RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God



Message

NealIRC -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/6/2008 10:14:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

At this point the atheist might ask me: OK then, who created God? And that's where I rely on Faith for my answer.
At this point, the atheist is grasping at straws because s/he knows full well that every effect must have a cause greater than the effect. Logically then, all time was the effect of the Eternal Cause, all space was the effect of the Infinite Cause, and all matter/energy was the effect of the Omnipotent Cause. Thus, belief in Transcendent God is most logical (as Spock would say!)

Now suppose I were to accept the fact that "if something exists, a God created it."

So when I see a tree, or a garbage can, my 1st impression is to think "a God created it." That's how it came to be.

But then - when asked about how God came to be, I'll simply say "a super-God created God." This will solve my mystery on how God's existence came to be, but not on how the super-God's existence came to be.

So then - when asked about how the super-God came to be, I'll simply say "an über-God" created the "super-God." This will solve my mystery on how the super-God's existence came to be, but not on how the über-God's existence came to be.

But then - when asked about how the über-God came to be, I'll simply say... another God created it...

The argument is that there is a randomness to stop at 1. This series could go on. Onwards towards infinity.

So now - what would be the more practical approach - to make infinity claims, or none at all?

A 2nd common argument is that God created itself. In other words, certain matter created itself. So when using this argument on a tree, it'll go "the tree created itself." God created itself just like the tree created itself. The matter (or stuff) that God is made up of is no different than the matter or stuff that makes up the tree. This is, of course, assuming I don't want to make an additional claim that some other type of special magical matter exists. In that case, I'll have to make up an answer on how certain "stuff" can create itself whereas other "stuff" can't.

And then - there's the 3rd, probably most common, argument.

If I made a 3rd claim that "God always existed, he didn't create himself, but he did create other matter," I would 1st have to claim that God exists. Then, I would be claiming that some other matter always existed - and that matter created other matter.

From this, I will have to delve into the properties of time, and either argue that time at 1 time started, or, that an infinite amount of time has passed. More and more claims I can make, eh?

It's okay to not know things. Really.



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 9:16:41 AM)

quote:

as i read romans 1, i understand it to mean that all people are born with the knowledge of God. they know His eternal power and divine nature. but they reject/suppress that knowledge and their foolish hearts are darkened.

are you saying that logic will restore that knowledge and remove the darkness from thier hearts?

the demons tremble based on their knowledge, would a knowledge based on logic prevoke a similar reaction in man? or would it take an experiential knowledge to provoke a reaction?
This is an intriguing issue, john_mark! I believe a huge chasm developed when sin entered the world. Adam and Eve were created with "very good" trusting and obedient wills with which they chose to sin. We all now are born with carnal and fallen wills with which we habitually sin until they are transformed and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Thus, human logic cannot save (restore knowledge and remove darkness) but it must be used in part to acquire saving faith. Otherwise, it would make no difference what one believed in to be saved, as long as it was logical to believe just like it is for the demons!

quote:

If we establish that God created the universe, then it is a mystery on how he created it, and how God's existence came to be.
Not at all, Neal! God has very carefully explained how He created the universe in His Holy Word. Since God is eternal, infinite and omnipotent, He did NOT come to be!

quote:

The similar thing applies to creation of matter or the universe.
The honest answer is to say "I don't know." It's a mystery how matter exists.
No, the honest answer is to say "God created all physical reality according to the historical narrative account found in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3. There's no mystery at all - God spoke light (energy travelling through space in time) into existence. The only mystery I can see is WHY did He do it!

quote:

It's okay to not know things. Really.
But it's NOT okay to ignore or deny the truth of God's Word. Really!



