Is this a good example of logic?
would this be considered Ti? Logical types - whether or not you agree with the sentiment, do you see ANY logic whatsoever here? Please explain it to me. I'm serious.
If you're REALLY logical and scientific, you can discover that NOTHING is more logical than the existance of God.
If God didn't exist, you couldn't even say that God doesn't exist, because you wouldn't exist yourself, dude.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Do you really need a logical type to tell you that's utter bullshit?
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I thought maybe it looked that way to me because it's my PoLR or something. I mean, regardless of the fact that I don't agree with it, it just doesn't seem to make any sense at all. If God didn't exist, you couldn't say he didn't exist, because you wouldn't exist? Huh? I can't even quite wrap my mind around specifically what is not happening there.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
static vs. dynamic kineticism at work.
Would you please expand on this a bit? I'm not joking, I'm truly wondering what specific difference between me and Machintruc is shown by this.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
There's a reason it makes no sense to you, and that reason is it makes no sense period.
Of course you could. Why couldn't you? Blue monkeys don't exist. Does my having said blue monkeys don't exist make me not exist, or make blue monkey exist?If God didn't exist, you couldn't even say that God doesn't exist, because you wouldn't exist yourself, dude.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Universe couldn't create itself. That proves that God exists.
Of course you could. Why couldn't you? Blue monkeys don't exist. Does my having said blue monkeys don't exist make me not exist, or make blue monkey exist?If God didn't exist, you couldn't even say that God doesn't exist, because you wouldn't exist yourself, dude.
Why does the universe have to have been created at all?
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I thought a big point of religion was that people had to have faith in order to believe in it? If it could be proven, it wouldn't be religion anymore.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Yes it will, because Faith doesn't contradict Reason.
Well, that's definitely the definition of a "faith." Some people have stretched the definition of "religion" to include science and atheism, actually.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I actually meant Baby versus him, but yeah you're dynamic kinetist enough.Would you please expand on this a bit? I'm not joking, I'm truly wondering what specific difference between me and Machintruc is shown by this.
Basically you two don't get along. You think things need to change, he pretty well thinks things need to stay the same. Some student kills a bunch of kids at VA Tech, static kineticism says "guns in the classroom." Dynamic kineticism says, "be nicer to the schizoid kid in the corner."
thats absurd. religion is nothing more than a particular subset of philosophy. whether or not it can be proven has absolutely nothing to do with its mystical and philosophical validity.
Yes it will, because Faith doesn't contradict Reason.* v
FUCK YOU MCNEW WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT GO TO FUCKING HELL YOU ASSHOLE I DID NOTHING WRONG AND THIS WARNING WAS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY. GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH THIS NEEDLESSLY EXCESSIVE AND PLAIN FUCKING INSANE MODERATION.
(remove unnecessary admin edit)[/b]
Thanks tcI actually meant Baby versus him, but yeah you're dynamic kinetist enough.Would you please expand on this a bit? I'm not joking, I'm truly wondering what specific difference between me and Machintruc is shown by this.
Basically you two don't get along. You think things need to change, he pretty well thinks things need to stay the same. Some student kills a bunch of kids at VA Tech, static kineticism says "guns in the classroom." Dynamic kineticism says, "be nicer to the schizoid kid in the corner."
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
OK so you have a new logical reason for the existence of God. Does that mean that you agree that your last logical reason for the existence of God was indeed not logical? And therefore I can stop trying to figure out how that was supposed to be logical? Because reading that made my brain start bleeding. I read it about six times trying to figure out how that was supposed to be logical. I thought, "OK so I don't agree with him, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to follow his thought process." But no, I absolutely could not.Universe couldn't create itself. That proves that God exists.
Of course you could. Why couldn't you? Blue monkeys don't exist. Does my having said blue monkeys don't exist make me not exist, or make blue monkey exist?If God didn't exist, you couldn't even say that God doesn't exist, because you wouldn't exist yourself, dude.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
A. why can't the universe create itself?
B. with A established, why does A imply the existence of god?
if you can satisfactorily answer those two questions, we'll continue.
Because if the Universe created itself, it would already exist BEFORE being created. That's illogical.
Because Universe was created by another thing, which can't be other than God.
so ?
Then who created God?Because if the Universe created itself, it would already exist BEFORE being created. That's illogical.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
badly phrased question on my part; i apologize. better question: why does universe need to be created? how do we know it was created at all?Because if the Universe created itself, it would already exist BEFORE being created. That's illogical.
failure to do anything but restate the question will get you nowhere.Because Universe was created by another thing, which is God.
What do you have against God ? He really loves you, you know ?badly phrased question on my part; i apologize. better question: why does universe need to be created? how do we know it was created at all?Because if the Universe created itself, it would already exist BEFORE being created. That's illogical.
failure to do anything but restate the question will get you nowhere.Because Universe was created by another thing, which is God.
Now you're moving from a logical argument, or an attempt at a logical argument anyway, to an emotional argument. Are you *sure* you're a logical type?
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
So does liberalism, and all my liberal friends.
You can be a logical type, and not know how to use logic, you know.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Who's to say that God didn't stumble onto the universe one day when nobody was watching and decided to claim it as his own. The question here is, who did he tell that started the whole religion/faith thingy, and does it exist on other planets?
Re: Is this a good example of logic?
Lol...
How are a bunch of false assertions a good example of logic? Logic requires one point to be substantiated by another point, or a series of other points. All that was stated is that God exists, and of course it's logical, without ANY reasoning whatsoever. There isn't any argument or idea expressed here other than an either poorly stated or unjustified belief in God.
To summarize what was said: God exists, because God of course exists.
No, you're not missing anyhere. It's definitely a retarded thing to say, and whoever said it should have their reproductive organs permanently deactivated or be forced to sign a lifetime non-breeding contract.
A good example of a logical statement about God (which I have made up, obviously) would be: God is real because such and such scientific experiment demonstrates His existence, therefore an informed scientific person would believe in God.
I don't know. I think everyone logically validates their beliefs. It's just a matter of picking and choosing what information to follow; it may be idiotic and laughable, but it's still logical.You can be a logical type, and not know how to use logic, you know.
Re: Is this a good example of logic?
an example of Te, that is. Ti would operate on very different principles.
Lol...
How are a bunch of false assertions a good example of logic? Logic requires one point to be substantiated by another point, or a series of other points. All that was stated is that God exists, and of course it's logical, without ANY reasoning whatsoever. There isn't any argument or idea expressed here other than an either poorly stated or unjustified belief in God.
To summarize what was said: God exists, because God of course exists.
No, you're not missing any
A good example of a logical statement about God (which I have made up, obviously) would be: God is real because such and such scientific experiment demonstrates His existence, therefore an informed scientific person would believe in God.
I don't understand what you all have against God...
it doesn't seem to be everyone having something against God, just your argument that he exists because he exists. :wink:I don't understand what you all have against God...
fail. god does not exist and you have done nothing to logically demonstrate otherwise.
would you like to continue or have you had enough? if so, please take a crack at answering my revised question.
i'm offended that you would challenge my atheism. take it back!it doesn't seem to be everyone having something against God, just your argument. :wink:I don't understand what you all have against God...
Re: Is this a good example of logic?
Yeah, but it was a watered down example.an example of Te, that is. Ti would operate on very different principles.
Lol...
How are a bunch of false assertions a good example of logic? Logic requires one point to be substantiated by another point, or a series of other points. All that was stated is that God exists, and of course it's logical, without ANY reasoning whatsoever. There isn't any argument or idea expressed here other than an either poorly stated or unjustified belief in God.
To summarize what was said: God exists, because God of course exists.
No, you're not missing any
A good example of a logical statement about God (which I have made up, obviously) would be: God is real because such and such scientific experiment demonstrates His existence, therefore an informed scientific person would believe in God.
Saying God doesn't exist is just as stupid as saying God does exist.fail. god does not exist and you have done nothing to logically demonstrate otherwise.
would you like to continue or have you had enough? if so, please take a crack at answering my revised question.
how so?
I think everyone has the ability to justify their beliefs - but that justification may or may not be logical.I don't know. I think everyone logically validates their beliefs. It's just a matter of picking and choosing what information to follow; it may be idiotic and laughable, but it's still logical.You can be a logical type, and not know how to use logic, you know.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
To begin with, no one knows either way (well, if He does exist perhaps someone does know, but that is irrelevant). If you say you know, you are lying, or stubborn enough to willfully overlook critical information that would indeed concur with me that you do not, in fact, know that God doesn't exist. Simple as that.how so?
Atheists who hear the above, in my experience, fall back on subjective probability. Essentially, "The whole idea of God's existence is silly, and now that we've reached a point in human understanding of the universe that explains away a lot of the Biblical interpretations of reality, (these "Biblical interpretations" are usually a reference to the Old Testament, which serves in practice as an historic document among Christians, rather than important instructional literature) it becomes more and more ridiculous to say that there is a supreme being who oversees the universe and who designed us and watches over us." Really bad atheists will also include a bunch of overused and antiquated attacks to further sully the idea of God: Christians are idiots who believe that God sends us to some mythical fiery wasteland for eternity unless we verbally ask him to forgive us for making mistakes; God is just some mystical sultan up in the clouds who has pixies serve him wine all day, and we're supposed to worship him; et al.
