[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< Can anyone honestly say the idea of God is logical? Does Logic point to God or does God point to Logic? If Logic Pointed to God, he wouldn’t be God. If God pointed to logic, the scriptures would have been an eloquent argument. I’m trying to say that if God is real, how can anyone think God would conform to logic? Does a being who existed prior to existence sound logical to you? Does being born of a virgin sound logical to you? Does being 100% God 100% man sound logical to you? How about the Trinity? These are contradictions. God can get a “free pass at being illogical” because logic isn’t the end all-be all of truth. Logic isn’t a system equipped to deal with God because the limitations of language are more than enough to fall way short of understanding his nature.
[/quote]Unbelieveable. Not bad man. IF we clarify that by “logic” is meant “sinful finite human logic”.
[/quote]
I agree. Logic can only point to the idea that God is possible and it has its place. But it seems that those who rely on logic as some kind of means to understanding God will arrive nowhere fast.[/quote]Aw now ya had to go n blow it. Logic IS reliable IF submitted to the God who is it’s source. I’m gonna be gone for several hours. Sorry.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< Can anyone honestly say the idea of God is logical? Does Logic point to God or does God point to Logic? If Logic Pointed to God, he wouldn’t be God. If God pointed to logic, the scriptures would have been an eloquent argument. I’m trying to say that if God is real, how can anyone think God would conform to logic? Does a being who existed prior to existence sound logical to you? Does being born of a virgin sound logical to you? Does being 100% God 100% man sound logical to you? How about the Trinity? These are contradictions. God can get a “free pass at being illogical” because logic isn’t the end all-be all of truth. Logic isn’t a system equipped to deal with God because the limitations of language are more than enough to fall way short of understanding his nature.
[/quote]Unbelieveable. Not bad man. IF we clarify that by “logic” is meant “sinful finite human logic”.
[/quote]
I agree. Logic can only point to the idea that God is possible and it has its place. But it seems that those who rely on logic as some kind of means to understanding God will arrive nowhere fast.[/quote]Aw now ya had to go n blow it. Logic IS reliable IF submitted to the God who is it’s source. I’m gonna be gone for several hours. Sorry.
[/quote]
Any Christian who says logic submitted to God is reliable is contradicting themselves. I can submit my logic to try to conform to God, but every Christian knows logic can never do anything more then prove the IDEA of God. The Idea of God isn’t God. The idea of God is the Idea of God. Christians are NOT logical in this respect nor should they have to be. They should use logic to point to the idea of God, then go from there. If God could be proven with logic, there would be no atheist left on earth.
He is either :
-a troll
-a schizo-paranoid with the classic “the end is near, the signs are everywhere, the jews will not be blamed for nothing” syndrome.
He is now in every threads.
the conclusion is the same in both cases :
Regardless of his biblical literacy, we shouldn’t encourage him.
He is either :
-a troll
-a schizo-paranoid with the classic “the end is near, the signs are everywhere, the jews will not be blamed for nothing” syndrome.
He is now in every threads.
the conclusion is the same in both cases :
Regardless of his biblical literacy, we shouldn’t encourage him. [/quote]
Good analysis.
Inevitably, people will. Somebody will…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'Adherents of the white supremacist theology known as Two-Seedline Christian Identity hold that white people are descendants of Adam and are hence the chosen people of God. The Jewish people are said to be descendants of Cain and thus of Satan. This belief was developed by Wesley A. Swift, Conrad Gaard and William Potter Gale among others. The opposing faction is called One-Seedline Christian Identity and holds that all people are descended from Adam, but only Aryans (here meaning Northern Europeans) are truly God’s people.
Wesley A. Swift (1913-1970), was a former Methodist minister from Southern California. In the 1940s, Swift started his own church, later known as the Church of Jesus Christ Christian.
He was active in extreme right-wing groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, and developed a close friendship with prominent postwar anti-Semite, Gerald L. K. Smith. Because of the activities of Swift and associates such as Bertrand Comparet and San Jacinto Capt, Christian Identity increasingly became linked with extreme right-wing ideologies. Richard Girnt Butler, founder of the Aryan Nations, was a close California disciple of Swift.'[/quote]
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< Any Christian who says logic submitted to God is reliable is contradicting themselves. >>>[/quote]If properly understood? No they’re not.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< I can submit my logic to try to conform to God, >>[/quote]Go ahead. That is futile and not what I mean. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< but every Christian knows logic can never do anything more then prove the IDEA of God. >>>[/quote]This is absolutely a fact if, IF, we are talking about sinful, finite, autonomous human logic. You, being a Thomistic, Aristotelian Catholic do not however see the distinction.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< The Idea of God isn’t God. The idea of God is the Idea of God. >>>[/quote]Very good. I have said this 100 times myself in my denials of the efficacy of the traditional theistic “proofs” from logic.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< Christians are NOT logical in this respect >>>[/quote]If “this respect” is understood correctly then I agree, but it is not by you understood correctly. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< nor should they have to be. >>[/quote]Christians are not the most logical people on earth ya know. They are the ONLY logical people on earth. If I could get you on track in the epistemology thread. We could talk about that. You’re not as dopey as I thought. At least on some stuff. Please answer SexMachine and whether you are claiming to be a canon lawyer. You could untroll yourself quite a bit if you did.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< They should use logic to point to the idea of God, then go from there. >>>[/quote] This is indeed the Thomistic, Aristotelian Catholic (and protestant Arminian) position and is in my view very very wrong.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< If God could be proven with logic, there would be no atheist left on earth.[/quote]God IS proven with logic, properly understood, everyWHERE and in everyTHING to everyONE. The problem is not the unclear nature of the revelation that God has made of Himself. That assertion is an affront to His majesty. The problem is the blindness and death in sin of man who WILL NOT surrender to that utterly clear and unavoidable revelation. Brother Chen let me borrow his bag of fish flavored troll feed. LOL!! (that was hysterical)
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< Any Christian who says logic submitted to God is reliable is contradicting themselves. >>>[/quote]If properly understood? No they’re not.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< I can submit my logic to try to conform to God, >>[/quote]Go ahead. That is futile and not what I mean. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< but every Christian knows logic can never do anything more then prove the IDEA of God. >>>[/quote]This is absolutely a fact if, IF, we are talking about sinful, finite, autonomous human logic. You, being a Thomistic, Aristotelian Catholic do not however see the distinction.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< The Idea of God isn’t God. The idea of God is the Idea of God. >>>[/quote]Very good. I have said this 100 times myself in my denials of the efficacy of the traditional theistic “proofs” from logic.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< Christians are NOT logical in this respect >>>[/quote]If “this respect” is understood correctly then I agree, but it is not by you understood correctly. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< nor should they have to be. >>[/quote]Christians are not the most logical people on earth ya know. They are the ONLY logical people on earth. If I could get you on track in the epistemology thread. We could talk about that. You’re not as dopey as I thought. At least on some stuff. Please answer SexMachine and whether you are claiming to be a canon lawyer. You could untroll yourself quite a bit if you did.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< They should use logic to point to the idea of God, then go from there. >>>[/quote] This is indeed the Thomistic, Aristotelian Catholic (and protestant Arminian) position and is in my view very very wrong.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< If God could be proven with logic, there would be no atheist left on earth.[/quote]God IS proven with logic, properly understood, everyWHERE and in everyTHING to everyONE. The problem is not the unclear nature of the revelation that God has made of Himself. That assertion is an affront to His majesty. The problem is the blindness and death in sin of man who WILL NOT surrender to that utterly clear and unavoidable revelation. Brother Chen let me borrow his bag of fish flavored troll feed. LOL!! (that was hysterical)
[/quote]
Here let me give you an example of how Logic simply fails in understanding the nature of God and its implications. Here are a few arguments:
If God has always existed, there was a time prior to the existence of Universe that he existed.
If God, existed during this era, then he was the only conscious being.
*3. It is nonsensical to denote a singular attribute to a being without the existence of a plural attribute. The converse also holds true.
*4. If God is the only being, then he is both one substance and all substances because there is no distinction.
Therefore, either God’s nature is what we understand a contradiction to be because of the Law of Non-Contradiction (Both One and Not one) or language is insufficient to grasp the nature of God.
God exists
If God exists, then he existed before time itself.
If he existed before time itself, then he existed prior to what humans understand existence to be.
If the nature of his existence conflicts with what we understand existence to be, then the nature of his existence isn’t describable or understood.
If God existed before time itself, then using any sort of language tense to describe this existence is nonsensical.
God existed before time
Therefore, it is nonsensical to even denote any language tense to God’s existence.
The human brain is a material substance.
A material substance can only grasp the nature of what it understands existence to be.
A material being’s understanding of existence necessitates an existence of time.
Therefore, a material being cannot grasp the nature of any being who existed independent of time.
Therefore, we cannot grasp the nature of God’s being.
(Similar to argument 2)
So finally:
Either the nature of God is what we understand to be a logical contradiction or any language used to describe God will be insufficient.
All logical arguments rely on language
Therefore, God is either a contradiction by what we understand a contradiction to be or using logical arguments to describe God’s nature are useless.
So Either way, Logic will either find God a contradiction or it will be insufficient to describe him. If this is the case, then we need to find another route to understanding the nature of God.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Can anyone honestly say the idea of God is logical? Does Logic point to God or does God point to Logic? If Logic Pointed to God, he wouldn’t be God. If God pointed to logic, the scriptures would have been an eloquent argument. I’m trying to say that if God is real, how can anyone think God would conform to logic? Does a being who existed prior to existence sound logical to you? Does being born of a virgin sound logical to you? Does being 100% God 100% man sound logical to you? How about the Trinity? These are contradictions. God can get a “free pass at being illogical” because logic isn’t the end all-be all of truth. Logic isn’t a system equipped to deal with God because the limitations of language are more than enough to fall way short of understanding his nature.
[/quote]
Answered in order;
Not I
Neither
It isn’t about “conforming”. You don’t have to be logical, but that doesn’t make you uber-logical, it just makes you illogical. All you guys are doing is inventing a new form of “logic” that doesn’t meet the standards of real logic and excusing it by claiming it is “above” logic.
“Something” existing before the universe sounds logical, I think it’s a leap of faith to assume it’s a concious being, however.
[quote]pat wrote:
Now your just desperate. First, I did explain what time is and why it isn’t relevant to the issue of the ‘first cause’ The fact that you did not understand it, is not my problem.[/quote]
Literally nothing I said comes off as desperate. It wasn’t as though I was scrambling to come up with an explanation, all I did was inform you that simply asserting something doesn’t make it true. You’re projecting again.
[quote]
You did press forward, remember? You moved along merrily as if I did answer it showing, what you think it means in your little 2 dimensional world. Not only that, you said you pressed forward in your last post.[/quote]
… Are you actually senile? I was just joking about that before, but I honestly don’t think you remember how this conversation has moved. I asked you a question, you spent pages obfuscating the issue to avoid it. I didn’t “push forward”, I simply got fed up with your paranoid theories about where I was going with these questions and just told you were I was trying to go with it >>ASSUMING YOU HAD ANSWERED<<. I don’t know if you’re actually an idiot, or if your previous debating partners just let you get away with too much.
No, the “dumbness” of your position is already apparent to me and the scientific community. What I want to know is exactly how it is you can twist something so silly into something you base your entire life around. I see you as comic-book fans who just take their chosen super-hero waaaaay too seriously. Your religion is dying already. I feel no reason to make you look stupid, every day more and more people are coming to this conclusion themselves. I simply want to know what sort of walls you have up in your mind to keep this conclusion out.
Anything is possible, but that anything includes your God being imaginary.
So, you’re neither sure, nor unsure of your God’s existence?