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 9:31:02 AM)

quote:

Now suppose I were to accept the fact that "if something exists, a God created it"
Then I would tell you that your assumption is wrong and not a fact at all! Lot's of things exist without God creating them. You're reading from one now.

quote:

So when I see a tree, or a garbage can, my 1st impression is to think "a God created it." That's how it came to be.
Why would it be logical for anyone to believe that a tree and a garbage can must both be supernaturally created? A tree is alive, performs innumerable independent operations, and is made of irreducibly complex parts. A garbage can has NONE of these qualities.

quote:

The argument is that there is a randomness to stop at 1. This series could go on. Onwards towards infinity.
No Neal, infinite regression is an illogical explanation for original cause.

quote:

A 2nd common argument is that God created itself. In other words, certain matter created itself.
Once more, these are false assumptions. God exists uncreated and God is not a material Being. So, no logical argument there.

quote:

Then, I would be claiming that some other matter always existed - and that matter created other matter.
Which is precisely why this claim is illogical - God must be transcendent to matter in order to create matter. You do understand the difference between matter and spirit, right?

quote:

It's okay to not know things. Really.
But it's NOT okay to ignore or deny the truth of God's Word. Really!



john_mark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 9:40:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

as i read romans 1, i understand it to mean that all people are born with the knowledge of God. they know His eternal power and divine nature. but they reject/suppress that knowledge and their foolish hearts are darkened.

are you saying that logic will restore that knowledge and remove the darkness from thier hearts?

the demons tremble based on their knowledge, would a knowledge based on logic prevoke a similar reaction in man? or would it take an experiential knowledge to provoke a reaction?
This is an intriguing issue, john_mark! I believe a huge chasm developed when sin entered the world. Adam and Eve were created with "very good" trusting and obedient wills with which they chose to sin. We all now are born with carnal and fallen wills with which we habitually sin until they are transformed and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Thus, human logic cannot save (restore knowledge and remove darkness) but it must be used in part to acquire saving faith. Otherwise, it would make no difference what one believed in to be saved, as long as it was logical to believe just like it is for the demons!



i think i will open a seperate discussion in the bible forum about romans 1. but to the question of logic, would logic point to God or simply to a god. if it only points to a god, would logic be capable of argiung between monotheisism and polytheisism?



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 11:08:09 AM)

I have recently been teaching my college-age Sunday School class an overview of Christian apologetics. I suspect your question is directly related to the area of classical or proof apologetics based on rational logic. Perhaps you would like to read more on the logical proof for God's existence. It appears argument #13 as modified by Alvin Platinga most closely identifies with your concern about monotheism.



john_mark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 12:39:05 PM)

drmark,

thanks for the link. i looked at the argument you refernced. the first point in the argument says

There is a possible world (W) in which there is a being (X) with maximal greatness.

this seems to be a presuppotion. if this first point is true then the rest follows as logical argument. but since this first point is expressed only as a possibility, it would seem that the rest of the argument can only be a possibility. the world (W) is a possibility, but not offered as a reality. if the first statement was there is a world(W), then the rest would be factual and not just possible. not being a student of logic perhaps i am missing something



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 1:22:55 PM)

Do you believe reality is a possibility? Isn't that a "presupposition"?



john_mark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 2:49:06 PM)

i guess what i am saying is that if you start with a possibility the result is still simply a possibilty. if you start an argument with the statement that reality is a possibilty, whatever point you prove from that argument is a possibilty.

you could and can prove the possibilty that God exisists from the logical argument. but since you start with a possibilty your answer remains a possibilty. so if you were arguing with an atheisist you could move the discussion from no possibilty that God exisits, to the possibilty that God exisits. but how do cross the bridge from the possibility to the proven fact with logic?



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 2:55:53 PM)

quote:

thanks for the link. i looked at the argument you refernced. the first point in the argument says

There is a possible world (W) in which there is a being (X) with maximal greatness.

this seems to be a presuppotion. if this first point is true then the rest follows as logical argument. but since this first point is expressed only as a possibility, it would seem that the rest of the argument can only be a possibility. the world (W) is a possibility, but not offered as a reality. if the first statement was there is a world(W), then the rest would be factual and not just possible. not being a student of logic perhaps i am missing something


Well, no Plantinga is arguing if God can be understood as a possibility in any world, then we cannot say He is an impossibility in our world. Indeed, if He exists in any world, He must exist in ours.



john_mark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 3:44:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud


Well, no Plantinga is arguing if God can be understood as a possibility in any world, then we cannot say He is an impossibility in our world. Indeed, if He exists in any world, He must exist in ours.


i agree that the argument allows for the possiblity of God, as you have stated "then we cannot say He is an impossibility in our world". but that only leaves God as a possibilty in our world. possibilty exists until evidence/proof eliminates the possibility. here is the argument

Maximal excellence: To have omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in some world.