The problem with subjective reasonability is that it is often dogmatic, and has been historically wrong so often. The idea that there are levels of credibility only applies to things we have direct experience with. The idea of God is something intrinsically outside our experience, therefore any stigma attached to it either by adherents or skeptics is only applicable as far as the human condition is concerned (and even then we may challenge these idea at any time). But when the idea of God is something that supercedes what we know, then the objective stance is that we do not know.
Regardless of where our concepts of God originated, regardless of what reasons human came to believe in God, the simple fact is that no one knows that there isn't a god, no matter how silly atheists find the idea.
it's not strictly that "The whole idea of God's existence is silly, and now that we've reached a point in human understanding of the universe that explains away a lot of the Biblical interpretations of reality, than it becomes more and more ridiculous to say that there is a supreme being who oversees the universe and who designed us and watches over us."
to say the above would be a slight oversimplification of the issue.
it's that, rather than being "silly" and "no longer necessary to explain the phenomena of reality," the whole idea of the existence of god is a complete shot in the dark in the first place and is just a complete absurdity.
before the issue of god can be really tackled as it exists in christianity, one needs to determine which qualities god has as described by the old/new testaments. certainly, most of the bible is just an insane bunch of nonsense, but in and of itself the bible doesn't determine the more fundamental existence of whether or not there exists some god, as depicted by what the traditional concept of god tends to be.
as an example, why would god be in man's image rather than, say, the image of a lizard? is it that humans are destined to rule the universe and god, being omniscient, knew this? i suppose that's possible, but it's a ridiculous and absurd claim as compared to the guns, germs + steel approach that humans had the right mix of intelligence and favorable conditions to dominate the planet at present. is the claim ultimately completely verifiable? no, it isn't. but that doesn't mean it makes sense; you can say that just about anything is the way it is because it "was destined to happen." where there exists a more reasonable solution, it would be foolish not to use it. you can then take the dogmatic approach of saying that god arranged for all of the favorable conditions, but at this point god ceases to be of import because, besides the proposition of the existence of god, there is absolutely no difference between this scenario and the "natural" one. thus, fundamentally, in this latter scenario, god would have absolutely no influence, and would, in a sense, not exist in the same way that he existed.
but, yes, if you wan't to take the most dogmatic of possible stances and claim that god arranged for everything that presently exists in the universe, there's no way to disprove it. as, however, the christians believe, by their doctrine (applies to all other similar religions), clearly all of this control on the part of god would not have been possible, and it becomes less reasonable to accept the existence of god based on the anecdotes as proposed by christians.
Well, I disagree with a couple of things you said.
The statement that God created us in his image is vague and not worth mentioning in any argument about God or the Bible. It could mean a number of different things.
I contest that the Bible is an "insane bunch of nonsense". There's certainly a lot of questionable material in it, but I think it is important literature that has a lot to say, and should be approached with an open mind.
I agree that when a more reasonable explanation for something comes along, we should adopt it, but I want to stress that the entire idea of God supercedes our concept of what is and isn't reasonable, and that saying that it doesn't make sense for their to be a god presumes far too much.
@Slacker Mom:
That's a perfect example of fake logic. It is exposed in a logical way but the arguments used to support the conclusion are flawed. Let's put it in simple words.
The idea of a god as the creator of the universe is not the only theory about its origin. There is a theory that says that the universe was never created; it has always existed. It's just that, being a probabilistic space, sometimes it manifests itself and sometimes not. But it is always there. So the whole idea of a god as a supreme creator might have its origin in ourselves projecting our way of thinking into nature instead of watching it objectively: we are prejudiced to think that the universe had an origin.
The concept of god you expose seems the Christian one. But, again, it's not the only one. There are many theistic views in which god is not an entity separated from the universe; god is the universe itself. So no god = no universe. From that point of view what you quoted is valid, but only because we are the ones deciding what god is. And if we are free to decide what god is, then there is nothing to discuss: god can be whatever you wish it to be.
The most important point here is: let's suppose there is a god and it is the creator of the universe (thus independent from it). How did we became aware of its existence? If god manifested itself so evidently that it would be obvious, then there would be no need for theological discussions. However, god does not manifest itself in any form or shape. It's humans who interpret events in the universe and assign them a meaning. And thus we return to the previous point: if we are free to assign meanings to events, then you can prove the existence of a god with anything you wish.
But the scientific way does not work that way. A scientific truth is one which can be repeated by anyone, anywhere and at any time. If a proof is only valid for a single person then it's not scientific.
P.S. Using incorrect information can lead anyone to make flawed conclusions; logical or not.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote