Okay, busted. I did see a thread started by someone new when I had only been here a week or two that was asking evolution questions and the initial response was pretty harsh. I think it might have been in GD as opposed to GQ, if that makes a difference. I really was kidding though, even used a smiley face. But I’m sorry if I was out of line anyway. :o
For another opinion, look at this thread: How do we know, that what we know, is what we REALLY know?
In particular, see erislover’s discussion of solipsism in the post titled Transcendental Idealism-- here goes nothing.
Note that solipsism is basically Descartes’ position before he invokes God to get him out of the hole. 
You’ve reported seeing God. Just pointing that out.
No. I think you’re still missing the point. To apply the Principle of Relevant Difference we have to know stuff about God, not just assume.
Skip the “supernatural” part and I agree with this definition.
The word “supernatural” is pointless. Search the archives for the word if you want a discussion of why.
I’m pretty sure I’d think Bigfoot was wonderful, beautiful and terrible if I saw him too.
Exactly. And therefore, we cannot assume that you’re right. We cannot assume that God isn’t bound by logic. To suspend logic when trying to prove God isn’t justified.
Not necessarily. It wasn’t that long ago that we couldn’t detect radio waves. We may be able to detect God some day. Or maybe he can shield himself.
This isn’t my experience at all. The General Questions folks are nice, polite, helpful and extremely intelligent. If someone calls you an idiot, report the poster.
I didn’t see God. Actually I said I knew he was Jesus, but he was God, which I know isn’t particularly clear. I think I saw what I could process and associate with God, but it was the physical touch and the feelings that had the impact. Not my feelings, but feeling what he was feeling. You know, if I were making this up, I could come up with a lot more impressive version. And did I actually see this with my eyes? It seemed so, but I have no way to verify that.
But if you don’t know whether or not God exists, then you can’t know stuff. If you’re looking for a god rather than an oversized bear, that seems like a relevant difference. If God was just a physical being who defied no current laws of nature, we wouldn’t be looking for him. I guess I am missing the point, but not deliberately. I do understand “Failed Pleading”, but I want to appeal that decision.
Are the archives just old posts, do you mean just do a regular search? I came up with 95 posts. Can’t bring myself to read all of them for one word. I do understand that there really is no such thing as supernatural. There are just things about nature that are outside of our current experience or understanding. Defining God as a mystery usually gets people irritated more than supernatural.
What if you were the only one that saw him? What if he knocked your tent over, ate your beef jerky and drank your beer? In other words, you had no doubt that you saw him. Then of course no one believes you when you get home. Do you keep it to yourself or line up with the alien abductees? Would you go back and look for him, relying only on the stuff you know?
But…but…but… So you’re assuming he is bound by logic. How is that so much different than the other way. Each one is kind of a leap of faith. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try both ways? Belief in God is not a logical process, so why bring logic in to an illogical situation. I know, sounds ridiculous, but as much as I’d like to back up God’s existence with at least a slide show, I’ve got nothing.
I’m still pretty sure that if he wanted us to be positive of his existence, we would be. Isn’t the process, the search for knowledge as valuable as that final last step of discovery?
Hey, if I can make it through this thread semi-intact (barely), it shouldn’t be a problem. :eek:
That’s why you need to define God. Let’s say we somehow find out that your vision was a hologram projected by an alien. This alien has lived for billions of years, started life on Earth, guided evolution, appeared to humans as Jesus, Allah, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Manitou and all the others, has so advanced technology that he is effectively omnipotent in our eyes and is capable of monitoring every single event on Earth, no matter how miniscule. Would you consider him God? If not, why not?
I’d probably go back and look, but yes, I believe I’d keep it to myself.
No. Everything, everywhere, everytime, is bound by logic. Everything. We cannot even begin to understand why something possibly couldn’t be bound by logic. Therefore, we assume God is bound by logic too. Anything else is a huge leap of faith.
To show that it is illogical, of course. But anyway, don’t you feel that your belief is logical, based on your experience?
Thanks for the advice. Just finished reading the first one. I think my brain is bleeding from the strain. I hope I’m not the only one who has to read this half a dozen times, just to understand which parts I don’t understand. If I am, don’t tell me.:o
Good question. I would love to fall back on one of those vague Christian answers right now and say no that couldn’t be, blah blah blah. But everything can be. No I wouldn’t consider him God. God is timeless. I might need to delve into his possible connection with God. If you take out the part about living for billions of years and changed that to has always been, it would get tougher to define. As it stands, the alien was also created by God who is the creator of everything. Since I don’t know the specifics of creation, I don’t know who or what methods God used or is using now. I’ve always wondered at the "Let US make man in our own image. If there really was an us there or is this a translation glitch. Okay, if I found out that what I saw, what I feel, what I believe was all due to a very old, but mortal alien, that there is no life after death, it would be like a death of hope, joy, anticipation, wonder. It would suck. Would I rationalize and insist that in spite of a logical explanation for everything I saw and felt; that God still existed. I don’t think so, although part of me would want to. If all of the reasons that I was convinced that there is a God were logically explained away, I would have to accept it. I don’t think I could fall back on blind faith contradictory to actual proof. My belief in God doesn’t have to do with “hey, I get an after-life with this God” or some other fringe benefit. It just is. It has to do with what I know and feel and believe from him.
I can understand that. Obviously pride is an issue or we would just consider it an exciting new discovery. Is it better to be less than honest, but maintain the appearance of being logical(sane) or is it better to be honest and appear foolish?
But what we don’t know is just information waiting to be added to that great pool of logic. Because we don’t know it, doesn’t mean it’s illogical, just “not yet explained”. And yes, you’re right, it is a huge leap of faith.
No I don’t particularly think, even based on my experience, that my beliefs are logical. It makes sense to me. It feels right. I know it’s right. But in spite of all obvious signs, I’m not delusional:) I know from a “logical” point of view what nonsense this is. I know I should somehow be uncomfortable with logically knowing that my belief is not logical, yet I’m not. I don’t have to know everything, just the important stuff. You do make me think though.
Hmmm… not sure I agree with this, but then, I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re saying here.
Priceguy, could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by “bound by logic” and why “We cannot even begin to understand why something possibly couldn’t be bound by logic”?
Thanks
Interesting. IWLN, do you think you can state the exact criteria that a being would have to fulfill to be considered God by you? Preferably in a list like:
- Existed forever
- Immortal
and so on. This is not really for the debate’s sake, I’m just genuinely interested.
Yes. That’s the point. We cannot posit outside what we know for no good reason.
OK, this is one of those things that make no sense to me. I cannot fathom how you would hold and defend a belief that you yourself find illogical, and I also don’t understand why you could find the belief illogical given that you feel that you have received proof.
Exactly. Not being bound by logic is a nonsense concept. I cannot even begin to explain what it would mean.
Again, Hmmm…
-
You still haven’t explained what you mean by “bound by logic”.
-
Sorry, I probably phrased the question badly. I wasn’t asking you to explain what the “nonsense concept” would mean, I was asking you to explain *why we couldn’t understand * the “nonsense concept” (i.e., why is it a nonsense concept?)
I think it will help if you ask yourself what properties does this “something not bound by logic” have?
other-wise, IWLN introduced the concept of not being bound by logic into this debate, not me. My take on it is that being bound by logic means… well, that you work logically in the world. When you move towards a stationary object, you get closer to that object. I guess a being not bound by logic would be able to move towards a stationary object without getting closer. That is, of course, nonsense. If you want a better explanation, you’ll have to ask IWLN.
Not to harp or anything, but you made a very flat, all-encompassing statement: “Everything, everywhere, everytime, is bound by logic. Everything”.
I don’t get how “working logically in the world” is supposed to explain how everything, everywhere, everytime, is bound by logic.
In your example, “moving towards a stationary object” is just another way of saying “getting closer to that object” (after all, could you get closer to the object by moving *away * from it?). If you’re saying self-contradictory statements are not logical, I’ve no problem with that.
But your “Everything ,everywhere, everytime” response was *originally *prompted by IWLN’s belief that God is unexplainable by natural law. How “unexplainable by natural law” equates to “not bound by logic” is what has me scratching my head.
(On preview, Priceguy, the above seems a lot more belligerent than intended. I’ve been away from the Boards and didn’t stumble on this thread until it was 8 ½ pages long and, consequently, I slammed through all 8 ½ pages like Evelyn Wood on crank. In re-reading some of the posts I realize that some of this has, to an extent, been addressed. I apologize for the pre-mature ejacuposting, and can sum up my curiosity in the following questions:
Do you think logic is the only way to obtain accurate knowledge/judge our experiences? If so, why?)
AndrewT says that if there were a God, it would be obvious to all.
I disagree.
There are flowers and they’re obvious to all. There’s a sky, and it’s obvious to all.
The Bible says “Seek and ye shall find”, meaning that there is just enough evidence to see God, but not enough for Him to be blatantly obvious.
Belief in God is a choice everyone gets to make, and a reward when they choose to believe. (explained below)
If God were obvious, He’d be like any flower, or the sky. They’re beautiful, but taken for granted because they are there and no one can say otherwise.
On the other hand, if there were no hints leading to God, no one would even mention Him or think to look for Him.
I don’t know what to say to an atheist that they haven’t already heard. It’s an amazing feeling to be ‘connected’ to God. An atheist can use all they science they want to explain it away, but people who feel it just know that it’s God, and it makes their lives so much more complete.
Cool! I can help you out – tell me what the “hints” are!
One of the problems I have with this kind of thing is there’s no way to describe some things and when I try, it sounds so lame. Unfortunately it never seems to keep me from trying. Just keep in mind that I am a very straight forward, rational thinking person in the rest of my life. And a lot of what could really describe God has more to do with what he brings out in us. I just realized I was stalling.
Okay, he’s always been. He is timeless. He can do anything, all powerful. He is intelligence. He is love, which is entirely different and infinitely bigger than our concept of love. He has a hilarious sense of humor which is exhibited by the existence of giraffes and the perceived all importance of the penis. He is perfect, but our concept of perfect is flawed. He is compassion, sorrow and patience. He is hate, but not our definition. Everything that we are, came from a part of who he is. He is not bound by logic, which makes all things possible. He just is. We are part of who he is.
Posit is to assume what is real or what we know. People posit outside what they know all the time and then very often prove it to be true. If we didn’t have our imagination and the thrist for knowledge, we would never have traveled into space and science would be limited to what we already know to be true.
Well I live here on earth too and I do pretty much understand the laws of nature. To have something materialize in front of me is not a logical earthly occurance. That makes it beyond logic or illogical. Something that is illogical does not necessarily make it an untruth. I believe in things that do not appear to be logical. I’m willing to risk seeming foolish for believing what nature so far has indicated is not possible. It may not make sense by our standards, but many things seems illogical until we had the tools to prove and make them logical. A timeless or infinite universe isn’t logical. But we are finally realizing that to limit the size or time of the universe poses a, what’s on the outside or what was before type dilema. Are you uncomfortable with new but unfathomable laws of nature?
Man is “bound by logic”, but you take this huge step and believe that because this is all you’re capable of believing and knowing that it somehow creates a universe bound by your logic. Here’s an example of your example:
I could be standing 3 feet in front of you (you can be the stationary object, now don’t move), with my back turned and head toward you. I would be getting further away from you. Because the earth is a sphere though, I would also be moving toward you. Now if you put us in that box of logic you are so comfortable with, my back would be against one side of the box and heading toward you could only result in me getting closer to you. You are limiting the possibilities. Not a great example, but indicative of there being more than one way to think. More possibilities than we normally percieve. There are many more ways learn things than just what you can arrive at through pure logic. Logic is imperative to our thought process, but is always changing and taking on new form. Nonsense becomes sense.
How thoughtful of you.
And you too, IWLN – you can help me out too (if only to understand your POV better), what are your hints?
God knows I hate to disagree with one of the few believers that I’ve seen on this thread, but I do.(I’ve been so alone here fighting these atheist wolves, sob :D) I don’t agree with the idea that belief in God is as simple as a choice, just waiting for everyone to say okay to. I think the only conscious, real choice we make is to not close our mind to every possibility. If you have listened, thought and read all you can on God and you still can’t believe it, where’s the choice? I don’t think that’s always within our power. Someone who is not convinced, who needs more proof, will get that eventually and why should it matter if you get that in this life or the next. You can’t reject a God you don’t know. Most of what seem like signs and hints to us are a combination of hindsight and emotional projection. There are very few “hints” that cannot be explained logically. I look at things differently because I believe, but that doesn’t mean I can’t see them like they really are too.
Would you like me to bring them directly into the lion’s den when I’m done with them or did you have other plans? 