quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
all I'm really doing is pushing "Play" on the "Refuting Bad Theistic Arguments" CD. 

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah
If there is a there, there as far as popular notions of God are concerned is He/She/It accessible via our emotions?

If it can be said the emotions or feelings are a kind of information then such information can be discussed logically.

quote:

If you are talking about things that only you can know, things that you feel and respond to in yourself but that are otherwise irreproducible ...

quote:

... then please meet my friend Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

quote:

BTW, stating the many arguments against a spiritual worldview are "classic" or of great antiquity in no way dispenses with them. They are classic arguments for a reason - namely that they would appear to be logically accurate. There is no current need to rethink the issues as no new information has materialized to challenge the logically veracity of those arguments.

quote:

As it turns out, I don't care if you feel with great emotional intensity that an invisible six-foot three-and-a-half-inch tall rabbit exists - if you have no hard evidence for such a belief then you cannot get me to believe in the existence of such a creature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
all I'm really doing is pushing "Play" on the "Refuting Bad Theistic Arguments" CD. 

I think that's a much better analogy than my "pulling an essay from the mental filing cabinet and re-editing it" explanation on how I make most of my posts.  Can I steal that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
A dynamic balance? If you are saying good and evil exists and they balance each other then prove it? If you can't, state your theory as to such a balance so a third party can consider your thesis, otherwise I can only assume you are discussing metaphysics which only exists in your personal imagination.

Metaphysics: the science of the principles and causes of all things existing. Indeed, that is what we are discussing here. To discuss these themes requires an open mind, an agile mind and the ability to think outside the box, mc. The only persons that in this thread as recognized by me have shown such intellectual abilities are Termyn8or, Dauric, LadyEllen, Noah and SusanofO. Some other contributors most certainly are very intelligent, but they lack perception; there is a difference.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Actually, it has long since been proven that there are true statements which can never be proven.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
The Creator cares, but cannot afford to be compassionate. If you want to have fire, you must burn wood. Let it suffice that he cared sufficiently to create compassion and to create the God of Compassion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah
Logical exploration itself conducted with modest good sense can lead us to see that logical exploration has a finite range of useful application. It isn't logical to apply the tools of logic beyond this range.

Please state the limits of logic. It is not enough to assert that there are limits. What are they, specifically?

It only takes one small step beyond the formal territory of geometry to point out that the definitions of the terms circle and square obviate the (attempted) question. **But linguistical analysis is not a formal part of any system of geometry itself, any more than a rules discussion by the governing body of baseball counts as a play in a baseball game.
 
- *Yes! Yes! I like your whole post, Noah, no offense meant in my reducing the re-print size.

We can disqualify something like the Paradox of the Stone in a way similar to that in which we disqualified the Trianular circle, or "surmount" it by making the argument eat it's tail, citing: "The Paradox of the Paradox of the Stone".

In fact the Paradox of the Stone can itself be seen as a linguistic critique of the classical definition of God as all-powerful.

***This is a crucial point, by the way. It illustrates something that logical analysis in the general area of Theology CAN productively do.

* I agree, Noah. I think it's a very crucial point, too.
 

I think you and I can probably agree on this important limited usefulness of logic in regard to arguments about God's existence. Anytime someone posits a crap argument as a proof of God's existence, logical analysis can show in what way that argument failed to establish the truth of God's existence. ***This in no way, however gets at the underlying issue about God/no God; not one way or the other. Yes!

**Logic, of course, operates on assertions, not facts.
another crucial point (Very. which I know you already know, but only because it seems logically obvious to me

Similarly, any time anyone posits a crap argument to disprove God's existence (the Argument from Evil, say, or the Paradox of the Stone) logical analysis can be employed to demonstrate that that argument failed to establish the non-existence of God.

All the while, the underlying issue of God's non/existence rests comfortably undisturbed. 
*Yes! Thank you.

Either of these strictly critical (destructive rather than constructive) applications of logic to Theological theories can be seen as a noble undertaking in the sense that it is often well and tidy to take one's opponent on his own ground, so to speak. Neither effort in the end says fuck-all about whatever being or non-being people are talking about when they are using words like God.  *I hear that. Plus, I understand what I think you mean by it, too.

Anyway if we can now agree that the power of logic is not unbounded we can return to what I feel was a modest assertion on my part. If the subject at hand is the existence or non-existence of that which created all things, and if logic is a thing, well how in the heck can one expect logical analysis to tell that tale?

You'll note that I didn't just do a logical proof. I just gave a little verbal map which shows that you can't get there from here,  *Because you can't. Not really.


If on the other hand one says something like: "Whether or not there is or was a creator, the truth of claims regarding the existence of a Creator will and always have have been bounded by logical constraints." then a whole bunch of other problems arise for you. * Yes! But not many I've run across seem to posit discussing this issue that way. But you're covering that...below. Thank you!

In this case you are then assigning--like it or not--a sort of priority to logic distressing similar to that which theists enjoy trying to assign to God. This puts you squarely in the sights of the sort of gambit Russell was quoted by LAM as making against the Teleological argument.

*This has no particular relevance, and is possibly an inappropriate remark, but -my now dead husband used to quote Russell a lot, as if he were some kind of God, on the premise, (as I understood it anyway) that Russells' viewpoint boosted his own, in reducing viewing the world into black and white, and always operating on a strictly logical basis.
I found it frustrating, at times, not to mention a wee bit chilly, and ultimately ridiculous (but he never seemed to get the joke. He had many qualities I viewed as "good", too though).

To paraphrase

quote:

If everything must have a logical explanation, then the existence of logic must have a logical explanation. If there can be anything without a logical explantion, it may just as well be the God as logic, so that there cannot be any validity in any logical argument against the existence of God.

***... unless you are prepared to give a logical proof of how logic has to be able prove whether its creator existed--without being viciously circular, of course, which would be illogical.
 
*YES,YEs,Yes, yes, YES, YEs, yes!! 

Like LAM--but with a different purpose--I'll invoke that perhaps apocryphal Hindu myth and ask what turtle Logic is standing on the back of in a universe which allows a tool to give final adjudication on questions of it's own origin, unless the tool is a Magic 8 Ball?
 
*Bingo. How refreshing this  all was for me to read. What a great way of explaining how it cannot be explained.

Me, I'm just another Bozo on the logic bus.
*It doesn't appear that way to me, but humble of you to say so, all the same, I think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
believe in stories written by men to be the word of the creator

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
and consider that creator worthy of worship

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
even though s/he/it apparently put all the misery in the world and against all rationale they consider the creator benigh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah
If there is a there, there as far as popular notions of God are concerned is He/She/It accessible via our emotions?

If it can be said the emotions or feelings are a kind of information then such information can be discussed logically.

Well I certainly never said that emotions or feelings are a kind of information. That would be verymuch opposed to the point.

I was asking, in effect, whether there might be "something" which operates with a result which serves us as knowledge serves us, but without being based on information at all. Because, yeah, it is question-beggingly true that IF we call emotions "information" and drag in all the baggage that comes with that word then they should be thoroughly susceptible of logical analysis.

quote:

If you are talking about things that only you can know, things that you feel and respond to in yourself but that are otherwise irreproducible ...

quote:

... then please meet my friend Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

\

Occams Razor is a dandy heuristic aid, or let's say, rule of thumb. Just as is the general rule that moss grows on the north side of trees. Knowing either rule can help you navigate uncharted territory--forests or theories--with statistically superior effectiveness.

But in fact moss grows all over shit sometimes and in fact entities of many sorts do multiply quite needlessly, in Occam's terms.

*I mean what does "unecessarily" come down to in this case? A key point, I agree.

We have seen that your proposed criteria for detecting extraneous entities are inadequate in that they rule out belief in the secret thoughts of other people. And I can give you similar counter-examples until I drop from hunger.

How can we know how many entities are "necessary" to fully describe a phenomenon? More to the point, how can we know--except by a stupendous, quasi-religious act of faith in Saint Occam--that the functional description involving the fewest entities is the most accurate representation of the subject matter in every case in the entire universe? It is preposterous to mistake Occams rule, which was a rule of thumb, for a magic decoder ring that can infallibly choose between any to theories.

Do you believe in causality? Do you realize that causality is a theory used to predict results which as it happens can be predicted with the exact same success rate without the theoretical entity called "causality."?
* I really liked this part. I think a lot of people dom't realize it. Of course, I like the whole post, but ths part, especially

The theory of Causality is in Occam's terms an entity needlessly multiplied.
***It suffices for the work that the theory of Causality is called upon to do to merely observe there there is an amazing degree of regularity to be seen in the world. You can even note (not theoretically but just descriptively) that even the general regularity of things has itself a high degree of regularity, if you care to. Yes! Yes!

Now base your predictions on the observed regularity rather than the theoretical entity called Causality and your results will match perfectly every time, but with one less entity in the process.

**As for Occam, wouldn't it shock 'im that anyone still holds with that demonstrably superfluous entity called Causality? Ironic, isn't it? Yes.

quote:

BTW, stating the many arguments against a spiritual worldview are "classic" or of great antiquity in no way dispenses with them. They are classic arguments for a reason - namely that they would appear to be logically accurate. There is no current need to rethink the issues as no new information has materialized to challenge the logically veracity of those arguments.

The fact is that much classical theory has been rejected as logically flawed. Much more has been overthrown empirically. Tons and tons of it have fallen each way so your characterization of what being "classic" amounts to is just wrong. Witness Ptolemy's "classic" theory of the Solar system, or the classic theory of Music of the Spheres. Or Newton's classic theory of mechanics.  **Thank you.

Or how about the classic theory of ballistics which held that objects shot from cannons can't exceed a given (and as it turns out, paltry) height. They came up with way complicated math which actually kind of worked to predict where shot would land based on a theory of what we might call "absolute ceiling". The flight-path diagrams in the classic textbooks depict angular, billiard-like trajectories as if cannoballs carromed off the sky or something. Some classic theories are classsic crap, others are as you describe.

No offense, Chain. Your're just flat out wrong on that score. How could you not be since there are classic arguments both for and against the existence of God?

quote:

As it turns out, I don't care if you feel with great emotional intensity that an invisible six-foot three-and-a-half-inch tall rabbit exists - if you have no hard evidence for such a belief then you cannot get me to believe in the existence of such a creature.

Let's not neglect to note the irony that you put this comment about knowledge in terms of "caring", I.e. in terms of an emotional response. That's not significant of anything much but nicely interesting, I think.

I'm actually kind of intensely disinterested in your doxological orientation toward giant rabbits, or God for that matter. I'm here to talk about ideas and hopefully refine my own. I'm here for that, too. Reading this thread again helped. and was so much fun, too. I like to read - so sue me.

And by the way, why can't it just happen to be the case that one or two or billions of things might exist in the universe for which no hard evidence can be shown to you, just because of their curious nature?

Why can't it be the case that something--God or the ghost of Elvis or a big smelly cheeselike substance of some weird and special kind--exists for which there is lots of evidence but it is all weak, ambiguous and really only vaguely suggestive at best--never enough for deductive proof? **Yay! I think so, too. Which isn't insinuating I believe in them (but even if I did, so what? Killing curiosoity isn't, I agree, going to encourage or enhance anyone's sense of wonder at the world. Not that I think one can't appreciate the world without curiosity, but, if everything's been "proven", or is even "provable" to the Nth degree, then why are some humans even still asking questions?  What would happen if they didn't? 
If the universe is billions of years old, some "discoveries" we are so proud of, and may currently view as scientific "factual assertions" (I know it's an oxymoron), could someday prove to be mere buidling blocks for something else happening in the universe elsewhere. Maybe viewed as crucial to the expansion of a galaxy, or life forming on another planet. Or not. Not that I'll be around to see it - But I think it could happen. It could be happening now, for all I know).

Why can't it be that something exists for which all of the evidence is somehow strangely idiosyncratic to the person encountering it, impossible to share directly (like, say, secret thoughts)?

It can, I think. People are all unique. How often do you hear people say things like "that's a crazy idea?". All this usually means, on its face (to me), is that means that particular person thinks it's a "crazy" idea - to them. It might utlimately turn out to be unsound when tested, of course, or even dangerous in a particular circumstance (and I am not planning to jump off any tall building without a parachute, for instance, to decide if it's dangerous), but, my point is that "crazy" is a word - and just a word, but a word that can be viewed as critically linguistic term, and can often used to simply denigrate another's idea. Of course I know you knew that, and it's a mundane example, and we've already covered that ground...but. I hear people insinuate such things to others, sometimes.

And if any of these can be, why can't you believe that they can? Because I can't show you hard evidence, that's why.

Can you tell me on what besides faith you stake this fervent, fundamentalist belief that nothing can exist for which no hard evidence can be shown to you?  *Great point. The fundamental one, I think (as you said). 

No logical proof of this seems forthcoming and by definition no empiricle proof is possible so what can you be standing on but the Turtle of Faith?

Finally: do you choose to believe in Lucinda Williams? I mean from where I stand the evidence is far from conclusive. {okay, that was teasing; I hope you didn't take offense.} You're "evil" - but in that "good way" 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Happy Sunday, everyone.

- Susan

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

I think they are beautiful. Hope you and yours are doing well, Scooter. "Hi" to twicehappy and Shifted Jewel from me.

- Susan 

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
I think human free will is overstated, just look at society. How many people believe in certain religions without any evidence? If free will was at play one would assume beliefs would be more evenly spread yet we see great geographical blocks of certain beliefs which suggests belief is learnt.

We are beginning to understand biologic and psychological behaviour, people don't appear to display free will outside certain perameters, we are more like ants than we care to admit.