charge or gravity.
But it seem to me that you are measuring electricity or some other physical quality, and not logic itself. In other words, does the quantity you measure actually fit what we consider logic? I can't convince myself that it does.
quote:
If you define logic as a method of assigning relationships between things, then it only exists before life inasmuch as "methods for assigning relationships" existed before life.
This pretty much my take on it. Logic isn't the relationships, it is our description of them. Forgiven, seems to want or need it to BE the relationships. This doesn't make sense to me for several reasons. Logic was invented and has been reinvented numerous times. Just look up symbolic logic on the web. There are dozens of systems. The first thing is just about any logic text is the statement that logic deals with statements, not necessarily the real world. It is an abstract system for analyzing propositions. And, logic breaks down, with the breakdown of strict classical mechanics, at sub-atomic scales. It therefore can't be an absolute.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 11:51 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 12:45 PM John has not replied
 Message 105 by Chara, posted 12-10-2002 12:54 PM John has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 417 (26211)
12-10-2002 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by John
12-10-2002 12:26 PM


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you define logic as that which comes out of a logic gate, then logic becomes a tangible measurable quantity, like charge or gravity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it seem to me that you are measuring electricity or some other physical quality, and not logic itself. In other words, does the quantity you measure actually fit what we consider logic? I can't convince myself that it does.
I don't have the same problem. One way of measuring the force of gravity on Earth is by the distance two suspended heavy balls move towards one another. You're measuring distance, but you're inferring gravity from it.
That said, to define logic as that which comes out of a logic gate does seem like a pretty unusual idea, kind of like bootstrapping a physical quantity - I claim that one for myself
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by John, posted 12-10-2002 12:26 PM John has not replied

Chara
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 417 (26212)
12-10-2002 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by John
12-10-2002 12:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
This pretty much my take on it. Logic isn't the relationships, it is our description of them. Forgiven, seems to want or need it to BE the relationships. This doesn't make sense to me for several reasons. Logic was invented and has been reinvented numerous times. Just look up symbolic logic on the web. There are dozens of systems. The first thing is just about any logic text is the statement that logic deals with statements, not necessarily the real world. It is an abstract system for analyzing propositions. And, logic breaks down, with the breakdown of strict classical mechanics, at sub-atomic scales. It therefore can't be an absolute.

Just leaping out into the dark here .... Would it be acceptable to say that the only form of logic that can be absolute in your way of thinking is "that which can be measured"? ie mathematically?
edited to fix these dratted quote thingies grrrr
[This message has been edited by Chara, 12-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by John, posted 12-10-2002 12:26 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-10-2002 1:06 PM Chara has replied
 Message 108 by John, posted 12-10-2002 3:06 PM Chara has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 106 of 417 (26213)
12-10-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Chara
12-10-2002 12:54 PM


quote:
edited to fix these dratted quote thingies grrrr
CONGRATULATIONS!!! - You beat me to it. Now if everyone else would fix their coding mistakes (Hint: Use preview function).
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Chara, posted 12-10-2002 12:54 PM Chara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Chara, posted 12-10-2002 1:27 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024