[quote]
And that doesn’t sound unreasonable to you? Like I said you have to make all kinds of assumptions to ask the question like that. [/quote]
Nope
Actually, I didn’t have to make any assumptions. You, as a Christian, must believe that God is the ultimate authority as existence itself is defined by him and this very same God has both killed and demanded killing before.
Given this, the question naturally comes to mind, “would YOU kill if your God demanded it?” It’s such a simple question, yet it makes you squirm so much. It’s cute.
[quote]
No nimrod, it means he’s not bound by it. [/quote]
Just so I have this straight, God does not have to be logical, but he does not get a pass at being illogical? So then, what do you call it when God does something that doesn’t seem logical?
[quote]pat wrote:
Now your just desperate. First, I did explain what time is and why it isn’t relevant to the issue of the ‘first cause’ The fact that you did not understand it, is not my problem.[/quote]
Literally nothing I said comes off as desperate. It wasn’t as though I was scrambling to come up with an explanation, all I did was inform you that simply asserting something doesn’t make it true. You’re projecting again.
[/quote]
Yeah you did. I don’t expect you to be honest about it.
[quote]
You demonstrated my ‘paranoid theories’ to be spot on. I explained why you question was stupid and not in anyway analogous to the story you were drawing from. If you had wanted to ask the question in the nature of what you were trying to dig out, you would not have picked the story of Saul. There were better characters to choose from.
God doesn’t belong to me. You don’t know my position because you didn’t ask and I haven’t told you. So presuming my position is dumb with out knowing what it is, is dumb. You’re only real issue is your just full yourself and you think you know more than you do.
I am certain of God’s existence. The two positions you presented don’t represent my positions. You’re a very 2 dimensional thinker.
[quote]
That wasn’t the question though was it? You asked if I would do what Saul did or what Saul fail to complete. Agian, God didn’t demand Saul kill all the Amelekites, it’s what they wanted and what the Hebrews and Saul asked God for. That’s way different than God asking asking someone to randomly destroy people. It was a was, a battle, God’s instruction was an ‘if, then’ statement, ‘if you want to solve this problem, then this is what you need to do to solve it’.
I had been patiently waiting for you to figure it out, or at least maybe, you’d do a little research, but nope, couldn’t do that. You just stubbornly stuck to yet another misinformed position.
[quote]
Apparently, you don’t understand the term ‘not bound by it’, He necessarily has to still above logic. If he was subjective to it, he wouldn’t be God, either logic or something else in the metaphysical hierarchy would be. It has nothing to do with God acting logically or illogically.
Can anyone honestly say the idea of God is logical?
[/quote]
Yes. The idea of God? Yes, but as I explained to tweedle-dee he not bound by it.
Why couldn’t logic point to God. You are confusing things here. Something can point to something else with out that something else being bound or subjective to it. As a mere sign or road map, logic, most definitively points to God. Existence simply cannot owe itself to nothing. Nothing can’t do anything. Nothing, literally does not exist.
The scriptures come way after the question ‘Does God exist?’ is answered in the affirmative. I think your mushing all these ideas together and throwing them in a blender. God has to exist for the scriptures to have any meaning, other wise they are not worth the paper they are written on.
Logic does not in anyway point to a god or gods for that matter. Also the premise that since the universe must have had a cause to come into existence isnt so logical after all and are more a reflectection of a
linear understanding of time. For all we know the universe have existed forever without a start and without an end. The only logical conclusion we can make today is that we dont know shit about the beginning of the universe, and all the explanations that are out there( god, gods, big bang etc ) are merely speculations and
should be classified as hypothesis untill they are verified or falsified.
If we could with logic point to a supernatural being or beings that created everything, then we still dont know if the God of Abraham that jews/christians and muslims believes in are THE GOD. It could be that the Greecs or the babylonians had it right. So in the end we still dont know shit ergo this discussion that might be fun and all doesnt solve a question that hasnt been answered in houndreds or thousands of years. No I dont think that anyone here actually thinks that a discussion on T-Nation will be able to solve this mystery, atleast I hope nobody think that
[quote]florelius wrote:
Logic does not in anyway point to a god or gods for that matter. Also the premise that since the universe must have had a cause to come into existence isnt so logical after all and are more a reflectection of a
linear understanding of time. For all we know the universe have existed forever without a start and without an end. The only logical conclusion we can make today is that we dont know shit about the beginning of the universe, and all the explanations that are out there( god, gods, big bang etc ) are merely speculations and
should be classified as hypothesis untill they are verified or falsified.
[/quote]
Incorrect, time has nothing to do with it. It wouldn’t matter if the universe has always existed, if matter has existed, etc. It’s irrelevant. Time itself is a contingent contstraint and quite frankly, it’s just a measure.
You may be unaware of the arguments for the existence of God but they do exist and the two top ones stand unrefuted. There is the ontological argument and the cosmological form, the first is actually much more complicated as than it seems. It requires an iron clad understanding of metaphysics to make sense. I used to be more dismissive of it, but an understanding of idealism and ontology does make the argument more compelling. It’s difficult to refute, perhaps impossible, but not all avenues have been explored. Then you have the cosmological argument from contingency. The ‘from contingency’ part is the important part as it takes time and any other potential constraint out of the system. For the argument to work, the conclusion must necessarily be constraint free.
Now neither argument, argues for a biblical entity necessarily, but both imply that only one thing in existence can have the properties ‘It’ has, those properties happen to be something only a God-like entity can have. Since you cannot have two things sharing properties that only one thing can have, the two must be one.
Once you’ve determined that, then you can start discussing religion and faith. Discussing it prior puts the cart before the horse.
what are this arguments for a god, could you explain them?
Can they be tested aka are they subject to the scientific method or are they purely abstract?
Do they disprove a godless beginning of the universe or are they( this arguments you talk of ) merely
arguments that troguh logic shows that a god-like being is possible?
[quote]florelius wrote:
Logic does not in anyway point to a god or gods for that matter. Also the premise that since the universe must have had a cause to come into existence isnt so logical after all and are more a reflectection of a
linear understanding of time. For all we know the universe have existed forever without a start and without an end. The only logical conclusion we can make today is that we dont know shit about the beginning of the universe, and all the explanations that are out there( god, gods, big bang etc ) are merely speculations and
should be classified as hypothesis untill they are verified or falsified.
[/quote]
Incorrect, time has nothing to do with it. It wouldn’t matter if the universe has always existed, if matter has existed, etc. It’s irrelevant. Time itself is a contingent contstraint and quite frankly, it’s just a measure.
You may be unaware of the arguments for the existence of God but they do exist and the two top ones stand unrefuted. There is the ontological argument and the cosmological form, the first is actually much more complicated as than it seems. It requires an iron clad understanding of metaphysics to make sense. I used to be more dismissive of it, but an understanding of idealism and ontology does make the argument more compelling. It’s difficult to refute, perhaps impossible, but not all avenues have been explored. Then you have the cosmological argument from contingency. The ‘from contingency’ part is the important part as it takes time and any other potential constraint out of the system. For the argument to work, the conclusion must necessarily be constraint free.
Now neither argument, argues for a biblical entity necessarily, but both imply that only one thing in existence can have the properties ‘It’ has, those properties happen to be something only a God-like entity can have. Since you cannot have two things sharing properties that only one thing can have, the two must be one.
Once you’ve determined that, then you can start discussing religion and faith. Discussing it prior puts the cart before the horse.[/quote]
I am really fond of the ontological form as well, but I think its a bad idea to have it in such a troll thread.
what are this arguments for a god, could you explain them?
[/quote]
Here’s a good overview of the cosmological form. The kalam versions is garbage, I don’t even know why it’s in there… The argument from Contingency is the important one… Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I’ll try and find a good version of the ontological argument.
The scientific method is an empirical methodology that derives correlation and implies causation. Even if you could test it in a test tube, if would be void of absolutes. Deductive logic is what is required here. You can start in the physical, but you end up in the metaphysical.
The universe itself is a contingent entity. It was caused by something else…And if you want to get super technical, you cannot prove anything physical exists, so it’s problematic.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Logic does not in anyway point to a god or gods for that matter. Also the premise that since the universe must have had a cause to come into existence isnt so logical after all and are more a reflectection of a
linear understanding of time. For all we know the universe have existed forever without a start and without an end. The only logical conclusion we can make today is that we dont know shit about the beginning of the universe, and all the explanations that are out there( god, gods, big bang etc ) are merely speculations and
should be classified as hypothesis untill they are verified or falsified.
[/quote]
Incorrect, time has nothing to do with it. It wouldn’t matter if the universe has always existed, if matter has existed, etc. It’s irrelevant. Time itself is a contingent contstraint and quite frankly, it’s just a measure.
You may be unaware of the arguments for the existence of God but they do exist and the two top ones stand unrefuted. There is the ontological argument and the cosmological form, the first is actually much more complicated as than it seems. It requires an iron clad understanding of metaphysics to make sense. I used to be more dismissive of it, but an understanding of idealism and ontology does make the argument more compelling. It’s difficult to refute, perhaps impossible, but not all avenues have been explored. Then you have the cosmological argument from contingency. The ‘from contingency’ part is the important part as it takes time and any other potential constraint out of the system. For the argument to work, the conclusion must necessarily be constraint free.
Now neither argument, argues for a biblical entity necessarily, but both imply that only one thing in existence can have the properties ‘It’ has, those properties happen to be something only a God-like entity can have. Since you cannot have two things sharing properties that only one thing can have, the two must be one.
Once you’ve determined that, then you can start discussing religion and faith. Discussing it prior puts the cart before the horse.[/quote]
I am really fond of the ontological form as well, but I think its a bad idea to have it in such a troll thread.[/quote]
No, you definitely need folks in the know, or it would be simply torture to discuss. It’s really time consuming when you have to educate your counter part as well as argue with them.
[quote]pat wrote:
Yeah you did. I don’t expect you to be honest about it.
[/quote]
Well, you’re a secret muslim. I don’t expect you to be honest about it.
[quote]
You demonstrated my ‘paranoid theories’ to be spot on. I explained why you question was stupid and not in anyway analogous to the story you were drawing from. If you had wanted to ask the question in the nature of what you were trying to dig out, you would not have picked the story of Saul. There were better characters to choose from. [/quote]
No I didn’t, you’re just asserting that. No you didn’t you just asserted it. Saul works fine and you confirmed this by weaselling out of it, but if you have “better” examples I’m all ears.
[quote]
God doesn’t belong to me. You don’t know my position because you didn’t ask and I haven’t told you. So presuming my position is dumb with out knowing what it is, is dumb. You’re only real issue is your just full yourself and you think you know more than you do. [/quote]
Actually, the only reason why I don’t know your position on these topics is because you’re too much of a weasel-y coward to answer the questions I’ve asked you. I know you are a Christian, which is a dumb world view and no one has ever shown me otherwise, but if you can then by all means. I’ll hear you out.
[quote]
I am certain of God’s existence. The two positions you presented don’t represent my positions. You’re a very 2 dimensional thinker.[/quote]
Mmm I see, you thought I was using the word “gnostic” in reference to gnosticism. I was actually using it in the more archaic sense of the word, in same way one would say “a/gnostic atheist”.
All right, so what makes you certain of God’s existence, and why the Catholic God, specifically?
So, If I understand you correctly, the mitzvah demanding the complete eradication of the Amalekites was just God saying “Hey, if you don’t like 'em so much, you could always kill 'em.”, a statement the Israelites heard and said, “Good enough for me! It’s now law!”?
So when I see God doing something illogical, he isn’t actually being illogical? He’s using… “mystic God-logic”… Which is unbound by conventional logic?
