"There is no God" is an opinion, not a fact.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@FinnAgain

I am curious on this point.
Were I a deity, and I inspired some mortal, I’d make damn sure the motherfucker got it right. I mean, what’s Divine Inspiration worth if it doesn’t work like a charm?

There’s a story in Exodus (don’t remember the exact chapter and verse, but I can find it if someone really wants to see it) where the Israelites were wandering in the desert and began to get thirsty. God told Moses to take his staff and tap it once against a nearby rock and He would make water come forth. Well, Moses had just about had it taking care of the people. So he hit his staff against the rock twice really hard. Instead of a small stream like out of a faucet, it poured forth like a firehose. The people had their water and were happy, but God was pissed.

Why did God allow Moses to do that? My guess is free will (I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of free will, so if someone wants to discuss this point, please open another thread). My point is that we (or at least I) can’t understand everything that God does. Maybe He wants to see who is going to apply critical thinking to the Bible and who is going to accept it on blind faith. Either way, He is way smarter than I, and I have faith that He knows what He is doing.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Loopydude

At the very least, I do not think you can claim there is consensus on this idea, that the first principles upon which logic is founded are themselves neither true nor false, whatever Kant or Hume may have said on the subject.

As far as I know, nobody has offered a strong argument against the principle that any self-contained set of consistent assertions must contain certain assertions unproveable by any other assertions within the set. Formal logic is one such set of self-contained assertions. I happen to find it amazingly useful, but that doesn’t prove its truth, any more than the warm feeling religion gives people proves its truth.

Daniel

[Testy]

@Loopydude

It’s just this idea that I “worship” logic rather than absolutely depend on it (as does every other thinking being on this planet), strikes me as, well, self-evidently incorrect and discounted by all the available evidence. <SNIP>

Metaphysics aside, I would say that “worship” is not a good description of most people’s attitude toward logic. “Worship” is what the believers do. Logic is to be used, not worshipped.

Regards

Testy

[Loopydude]

I mean, here’s another reference, making, I think, cogent arguments (which require logic, after all). If I could see a flaw in this authors position, I could acknowledge it. I fail to see how this is “worship” in any sense of the word, or how I even have a choice in the matter. I must either surrender reason of any kind, or essentially surrender to the very pragmatic realization that without logic, there is no meaning to anything. Telling me over and over I haven’t read enough, or simly saying “logic is optional because first principles are a matter of faith” seems tantamount to say I choose to acknowledge existence, or at least any form of causal and relational structure of any kind. If that’s how far the argument must go, then fine; at least admit it that we’ve enetered into that realm of absurdity. Why don’t you read the below carefully, and explain to me why this position is “worshipful” of logic, rather than simply an acknowledgement of its necessity?

The reference.

The position:

As Geisler and Brooks tell us:

Logic is built on four undeniable laws. There is no “getting behind” these laws to explain them. They are self-evident and self-explanatory. There is also no way around them. In order to reject any of these statements, one must assume the very principle he seeks to deny. But if you must assume that something is true to say that it is false, you haven’t got a very good case, have you?

For example, the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of noncontradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false. So we can’t call it false without assuming that it is true. The same thing happens when someone tries to deny the other laws: the law of identity (A is A), the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A), and the law of rational inference (emphasis in original).(7)
Third, furthermore, a statement’s meaningfulness (let alone significance or truthfulness) depends upon logic. If logic is not true, or applicable to the topic at hand then the statement is meaningless. That is, a statement’s very meaning or meaningfulness exists only because logic is true or applicable. Otherwise the statement could or would be both true and not true or applicable and not applicable at the same time and in the same sense, since it would no longer be true that statements cannot be both true and not true (false) in the same time and sense. Both are now true or applicable since a statement can be both true and not true (false) at the same time and in the same sense. Thus, one could just as well say that “logic is true or applicable to the topic at hand” in the same breath as the previous statement, or “I will see you Wednesday and I will not see you Wednesday,” etc. Thus, to deny logic or state that logic is not true or applicable only has meaning if logic does apply to the original statement. But this refutes the original claim.
Thus, any statement or claim only has meaning, a fortiori significance or truthfulness, if and only if logic does apply or is true. Hence, the claim that “logic is not true or applicable” is meaningless unless logic is true, but in that case the original claim is false, indeed, self-defeating.
Fourth, to deny or try to disprove the need for, necessity of, or truth of logic one must first utilize it, thus disproving their original assertion. One has to use logic to try to disprove, refute, or even deny it. If one must use logic in the effort to refute it, then the argument is self-evidently not true. One has only proven its truthfulness or applicability (ironically in the very attempt to refute it).
To deny logic or say that it is false or not true or applicable to a certain topic entails the use of logic in the very assertion itself (thus, it is true or applicable). This is like a person who says, “I can not utter a word in English.” But, they just did. They should either quit speaking English or retract the original statement. The original statement is false, indeed self-defeating. Further examples of these types of claims include:
“Logic is not applicable to this topic.”
“This topic, view, or realm is beyond' logic." The idea is that logic's reach simply does not extend to the topic. "This is just a case of the Eastern versus Western or Aristotelian bias or perspective on logic." The idea is that one is insisting on a Western worldview perspective, while ignoring or to the detriment of an Eastern or occultic view. "This is the mundane versus spiritual’ perspective.”
“This is merely the emotions versus the realm of rationality or logic.”
“This is the altered versus normal states of consciousness viewpoint.”
“This is a case of this plane versus other planes or levels of reality or existence.”
“This is only a case of this level versus other levels of meaning.”
“Logic is not true.”
All these claims are based upon logic in the first place.
Thus, to deny logic or assert that logic is not true (i.e., false) or applicable is itself based upon logic. The statement or distinction itself is built or predicated upon logic. Logic had to be employed to formulate the assertion. The statement “logic does not apply” involves the distinction of “logic does not apply,” versus “logic does apply.” However, it is possible to make this distinction itself only because of the laws of logic. Therefore, logic is–must be–true or does apply. But, this is self-refuting or refutes the original claim.
Fifth, one cannot not use logic in the real world. Try driving to the grocery store while denying the validity of logic. (Indeed, what grocery store? The one that is and is not there?) One can not successfully cross the railroad tracks without it. Next time you’re at a railroad crossing with an apparent train speeding down the line imagine thinking that the train is there and it is not there. Would you? No! Try this in the “real” world. (Why do Hindus and Christian Scientists look both ways before crossing the street?) Logic is necessary or indispensable in life. One literally can not live (long) without it!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

For example, the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of noncontradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false. So we can’t call it false without assuming that it is true.

And why is this a problem? Remember, if we’re denying the principles of logic for the purposes of this game, we can’t claim something is a problem because it’s illogical.

In any case, an alternative to saying, “the law of non-contradiction is false” would be to say, “A=~A.” Saying this does not depend on the law of non-contradiction; while you might infer from it that the law of non-contradiction is false, your inference itself relies on another law of logic, and I may (in this little game) feel fre to ignore that inference.

Logic is useful, but it ain’t the only game in town.

Daniel

[Loopydude]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

In any case, an alternative to saying, “the law of non-contradiction is false” would be to say, “A=~A.”

And why is this not simly vacuous and absurd? You can simply choose to ignor the vacuous of that statement and say you’ve made some kind of point? Are you saying absurdity is the other game in town, for instance?

[Loopydude]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

In any case, an alternative to saying, “the law of non-contradiction is false” would be to say, “A=~A.”

And why is this not simly vacuous and absurd? You can simply choose to ignore the vacuousness of that statement and say you’ve made some kind of point? Are you saying absurdity is the other game in town, for instance?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Loopydude

And why is this not simly vacuous and absurd? You can simply choose to ignore the vacuousness of that statement and say you’ve made some kind of point? Are you saying absurdity is the other game in town, for instance?

Not at all: I’m saying mysticism is one of the other games in town, and asking me to defend mysticism logically is absurd. Especially since I’m no mystic.

Daniel

[Loopydude]

Damn, meant to hit preview.

I think I’m getting it. Because I care so much about not being utterly meaningless in the way I express myself, and not utterly senseless in the way I think, I worship logic. Forget about the fact I would have to make a concerted and conscious effort to play the “other games in town” (and hence have to resort to logic to know that I was even being illogical). Of course, I could be insane. Then it would be easy. I wouldn’t even have to choose to not recognize causal relationships and associative structures, because random and dissociative thought patterns would come naturally, and the fact no one else could make any sense of me would not seem strange. I would find them strange, or not. Of course.

[MEBuckner]

@Othersider

That’s not true. The exact reference fails me, but I know there’s a verse in the bible, says something like it’s good to question all things, even the existence of God.

I’d be interested in an exact reference for that. You may be thinking of 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22:

Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.

I believe the context there are “prophetic utterances”, or speaking in tongues. Paul was saying on the one hand, those sort of “gifts of the Holy Spirit” were good, but on the other hand, don’t just blindly accept any old gibberish some guy gets up and starts spouting in church. In general, Biblical authors are extremely God-centered, and I very much doubt any of them said to “question even the existence of God”, although you will sometimes find things which say to question everything else in the light of God’s more-or-less axiomatic existence (see 1 John 4:1; I guess people getting up and “prophesying” all sorts of controversial and contradictory doctrines was a major problem for the early church). In light of the other things he wrote, Paul would probably have vigorously disagreed with an interpretation of his words which suggested he was saying you should dare to question God’s existence.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Loopydude

Damn, meant to hit preview.

I think I’m getting it.

Hey, whatever turns you on, man. I don’t think you are getting it, but nor do I think you’ve got any intention of getting it. So unless you’ve got something new to add, I think that about wraps it up for me.

Daniel

[Loopydude]

No, that’s not true. I just haven’t found your arguments persuasive. Maybe others have made it better I don’t know. Having said that, I did ask for some references to books you think were persuasive on this subject, and I have a genuine interest in checking them out.

[Loopydude]

You know, are there specific examples or articles these author or authors you cited informed you, such that I don’t have to read their entire body of work to get at the heart of the matter? I’ve provided you some specific cites when you found my wording insufficient. I thought that might be helpful. Perhaps you could tell me about a particular book or article that you found illuminating, and then I could read it and judge for myself.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

First, I apologize for some of my snarkiness above; as you can tell, the starting issue (of calling religious folks delusional) is one that I feel pretty passionate about. I shouldn’t have let that lead me into being so snarky, though; sorry!

That said, I am going to leave this discussion, but I’ll give a quick reference, since you’ve asked a couple of times for one: since we’re talking about how the principle of noncontradiction must be true, here’s a link to an alternative.

Daniel

[Loopydude]

That’s big of you to say, and back at you. And that extends to all who have participated, in all sincerity.

Though snarkiness tends to provoke snarkiness, what’s important (to me anyway) is the exchange of ideas, and that has been accomplished in this thread in spades, if you ask me, be the ideas right or no. So in the end, while I appreciate your politeness, and am glad that (as these sorts of discussions usually progress), there is (at least I think), and admission on all parts that we have passionate emotions surrounding the subjects, and that we also can come away edified all the same. Nobody died, and hopefully we’re better for the discussion. I usually have to mull over things like this for days anyway, and by then the thread is cold and dead, and bumping seems like a petty salvo from far away.

Thanks for the reference, and regards.

[NurseCarmen]

@lel

The funny thing is that in my opinion it’s perfectly logical to study theology without believing in a god anyway.

Or, as in my case, come to the conclusion that there is no god after studying theology.

[Voyager]

@Polycarp

Good Lord, no! And yeah, I’m pretty well aware of the offenses committed by man against man in Jesus’s name – and I hope you’ve noticed me trying to fight on the side of humanity in them. Here is what I – well, not expect, but hope, that people will do.

I know you wouldn’t. My problem is this. You believe that there is a creator, and yo believe that you have some knowledge of his commands, and you certainly try to fulfil them to the best of your ability. Or at least that is the way it seems to me.
But other people feel they have equally good knowledge of the creators commands, and these commands go against the commands that you feel you have been given.
I believe I’ve read posts from you stating that various Biblical injunctions against certain behaviors are incorrect, and must be because they are immoral. I certainly agree with you, but aren’t you assuming that the god who creates morality follows yours? You point to Biblical passages in support of your contentions, they point to others in support of theirs, and you’re at an impasse. Worse than that, since a simplistic reading supports their position. Those who tend to be evil have this excellent argument that the Bible says so.

Your pointing to your direct experiences with God doesn’t help much, since your opponents, who believe that your views go against the Bible, are not likely to be convinced by your experiences - especially if they have had experiences of their own that are similar. You might say they are deluded, or have been fooled by the devil, but they can say the same thing about you.

God can come down and make this clear, but he doesn’t seem to care much these days. (You’ll dispute that, I’m sure.) Perhaps it is not important, and you and your opponents will wind up in some combination of heaven and/or hell. But you are in this mess because you are both appealing to the absolute judge whose words can be interpreted in many ways.

If we gave up appealing to the judge, and worked it out ourselves without appealing to a higher power, your side would be proven correct, through biology, statistics, and plain old ethics. Those believing in absolutes have no need for ethics, since they hear the faint echo of what they think is a command from above, and they hear the echo as “they are evil.” “And you don’t ask no questions, if god’s on your side.”

[Voyager]

@Sample_the_Dog

God is not a delusion. It is an illusion. Like the illusion that the moon is larger when it is near the horizon, religious thinking is an artifact of the structure of the human mind. It is not surprising that people – whose brains are built to search for patterns, meaning, causation, and human traits and motives in the explosion of sensory input we swim in – tend toward religious/magical thinking.

<continues to wait for a definition of this thing, the non-existence of which is posited as mere “opinion”>

You’re right. The delusion is being convinced there is solid evidence, even as the evidence erodes as it has over the past century. Those in the late 18th century who were creationists were not deluded. Those in the next generation who gazed upon the evidence of the old earth and denied it, they were deluded. Those who gazed on the evidence of evolution and denied it were deluded.

Those who know they believe by faith aren’t deluded. Those who believe by faith but claim they believe by evidence are. Especially when they refuse to show the damn evidence!

[kidchameleon]

@Voyager

Those in the late 18th century who were creationists were not deluded. Those in the next generation who gazed upon the evidence of the old earth and denied it, they were deluded.

I think you might be off by a 100 years on that…

[Voyager]

@Lord Ashtar

My belief is that the Bible tells you what you need to know. My deal is that I want to know so much more. Even the Bible tells us to search out other sources (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I think that anyone who uses the Bible as their only source of information (especially about science, which isn’t covered) is, if I may borrow a term thrown about in this thread, delusional.

The above was just MHO, YMMV, etc.

I understand. Now, do you believe based on faith or based on evidence? It seems the Bible is not sufficient evidence for your belief, based on what you wrote. I’m curious about the basis you use, and how certain you are of it.

After all, a person who sees a mirage, and who knows mirages and decides to head for it while understanding there may not be anything there is not deluded. a person who rushes to it, heedless and sure, is.