Maximal greatness: To have maximal excellence in every possible world.

There is a possible world (W) in which there is a being (X) with maximal greatness.

does world w exist as a reality or as a possibilty? the argument seems to only argue for the possibility or there would be no need for the word possible in the argument


But X is maximally great only if X has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Therefore X is maximally great only if X has omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in every possible world.
In W, the proposition "There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being" would be impossible--that is, necessarily false.


why is the last statement necessarily false since w only exists as a possibility

But what is impossible does not vary from world to world.
Therefore, the proposition, "There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being" is necessarily false in this actual world, too.
Therefore, there actually exists in this world, and must exist in every possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being.

the argument appears to me to be an argument for the possibility of God based on the possibility of W, if W doesnt exist, God cannot exist. you would have to prove the existance of W to prove the existance of God because in this argument GOd is contingent on W existing



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 4:20:55 PM)

quote:

does world w exist as a reality or as a possibilty? the argument seems to only argue for the possibility or there would be no need for the word possible in the argument


It’s the subject of possible propositions, those things that are true in a possible world; as in “Walter Mondale became President in 1984”.

Not all things that are true in a possible world are true in all possible worlds – some things are, and thus are necessary propositions – for example “all fathers have children” is true in all possible worlds, and thus is a necessary proposition.

If it is true that, “a maximally great being exists in some possible world.”, then that would be by necessity true in all possible worlds, because such a thing would have to be a necessary proposition – i.e., it could not by definition be true in only one world.



john_mark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/7/2008 5:53:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

If it is true that, “a maximally great being exists in some possible world.”, then that would be by necessity true in all possible worlds, because such a thing would have to be a necessary proposition – i.e., it could not by definition be true in only one world.


i agree with you, if it is true a maximally great being exists........... but if that statement is not true then nothing that follows is true. the argument still hinges on if it is true, the argument offers no proof that such a being exists, only that if He does exist in world W He must exist in our world. i get that part of the argument, i am failing to see where the argument proved that such a being exists in world W



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/8/2008 12:11:48 AM)

quote:

i agree with you, if it is true a maximally great being exists........... but if that statement is not true then nothing that follows is true. the argument still hinges on if it is true, the argument offers no proof that such a being exists, only that if He does exist in world W He must exist in our world. i get that part of the argument, i am failing to see where the argument proved that such a being exists in world W


Well, if a proposition is necessary proposition in any world, it is a neccesary proposition in our world. Therefore, the proposition that "a maximally great being exists in some possible world" means that He must exist in our world.



cognitivemagic -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/8/2008 3:48:46 AM)

It's been said that "God doesn't beget grandchildren".

It's great that you've made a decision to place truth above familial consensus.

My prayer is that you grow deeper, not merely in academics, but in prayer. I believe that the "rational" has an important place in a person's spiritual growth; but God is not an idea, He's a person. And like all persons, there's perplexing qualities to God. But it's precisely those perplexities that help us to continually reach out for Him, though He is not far from any one of us (Acts 17:22-28).

As to NealIRC:

quote:

A counter-argument, of course, is to say God created it. Saying God created the universe doesn't help solve our mystery at all. This of course, splits our mystery into 2. To say God created the universe, is apparently not an explanation. It becomes 2 mysteries. If we establish that God created the universe, then it is a mystery on how he created it, and how God's existence came to be.


A couple points to raise about this spurious argument:

1) If "mystery" is a problem at all, then you shouldn't be satisfied with even a single one.

2) If one "mystery" is acceptable, then two shouldn't be a problem either.

3) Occam's razor is pretty "mysterious".

4) To say that God created matter is a mystery. To say that "nothing created matter" is contradictory non-sense.

5) It's a "mystery" how you even came up with this bifurcating bravado.

6) How do you begin to define "mystery" without trespassing into the "mysterious" land of Tautology? A land that also happens to be called "Mystery".

Anywho, I must leave this discussion in order to get my beauty sleep. If I don't, there will be no need to dispel the "mystery" of my crankiness at Divine Liturgy in the morning.



NealIRC -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/9/2008 1:38:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

The similar thing applies to creation of matter or the universe.
The honest answer is to say "I don't know." It's a mystery how matter exists.
No, the honest answer is to say "God created all physical reality according to the historical narrative account found in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3.

This must be the root source of all your arguments. Quoting Genesis 1:1 - 2:3. (Therefore, since Genesis is your root source, I don't need to quote your quotes point by point.)

Or in other words, we know God created matter because the Bible said so, and the Bible said it's true, and the Bible says that it is God's word, and the Bible says that whatever God says is true, so therefore it is proof and we know that whatever the Bible says is true.

quote:

quote:

It's okay to not know things. Really.
But it's NOT okay to ignore or deny the truth of God's Word. Really!

You could have argued it either way. You could have argued God's word because the Qu'ran said so. The Qu'ran said God created the universe. How could I possibly argue against the Qu'ran?



NealIRC -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/9/2008 1:41:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic

As to NealIRC:

quote:

A counter-argument, of course, is to say God created it. Saying God created the universe doesn't help solve our mystery at all. This of course, splits our mystery into 2. To say God created the universe, is apparently not an explanation. It becomes 2 mysteries. If we establish that God created the universe, then it is a mystery on how he created it, and how God's existence came to be.


A couple points to raise about this spurious argument:

1) If "mystery" is a problem at all, then you shouldn't be satisfied with even a single one.

Correct.

quote:

2) If one "mystery" is acceptable, then two shouldn't be a problem either.

Correct.

quote:

3) Occam's razor is pretty "mysterious".

I think Occam's razor is too simple. And the universe is not. So I don't think you or anyone can use the Occam's razor. In fact, there is an opposite of Occam's razor (like Kant's razor), which argues exactly the opposite. I might actually like that 1 instead.

quote:

4) To say that God created matter is a mystery. To say that "nothing created matter" is contradictory non-sense.

Correct. And I don't know anyone that argues that. ;)

quote:

5) It's a "mystery" how you even came up with this bifurcating bravado.

That's because when I see a mystery I don't try to pretend or make up answers. I don't see why this should be a mystery. How is it a mystery to say I don't know?

quote:

6) How do you begin to define "mystery" without trespassing into the "mysterious" land of Tautology? A land that also happens to be called "Mystery".

O_o.



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/9/2008 2:22:20 PM)

quote:

This must be the root source of all your arguments. Quoting Genesis 1:1 - 2:3.
Not at all, Neal. If you paid attention to my previous posts #17 and #23, you would see that I used a form of the cosmological argument to logically deduce the existence of God. There are numerous rational proofs for God's existence that have nothing to do with the Truth of His Word.

quote:

How could I possibly argue against the Qu'ran?
There are many major differences between the Koran and the Christian Bible, Neal. You're welcome to discuss them on another thread. Religious writings have no bearing on the Law of Universal Causality and a logical belief in God.



NealIRC -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/9/2008 2:35:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

At this point, the atheist is grasping at straws because s/he knows full well that every effect must have a cause greater than the effect.

Or in other words, the universe is dying down?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

How could I possibly argue against the Qu'ran?
Religious writings have no bearing on the Law of Universal Causality and a logical belief in God.

In other words, religion requires faith.

Same thing as science.

Religions and science are both bodies of knowledge in which requires faith in order to believe them.

Let me ask you this: how did protons and electrons come to exist?



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/9/2008 3:37:44 PM)

quote:

Or in other words, the universe is dying down?
I suppose the Law of Entropy could be considered a corollary of the Law of Causality. I personally would not restate or define one in terms of the other, however.

quote:

In other words, religion requires faith.
Yes, but that's not the point I'm making here. There are inductive proofs for God that are not based on or related to any religious assumptions or faith-based writings. However, moving from a logical belief in God to obedient trust in Jesus Christ as that God may indeed require some element of faith.

quote:

Same thing as science.
Religions and science are both bodies of knowledge in which requires faith in order to believe them.
I'm not sure I follow you here, Neal. How much "faith" does it require to believe the scientific knowledge that human parents always produce human children?

quote:

Let me ask you this: how did protons and electrons come to exist?
They are an effect of a cause sufficient to produce them. What does this question have to do with a logical belief in God?



NealIRC -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/9/2008 3:47:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

However, moving from a logical belief in God to obedient trust in Jesus Christ as that God may indeed require some element of faith.

Agreed.

quote:

quote:

Same thing as science.
Religions and science are both bodies of knowledge in which requires faith in order to believe them.
I'm not sure I follow you here, Neal. How much "faith" does it require to believe the scientific knowledge that human parents always produce human children?

Almost none. Like, .000001 faith.

But you know, tigers and lions can mate to form ligers. Horses and donkeys can mate to form a puma or something (and that species is infertile, and cannot reproduce).

Edit: not puma, but mule. My bad. ;)

quote:

quote:

Let me ask you this: how did protons and electrons come to exist?
They are an effect of a cause sufficient to produce them. What does this question have to do with a logical belief in God?

Okay, and this logical cause you're referring to is God, right?

Well you know what? I'll answer your faith-in-science question.

In order to believe that God created protons and electrons, I must first establish protons and electrons exist.

If science says protons and electrons are so small, that it can't be seen with the unaided human eye, then how can I possibly believe in protons and electrons? Don't I need some faith?

Science also says that the proton is the +1 charge and the electron is the -1 charge. Would it be safe to assume that protons and electrons are the same size? And yet, science says the mass of a proton (weight) is 1,836 times heavier than that of an electron!

How can anyone possibly believe that?

In order for me to believe God created protons and electrons, I must also acknowledge that protons and electrons exist. Else, how can I believe in something I don't believe?

Why... I need faith.

Religion and science both require faith - see my stand?

This is where I'm getting from that if *you* don't know something, I'd say, simply keep it at that.

;/

Edit: not puma, but mule. My bad. ;)



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/9/2008 4:06:09 PM)

quote:

But you know, tigers and lions can mate to form ligers. Horses and donkeys can mate to form a puma or something (and that species is infertile, and cannot reproduce).
And how does it require faith to observe these reproducible phenomena? Remember Neal, you're the one who claims science is a body of knowledge requiring faith to believe.

BTW, a horse and a donkey produce a mule. A puma is another term for mountain lion or cougar.

quote:

In order to believe that God created protons and electrons, I must first establish protons and electrons exist.
Once again, Neal, you're jumping to conclusions. It is not necessary to establish that protons and electrons exist or that God created them in order to develop a logically coherent proof of God's existence. You know, it would really help if you would just come right out and state what's on your mind. I'm finding it more and more difficult to follow this discussion with all the wild-goose-chases thrown in!



NealIRC -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/9/2008 4:24:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

But you know, tigers and lions can mate to form ligers. Horses and donkeys can mate to form a puma or something (and that species is infertile, and cannot reproduce).
And how does it require faith to observe these reproducible phenomena? Remember Neal, you're the one who claims science is a body of knowledge requiring faith to believe.

When I meant faith in science, I meant many of the vast topics in physics and chemistry.

Observing animals, well, that's pretty easy.

quote:

BTW, a horse and a donkey produce a mule. A puma is another term for mountain lion or cougar.

Ah, yes, that's what I meant. My bad. I should edit my post or so.

quote:

quote:

In order to believe that God created protons and electrons, I must first establish protons and electrons exist.
Once again, Neal, you're jumping to conclusions. It is not necessary to establish that protons and electrons exist or that God created them in order to develop a logically coherent proof of God's existence.

I was arguing the proton's and electron's existence, not God's existence. Simply how can anyone believe in protons and electrons?

quote:

You know, it would really help if you would just come right out and state what's on your mind. I'm finding it more and more difficult to follow this discussion with all the wild-goose-chases thrown in!

Per God, well, he can't be disproven. Same with.. protons and electrons. It's a mystery to me whether protons and electrons exist.

But 1 could argue that I do believe in protons and electrons to the extent that I was raised and taught protons and electrons exist and have faith in the people that told me so and faith in the science books that says so.

Neal C.



hellohellohi -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/10/2008 10:21:55 AM)

In order to do logic, you must start with some axioms or first principles to build on.

However, the choice of your first principles will also be open to debate. (For instance, existence is open to debate. However, it might be that this global dubiousness would lead one to believe in God, but not through logic exactly, I say.) Another first principle might be the psychological experience of sin.

What first principles or axioms are you all supposing?

There is no such thing as proving anything a priori but only if one accepts certain axioms first. Or, if you like, you could start with "I think; therefore I am," or "I doubt -- I question -- therefore, I am." Probably no one would take issue with those.

Logic itself says nothing about whether any axioms are true or not, merely what can be deduced to FOLLOW from them.

I would argue that Christianity is LOGICAL in the sense that it may be amenable to logic but that it is CIRCULAR, since Jesus is the alpha and the omega. He is the first word and the last. He cannot be said to follow from anything but himself.

If anyone insists on believing that Christianity follows from logical principles, I would have to ask them what they think the sense of the phrase "I am" is. (And yes, I suppose this IS like asking what the meaning of the word is is. Just like Pilate asked, "What is truth?" or whatever he said.)

If anyone is interested in whether believe in God is logical, still, I would have to ask whether you are starting from "I think; therefore, I am," and why God follows from that. Why can't deifying the individual (see Sartre, even if he is being facetious about that) follow from that?

Even causality is an axiom.

I like the poetry of saying every action has a greater cause; therefore, an infinite cause must have started an infinite universe. But is the universe infinite? Not in terms of energy. Anyway, if it is, it's still a debatable axiom.

Also, I assume you all are interested in logically demonstrating God in the abstract in order that individuals may eventually be "more inclined" to contemplate the deeper paradoxes of Christianity, etc. etc. I mean, I hope no one thinks that it would helpful for Christianity if it WAS provable. The moment the proposition 'Christianity' was an inevitability, is the same moment that we could ignore the exigency of contemplating our personal relationship to Him, and Christianity would therefore cease to exist as what it is today.

Ultimately, it seems to me that it is a matter of indifference if a non-Christian believes in God or not. They nevertheless believe in SOMETHING (even if they believe in nihlism, negativity, or nothingness, I say) and you may have to face up to the fact that you will have to speak to that (if you are inclined to conversation) rather than engaging in a discussion where you consider most convenient. OR, you could ignore the preference for premises of dialogue to flow and build in a supposedly logical linearity and simply give them a pamphlet (or the vocal equivalent). Seriously, that might be more helpful in some instances. Who's to say?



cognitivemagic -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/11/2008 12:39:24 AM)

Neal IRC:

You may or may not believe in God. From what I gathered from your posts, you are an agnostic. Or a fideist.

But in either case, you don't believe that "reason" is related to "faith" in a supportive way. In other words, as far as you're concerned, "reason" is a tool by which you can criticize and mock religious belief.

And then when you're pressed about what your views are, you will speak out of both sides of your mouth.

For instance you said this:

quote:

It's a shame that for centuries, so many statues have been built of Zeus, and the greek mythological gods, even though there was not 1 iota evidence that the Greek gods exist.

Luckily for them, once Christianity came around, Greek mythology and friends died a quick and easy death.

The similar thing applies to creation of matter or the universe.

The honest answer is to say "I don't know." It's a mystery how matter exists. It's okay to not know things. Really.

Certainly I can make the claim that matter exists, and then say I don't know how it got created.
Certainly I can make the claim that God exists, and then say I don't know how it got created.

But what would be the more logical thing to claim - that matter exists, or God exists?


So it's clear that you are agnostic. And the last line of this post is a rhetorical question that implies that believing that "matter exists" is more reasonable than "God exists".

When you reply to my post, you say this:

quote:

As to NealIRC:

quote:

Neal IRC: A counter-argument, of course, is to say God created it. Saying God created the universe doesn't help solve our mystery at all. This of course, splits our mystery into 2. To say God created the universe, is apparently not an explanation. It becomes 2 mysteries. If we establish that God created the universe, then it is a mystery on how he created it, and how God's existence came to be.

CM: A couple points to raise about this spurious argument:

1) If "mystery" is a problem at all, then you shouldn't be satisfied with even a single one.

NIRC: Correct.

quote:

CM: 2) If one "mystery" is acceptable, then two shouldn't be a problem either.

NIRC: Correct.

quote:

CM: 3) Occam's razor is pretty "mysterious".

NealIRC: I think Occam's razor is too simple. And the universe is not. So I don't think you or anyone can use the Occam's razor. In fact, there is an opposite of Occam's razor (like Kant's razor), which argues exactly the opposite. I might actually like that 1 instead.

quote:

CM: 4) To say that God created matter is a mystery. To say that "nothing created matter" is contradictory non-sense.

NIRC: Correct. And I don't know anyone that argues that. ;)


If you would have observed my response, I was drawing attention to your utilization of "Occam's Razor" in your rhetorical question about "matter exists" vs. "God exists", that I cited in this post.
Then you quip with something about "Kant's razor" that makes little or no sense, since Kant was not interested in shaving off complex hypotheses in favor of simpler ones. Rather, Kant was interested in what conditions are absolutely necessary in order to have knowledge. He proposed the "synthetic a priori" categorical structure of the mind as the necessary disposition for empirical knowledge to be possible. But how Kantian epistemology and Occam's razor are related is beyond me.

Furthermore, I wasn't proposing Occam's Razor at all; therefore, you misrepresented my position.

I think nominalism is bogus and I would never recommend Occam's metaphysics to anyone.

And you have erroneously equated "mystery" with "contradiction" in some of your replies, as though "mystery" was to be avoided. And then you get double minded about this in this reply:

quote:

Science also says that the proton is the +1 charge and the electron is the -1 charge. Would it be safe to assume that protons and electrons are the same size? And yet, science says the mass of a proton (weight) is 1,836 times heavier than that of an electron!

How can anyone possibly believe that?

In order for me to believe God created protons and electrons, I must also acknowledge that protons and electrons exist. Else, how can I believe in something I don't believe?

Why... I need faith.

Religion and science both require faith - see my stand?

This is where I'm getting from that if *you* don't know something, I'd say, simply keep it at that.


So now you want to affirm that "faith" (i.e. mystery) is true of both science and religion. In other words, you shift positions on whim.

In some posts you're the agnostic.

In others, you're the fideist.

But in both cases, you seem to "know" enough to condescend to other's of whom you see as lacking your sagely insights.

That's why I said that you speak out of both sides of your mouth: it's convenient for your subversive and perverse stratagem.

Question: Do you possess, or do you lack, knowledge?



galadriel2 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (6/12/2008 4:50:17 PM)

I think faith is very logical. In fact, thinking and reasoning are some of the most important activities that faith embarks on. This doesn't mean that logic equals faith though - that just because belief in God is logical and I find it to be so that I am thus entrusting myself to God in Christ for salvation - which is what faith is. You can believe in the tenets of Christianity and still not be a Christian, in other words. In this case, you would only be a Christian in word, not in reality.

God bless all abundantly,
Galadriel2



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI