I think, IWLN, that if we were “down the pub” I would enjoy the conversation with you. What I mean is: Tell me! Tell me what I am missing! Tell me like I am someone you’ve just met, who looks like he is interested in what you have to say – What are these “clues” that “God” has left for us?
Now, I take it from your post that you think this question is some kind of trap? Do you think that every answer you might give can be easily rebutted?
Just so you understand me better let me tell you how I see it: I believe that I can easily dismiss such clues, but, I have no intention to trap anyone. If you, or, Thylacinewas taken, or anyone, can post any such clue that I genuinely cannot comfortably explain in terms of materialism, then I will have learned.
For me this is a win-win situation, I have no advantage to gain by petty, automatic, put-downs.
How do you know God is “timeless”? Did God literally sit you down and say “I am timeless. Do not mistake me for some mere alien who has lived billions of years because I will have no truck with that nonsense!”? Or is this just a neccessary attribute you assign God because otherwise you run into problems defining him?
**
Truth to tell you don’t “know” the universe was created. You believe it was. Theists tend to think that asserting their beliefs as “facts” they obtained through personal revelation, lends greater weight to their beliefs. However, experience tells us that when people get sacred visions/personal revelations from God/trancendent beings/spirits etc. these are usually halucinations. Occam’s razor strikes again! Until you can provide evidence that rules out delusion/deceit/misunderstanding etc. as likely reasons for your alleged “revealed knowledge”, we have no reason to think your claim is true.
Giving excuses for WHY you cannot rationally justify your claims does not count.
**
You either do not understand or severely underestimate the human belief mechanism then. Unless you are a specimen so incredible, the likes of which has never been seen on this earth, then you WILL likely “find” reasons to believe even in the face of the most powerful contrary evidence and logic. Look at Uri Geller, crop circle fanatics, JFK conspiracy theorists, and John Edward’s faithful. Perfect examples of what I am talking about.
**
I am not sure it is possible to “logically explain away” all of the reasons people believe (as Michael Shermer puts it) “weird things”. Since beliefs such as god-belief, reincarnation and whatnot are not rooted in logic in the first place, logic will do little to change the mind of the “faithful”.
Back when I was a christian(of sorts), a supernaturalist, a ufologist and everything BUT skeptical, I would talk to God all the time. God would reveal remarkable knowledge to me and I would smugly assert that I did not have “belief” I had KNOWLEDGE/a relationship. There were a lot of logical clues that my beliefs were not grounded in reality. For one, God always spoke to me from inside my own head. He never yelled at me while I was thinking about what I was going to wear or something. He never said “Turn down the stereo for a second I need to tell you something!”. He always kind of spoke to me in the same voice that all other imaginary things spoke to me adn he always told me things I either already knew(sort of confirmation) or hoped to hear. He never said “Listen, some people make a lot of good decisions and do well and some people…like YOU are meant to screw up over and over again adn I am afraid no matter what you do, you will be fired Monday morning from your job and you are failing US history regardless of how hard you pray.”
No. It was always “Everything will be okay. You’ve made some mistakes but it’s not the end of the world…yada yada”
Stuff I imagined a father figure saying to me. Does any of this in itself prove God was not speaking to me? Nope. Still can’t prove a negative. But when I study behavioral science, psychology, anthropology etc., a lot of the puzzle fits and everything makes sense. I was not talking to God. I was talking to myself. Blinking lights that could have been any number of things in the night sky were always recalled as “moving at impossible speeds”(until I got honest with myself).
**
Just out of curiosity, what if you found out that God existed but he was incredibly EVIL! Everything he revealed to you was a lie and he actually just delighted in watching humans stumble around like blind mice and occasionally hurting themselves.
Would you still be here adamantly proclaiming his existence? Would you become more skeptical or less?
**
IMO, it is best to be honest And logical adn not worry about how you appear. There is no one in this country where I live that is less popular than a skeptic(especially an atheistic one). Even KKK and neo-nazis are more popular than us!
**
To the rationalist, things not yet known are simply things not yet known. We evaluate claims according to their likelihood. Claims which do not follow rules of inference, are not rationally justified adn contradict general observation & experience, regardless of how popular, are regarded as “not likely”.
The thing is humans are logical beings(that does not mean we always come to logical conclusions though). We do not know of and cannot even concieve of anything which can exist and not be bound by logic. We cannot imagine how a circle could simultaneously be “not a circle”/square, so even if, in some far off dimension square circles exist, it is irrelevant because their existence can have no more impact on us than their non-existence. The instant that they DO impact us and we know this, then they cannot be non-logical any longer.
Same with God. The very instant God does something that is unmistakably “Godly” and we can say “That was God!” then he becomes logical, existential and bound by logic/reality. Until then, it matters not whether he exists or not because the effect is the same as long as we are logical creatures who cannot think “outside of logic”.
Other-wsie:
Actually The Great Unwashed explained “not bound by logic” quite well. Moving toward an object and getting closer to it IS logical. We, as humans, cannot concieve of how something could move toward an object adn not get closer to it.
A circle which is NOT “not a circle” at the same time it is a circle is logical. We cannot concieve of how a circle could also be not a circle. Until someone CAN explain how these sorts of notions(illogical propositions) could mae sense, then “Not bound by logic” IS a “nonsense concept”!
Other-wise:
Actually The Great Unwashed explained “not bound by logic” quite well. Moving toward an object and getting closer to it IS logical. We, as humans, cannot concieve of how something could move toward an object adn not get closer to it.
A circle which is NOT “not a circle” at the same time it is a circle is logical. We cannot concieve of how a circle could also be not a circle. Until someone CAN explain how these sorts of notions(illogical propositions) could mae sense, then “Not bound by logic” IS a “nonsense concept”!
I’ve always liked pubs better than churches anyway. Rick’s Pub is four blocks from my house. You get the first round. I’ll meet you there.
Hey, I gave it a happy rasberry face or am I misinterpretting the smilies (to me it’s just a friendly, lovable, non-venomous version of bite me). Is it different in England? No I don’t see it as a trap and yes every answer I give can be easily rebutted. That has never stopped me before, though.
Okay, I’ll tell you what seems obvious to me as a believer, but keep in mind I realize nothing is proof and did not contribute to my original realization that there was a God. The first is our existence. If one little freckle of carbon had been one millionth degree to the left, we would not be (there’s a fallacy attached to that one, ignore it and have another beer). The timeless universe. You may see evolution as a process without a specific purpose, but I see each individual cell as having their own purpose and that is to survive and become what they were meant to be. Our emotions, our motivations and our drive cannot be for a pointless, limited existence. The absolute staggering beauty of our world and what’s around it. Big and small things. Have another beer. Our ability to show kindness and compassion towards each other. Most other animals only do what’s necessary for survival. When’s the last time your dog offered to share his food with you? That wonderful connection that we feel with other people. Laughter, joy. The sheer volume of people seeking a higher power. The resiliency of people. The power of our minds. Our science. The sweet untainted wisdom of a small child. The ability to enjoy peace and tranquility. I see all this as gifts given to us, that we in turn give each other. Boy am I thirsty. Why should there be a God involved in this where there is an infinitisimal chance that there isn’t? I absolutely realize that there is no proof here, but I do believe there are hints. You can comfortably explain this all in terms of materialism, but that doesn’t mean you should? Hey, next time we go to the pub, I’ll tell you why IMHO religion is the worst thing that ever happened to God.
No. No talk of aliens. That was Priceguy, not God. I do believe there is good information in the Bible, just not all of it. But mainly my perception of God and his power don’t leave much room for him to have a creator. That creator would have had to have been a god too. I’ve never asked God for a lot of details. I do trust him to take care of his own attributes and I’m reasonably sure he’ll set me straight if I have misrepresented him.
My truth to tell, actually, I don’t believe the universe was created. I believe it and God have always been, but he did set things into motion for our physical universe. Did a good job, didn’t he? So experience tells you that all sacred visions, revelations, etc. are usually hallucinations. You got your answers from a highly dubious process of elimination that is controlled solely by what you can prove to be true and when that fails you, what is most likely. Good job, but not necessarily accurate. Does logic demand that you answer these questions reguardless of whether you are sure it is the correct answer? Prove I had a hallucination. What the hell was in it for me? I already believed in God. I received nothing tangible. I didn’t even speak of it for years. I completely acknowledged ahead of time that my experience has no value to anyone else here. I am not offended that no one else here believes it. I have stated that I wouldn’t either, if the situation were reversed. The only difference is I wouldn’t try to claim that your experience was not real, because I have no real logical way of knowing. I have offered no excuses why I can’t rationally justify my claims. I have completely agreed that the concept of God is not rational by our standards, but still true.
I have not come across any powerful contrary evidence against God’s existence. Do you really have any, or just a “logical” process of elimination. I do agree that people can be gullible and find that in part it’s because they need a “higher power”. Someone to make sense out of things for them. That is why religion has taken hold of so many people, but often has little to do with God. If there were insurmountable evidence against the probability of God’s existence, I have no need for a fake God. I was becoming kind of fond of Snozz, though. In spite of evidence to the contrary I am not self-delusional. I am strong and sound. God makes me more, but does not prop me up.
True.
I’ve never heard voices in my head, although I have had thoughts that I felt like were God inspired. I don’t think he bothers to tell you things you already know are true. I don’t think God is a motivational speaker or much on flattery. Some of the “God inspired” thoughts I’ve had have not been what I wanted to think at all, but mostly I think he just gifted me with a great sense of judgment and a dash of intuitive thinking. It has worked well for me and saved me from wrong choices. I don’t have that vivid of an imagination. God is my only abberation from rational thinking.
Sure you may have been talking to yourself. Did it harm you? What were the benefits of “getting honest” with yourself? Why didn’t I get the same thing out of psychology and behavioral science? Why did you decide to dump God and the UFO’s. If they prove UFO’s, does God get back in?
Well it wouldn’t be the God that’s been with me, so I’d have my God go kick the evil god’s ass. Okay, honest answer. Yes I would be here proclaiming his existence and warning people to look out, that he was an evil liar. I make every attempt in life not to misrepresent or endorse a bad product. Obviously I would prefer no God to an evil being.
I don’t think atheists or skeptics are particularly prevalent where I live and we actually legally stole the regional Arryan Nations compound and booted them out. Honestly though, God does not come up in day to day business conversation. Obviously I’m not worried about appearances, although I didn’t intend on discussing quite so much in front of 7,000 of my favorite strangers.
You know, I think it’s very logical to decide that something is “not likely”. After all, everyone does form their own opinions. But when that changes to “that didn’t happen”, there is no God", etc., you’re making a leap of faith too.
You will probably hear rumors and stories about the “not a circle”/square before you actually have it proved to your satisfaction. Things don’t have to be your own personal truths to have impact.
That’s fair. I have never said that logically I could not see why you don’t believe in God. It is completely understandable. I did not come here with some mis-guided belief that I could somehow wittness to you and miraculously save the world by Internet. I came here to learn, was stunned at how much I needed to learn and have honestly learned more here than I ever did in church. Not about whether to believe in God or not. But, a little about thought processes, logic, evolution, science, philosophy, human nature and the list goes on. Just enough to know I need to learn a lot more. Can’t have you atheists that far ahead of me.:eek: So it’s back to college in January. Thanks for your thoughts.
No. It was prompted by IWLN’s belief that God is not bound by logic.
Yes. What other ways are there?
I’ve tried to explain what “bound by logic” means. If I failed, it’s because “bound by logic” is such an immensely basic concept. Logic isn’t something created by humans. It’s the fundamental description of the universe. Therefore, it’s impossible to even imagine something not being bound by logic. I can accept a being sidestepping gravity, electro-magnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces somehow, but not logic.
What does “timeless” mean here? Just that he won’t ever die from age, or that he somehow exists outside time? If he today were to wish that Galileo Galilei never existed, can he make it so?
Where do you draw the limits of “anything”? Can he pull a bald man’s hair?
This is where you lose me. These are nonsense statements. In the words of Czarcasm, this is like saying “my left foot is confusion”. It makes no sense.
Refer to other-wise’s questions. What does “bound by logic” mean?
So, basically, if a being had all the characteristics of a god except being timeless, you wouldn’t consider that being God? If you die and are greeted by God in the kingdom of Heaven, but he admits that he is, in fact, bound by logic, you’ll deny his godhood?
Cite? If you’re thinking about science, we only posit falsifiable hypotheses and then test them. We never posit something outside what we know and just assume it’s true.
Compared to the alternative, it is.
Not “finally”. We’ve been realizing this for a long time.
Define “uncomfortable”. I don’t just swallow them, I wait until I understand them. It took a long time for me to understand Relativity, but now I do, so I accept it.
It’s not mine. Logic is universal. IWLN, can you name one thing, being, event, anything, ever (apart from God), that is/was not bound by logic? Can you find anything at all?
No you wouldn’t. The distance between us would be increasing. The Earth’s shape is irrelevant at this point.
Name one. Name one way that isn’t observation and logic, and that comes up with information that’s actually, objectively true.
I have a very big problem with this. Two things are said here:
I don’t think my beliefs are logical.
My beliefs make sense to me.
These two statements are contradictory. You have a set of beliefs that make sense to you. Through study and experience, your beliefs have been confirmed. They make sense to you. That is logic. Humans are logical beings; if something makes sense to one, that is because it appears logical. Seeing a demonstration of fact and saying “Hmm, makes sense to me” is the same as saying “Hmm, seems logical.” Making sense of something is to see the logic behind it.
Some important points:
[ul]
[li]Logic and truth are very different things. A belief can be logical and false.[/li][li]People will not believe something they think to be illogical.[/ul][/li]Think about that last one. Would anyone, anywhere believe something they thought to be utterly ridiculous?
I had a good (I thought so) explanation for this written out but I think I’ve done enough of a hijack here. I am a logician by nature and by trade, and I’d love to discuss logic and its implications at length, but I think it would be better to start another thread for that (if anyone is actually interested).
IWLN has already ingeniously demonstrated the flaw in Priceguy’s example (and in mine, too), and I’m underwhelmed by Priceguy’s claim that the Earth’s shape is “irrelevant”. IWLN’s point is well-taken: you have to be both precise and accurate in defining your terms or your “logical conclusion” won’t hold, and I don’t think anyone has the requisite knowledge to precisely and accurately define conditions that would hold for “Everything, everywhere, everytime”.
Well, it seems that no one, including me, can conceive of how light can have wave-like properties or particle-like properties, since the properties of waves and particles are mutually exclusive. Or how particles can be in two places at once. Or how particles can affect each other without communication. We can’t conceive of any of these, but I don’t hear people calling Quantum Mechanics a “nonsense concept”.
other-wise/Priceguy wrote:
A huge amount of our actions are based on hunches, guesses, and non-conscious processes. Even something as prosaic as a conversation happens too fast for us to logically analyze incoming statements and return a consciously-formulated logical response. Remember the “discovery” of the benzene ring? Or how Leowi figured out the transmission of nerve impulses? The (accurate) conclusions reached by these scientists weren’t the result of any logical process I’ve ever heard of.
Man, how do you *objectively determine * a statement like that? Algorithm , I’d love to read your explanation. The topic would indeed make a great thread.
It is. If the distance between me and IWLN is increasing, it doesn’t matter that, if IWLN keeps turning, she will eventually be coming closer to me. She’s not right now.
Apples and oranges. We don’t exactly understand quantum mechanics or the properties of light, but no-one’s saying they’re illogical.
I didn’t ask about actions. We’re talking about knowledge.
You cannot seriously believe that just because the discovery itself was made by accident, logic had nothing to do with it. Once the scientist had the idea, he tested it, using logic. We never hear about the billions of hunches that don’t pan out, just the comparative handful that does. And even they don’t bring us any knowledge, which is what this is about.
If you omit the word “great”, it already has. Several, unless I’m mistaken.
“She’s not right now”? If you’re both on a sphere (which you are) and she walks away from you in a straight line, she will eventually walk right into you. I stand by my previous statement: you have to be both precise and accurate in defining your terms or your “logical conclusion” won’t hold, and no one has the requisite knowledge to precisely and accurately define conditions that would hold for “Everything, everywhere, everytime”.
O.K., I’ll bite. Logically, how can particles be in two places at once or affect each other without communicating?
What do you base your actions on if not knowledge?
I never said the discovery was an accident. And you asked IWLN to “Name one. Name one way that isn’t observation and logic, and that comes up with information that’s actually, objectively true.” I gave you two, *both * of which resulted in objective knowledge.
And you still haven’t answered my question:
Again, how do you *objectively determine * a statement like that?
Then she’s not walking away from me in a straight line. You can see that, right?
I’m sorry, but I’m both too tired, too bored and too much of a layman to explain this. Ask in General Questions instead.
Sometimes, hunches and guesses, like you said yourself. Emotions. Stuff like that. What does that have to do with anything?
Must have blinked and missed them. Name those two again, please? I’m looking for two ways to find objective information, that aren’t observation and logic. You just said you had them. Show me.
Observation and reason, like everything else. It’s quite easy to see that 1+1=2 will still be around when humans aren’t, and that it was there before humans were. When the last human takes his last breath, two objects moving towards each other will still be coming closer. Logic exists independently of us. What’s your problem with this?
Sorry, lost my bolding. That should have been: “What do you base your actions on if not knowledge?” (My point is that all day long we all take actions and make judgements that turn out to be accurate, yet are non-conscious, and so cannot be the result of a conscious logical analysis).
:dubious: sigh, o.k., re-read my previous post and substitute *curved * line for straight line. She’ll still eventually walk right into you.
IWLN , there you go.
I find it hard to believe that Priceguy doesn’t know that these properties cannot be explained logically, but if he doesn’t, he should. Priceguy, if you can’t explain this then I see no reason to accept your “Everything, everywhere, everytime” claim.
The ring structure of Benzene was literally dreamt. Leowi had a hunch that nerves communicated through chemical neurotransmission, but he couldn’t figure out a way to test his hunch. He also dreamt the solution:
Both dreams resulted in objective knowledge (and as I said, everyday non-conscious processing gives us all kinds of information that certainly works as if it’s objective).
First of all, I don’t have any problem with Logic per se. I consider logic to be the over-all most useful tool/epistemology that I’ve encountered. My problem is that statements like “It’s quite easy to see” and “Logic exists indepentently of us” are not objective statements, nor have you provided any objective evidence for them, even though you appear to put a premium on knowledge and evidence being “objective”.
And in what way does that contradict anything I’ve said? I said she’s moving away from me. She is. She’s not getting closer to me. That’s the truth. A person moving along a curved line will eventually return to the starting point. What is illogical about that? Fact remains that she is moving away from me, the distance is increasing.
Bull. So some natural laws don’t work the way we used to expect them to. So what? We cannot explain them now. So what? In what way does that show that logic has been suspended?
No they didn’t. Experiments resulted in objective knowledge. The dreams merely provided the incentive to experiment. Please show me the two ways to find objective information that aren’t observation and reason, that you said you had.
It’s time to introduce you to the concept of ordinary and extraordinary claims. If you claim that the concept of 1+1=2 is dependent upon humans, I’d like you to provide some support for that. The burden of proof is on the person making the sensational claim, in this case you.
It just means that time has no meaning, no measurement as far as he’s concerned. There is no aging, no expiration date. It is a “nonsense” concept for someone who has no beginning or end. Time is only important to us and anyone else like us, if they exist. He can make anything so, but I’ll bet he kind of liked Galileo.
Yes, but only if the bald man once had hair. Remember time is our concept, not Gods.
How could they be nonsense statements? You don’t have to define feelings or emotions with logic. Some of them you just feel. You can doubt the source, but not the feeling.
If I remember correctly, we got into the whole bound by logic thing from your concept of natural law. I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong. I have always thought logic was subjective, but kind of gave in on this one as your definition of logic seemed to follow the same rules as natural law. Bound by logic to me implies only one way of coming to conclusions and it is limiting. Sometimes nonsense works.
When God defines what the true meaning of “bound by logic” is, I’ll listen. God without timelessness defies the whole definition of all powerful or creator of all, doesn’t it. When you die and are greeted by God, you will have to revise your ideas of logic, knowledge, natural laws, etc. That will be a good thing, not a negative. Our thoughts and laws are not sacred. They’re nonsense to someone who knows more.
I disagree with that completely. Maybe what’s published in a scientific paper reflects this but initially much of science is just like I was when I got my first chemistry set. I wondered what would happen if… Many discoveries have been made that way. It does not make the discovery any less valid. Trial and error is not ignoble. It is expedient at times and does not always involve positing on any logical basis.
Both remain illogical by our concept of “natural law”. We are just picking the best illogical argument and trying to prove it.
Okay, but I have disagreed and argued with the concept of a certain size, albeit naively since my childhood(eons ago) and was told I was wrong.
I have no problem swallowing what I don’t understand at times. I am not smart enough to process those things. What I can’t accept is any process that limits possibilities by inference.
Again, the universe(the big one, not our corner) is not bound by logic. Also, emotions, ideas, intuition. Logic is subjective, natural law is regional.
My point here was you can’t let your idea of logic limit all the possible choices. I am walking away from you, but I am also walking toward you. I am headed toward a object, but getting further away. Obviously the long way around, but still fulfills a logical concept. Since it is impossible for me to walk in space, we are of course talking about me following a direct line around the planet. Logic should be a tool, not something that binds or blinds you. Come on Priceguy, this was a good point. Give me a little credit. I have learned a lot from you and disagreed with a lot, but I have given you credit for making me see something I didn’t or at least cried “Uncle” when I still couldn’t see it, but felt like you knew more.
…and yet, amazingly, she’ll run right into you.:rolleyes:
Exactly. We cannot explain them now. And yet, somehow, we know that [Priceguy]“Everything, everywhere, everytime, is bound by logic. Everything”[/Priceguy].
Nice try. The experiments merely confirmed what they* already* knew. Their (accurate) knowledge was subjectively aquired (unless you want to argue that dreams are a logical, objective way of obtaining knowledge).
I, of course, made no such claim. I said:
… and you still have not provided objective evidence for them. However I did call you on your (not only extraordinary, but all-encompassing) claim that “Everything, everywhere, everytime, is bound by logic. Everything”.…and you as yet have still not provided objective evidence for that statement.
On the off chance that you’re serious and not just being silly: What I said was “When you move towards a stationary object, you get closer to that object”. Neither you nor IWLN have moved a tiny little iota closer to falsifying that statement. Whether the line is curved or straight doesn’t matter. You get closer when you move towards, farther away when you move away.
So because a particle sometimes appears, to the detection equipment currently available to us, to be in two places at once, logic isn’t universal? Look up “non sequitur”.
I’m trying really hard not to laugh here. Are you really serious? These guys dreamed something that happened to be true, and that somehow turns dreams into ways to find objective knowledge? And the experiments were just unnecessary confirmation?
So you’re not claiming that there are things/events/whatever not bound by logic? Then what are we arguing about?
I’m getting JThunder flashbacks. I’ve already been through a very similar conversation in this thread. It was just as interesting (ie not at all), just as meaningful (ie not at all) and will probably lead to the same conclusion, which I sum up in my last post to that thread. You may be able to find people with whom to argue whether up is down or down is up, but throwing rocks into wool just isn’t my thing. You’ll probably see this as you winning, so have fun and enjoy your little victory.
Do you agree that “my left foot is confusion” is a nonsense statement?
Some things just aren’t subjective. Logic is one of them.
I’ll ask you what I’ve asked several other posters: name another way, apart from observation.
Like when?
No. Why would it? But you are saying that if God turned out to be non-timeless, you would deny his godhood?
Nor did I ever say that it was. We’re talking past each other, I think. I’m not saying “what would happen if…” experiments are worthless. I did say that we cannot posit that, for example, God is not bound by logic, and then draw conclusions from that, or use that as evidence.
I’m not so sure. The soap bubble model has some interesting properties.
Do you understand that if scientists were to use your method they’d turn insane in five minutes? Every time a bubble appeared in a test-tube they’d have to seriously consider if it was created by a Bubble Fairy, or perhaps a Bubble Dragon, or perhaps a Bubble Leprechaun.
Above, you implied that you cannot define “bound by logic”. Yet you claim that the universe isn’t. How can you tell? How can I tell? What properties of the universe show that it isn’t bound by logic?
All the products of electrical impulses and chemical reactions, produced in a very logical way.
Cite? Example? Anything?
No you’re not. You will be some time in the future if you continue on your present trajectory, but you’re not now.
I’d love to, but it just wasn’t a good point. I’m very sorry, but it was plain wrong. I say that if you’re moving towards a stationary object you get closer to that object, you modify that to “if I move away from a stationary object and follow a curved line upon which the stationary object is one point, I will eventually be getting nearer that object” and expect me to give in. Sorry, not seeing it.
