Curious George
Veteran Member
Ok, now that you understand how x=0;1 go back and read my posts. I think you may understand my point now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Could God Exist, And Not Exist Too?
- Thread starter Typist
- Start date
Ah, the empty space model for the Creator brings me back to my theory re
the nature of He who Created ...
IE: that He is the energy, all energy, from that which keeps the smallest particles
together to be matter, all the way to mind and thought ... Truly the light ...
this would affirm all the Omni's as in potent present etc...
still leaves me curious as to the moment of intent
the nature of He who Created ...
IE: that He is the energy, all energy, from that which keeps the smallest particles
together to be matter, all the way to mind and thought ... Truly the light ...
this would affirm all the Omni's as in potent present etc...
still leaves me curious as to the moment of intent
I kind of like what Sri Aurobindo says to this.
The intellect must consent to pass out of the bounds of a finite logic and accustom itself to the logic of the Infinite. On this condition alone, by this way of seeing and thinking, it ceases to be paradoxical or futile to speak of the ineffable: but if we insist on applying a finite logic to the Infinite, the omnipresent reality will escape us and we shall grasp instead an abstract shadow, a dead form petrified into speech or a hard incisive graph which speaks of the Reality but does not express it. Our way of knowing must be appropriate to that which is to be known.
~Life Divine, pg. 293
~Life Divine, pg. 293
Shad
Veteran Member
Hi again Shad,
This is a matter of faith, as it can not be proven. And I feel we have reached a point where I should accept and respect your faith as I try to do with the religiously faithful. A wise sentiment I will now probably completely ignore, not being wise myself.
Faith is to believe in something without evidence. Logic is based on principles of reality once an argument in reduced to a pure logic formula, ie the word play is removed only leaving basic equation and premises.
It's hardly a double standard to request that all parties to the debate prove the qualifications of their chosen authority. Before we require the theist to provide logical proof and evidence, we first have to prove that logical proof and evidence are binding upon the realm addressed by god claims, all of reality. Once it becomes clear this can not be done, the theist vs. atheist debate comes tumbling to the ground. The theists don't win, the atheists don't win, and everybody is likely thus disappointed.
It is a double standard since logic has been used continuously in philosophy and science, both of which have contributed to our knowledge of reality. ou are suggesting that an idea, God, can not be addressed by logic then proceed to discuss God. This is completely incoherent as you have completely removed the primary basis from which we can discuss an idea. It is the same as trying to discuss theoretical physics based on math after dismissing math as a valid tool. It is pure nonsense, sorry.
How do you hold this position without using the logic you have just dismissed? Again your premise that logic is not universal is binding on your agnostic view. This, again, why you are using a double-standard. You use logic when you can create logical conclusions you agree with then call for the dismissal of logic for conclusion you either can not prove or disagree with. This is the issue I was pointing out. If logic is not binding then ALL ideas are scrapped until a new methodology is provided to evaluate this ideas. To do otherwise is to cherry pick what concepts logic can apply to and not apply to without a single argument. Thus you comment is an inconsistent view given your line of thought.
Logic is only limited by the concepts we attach to logical formulas, remove the concept and logic is consistent.
I hope you realize that the lack of a proposed method is a huge issue. By not providing a new method all you have done is allow whatever wishful thinking one wishes in use as a valid. Gnomes stole my car keys is now valid since logic is limited. You have opened the floodgate to assertion and speculation.
If a reader feels the theist vs. atheist merry-go-round is going somewhere other than around and around in a tiny stationary circle, they'll be unwilling to jump off.[/QUOTE]
In part I agree. I see the theist side as a merry-go-round since it is the theist arguments which are continuously presented with the atheist rejecting arguments for various reasons. Keep in atheism is just a rejection of claim due to the claim being unsubstantiated or unsound. I rarely see a "strong" atheist presenting an argument for the nonexistence of God. I take issue with those arguments the same as I do for the theist, unsubstantiated or unsound.
Belief that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality without proof is faith. Reasonable, and certainly understandable, but faith nonetheless.
This can be explained to a high school kid, like this. We don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to. Simple, simple, simple.
What obscures this simple understanding for many is that they've created a self flattering personal identity out of atheism, with themselves playing the role of the laser sharp reasoners, superior to those silly faith based believers. Once such a personal identity process is underway, in theists or atheists, the person may typically becomes essentially immune to the kinds of very simple reasoning I just shared above.
I can't do anything about this, but keep trying anyway, willfully ignoring the evidence provided by a lifetime of experience. Point being, nobody is immune to such illogical emotion fueled obstructions, agnostics included.
Which tells us exactly nothing about whether the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality.
I'm not discussing God. Are you addressing me here??
It's not the slightest bit incoherent to explore the limits of reason using reason. Can we fall in love using reason? No. And we can see this using reason. I've explained this about 100 times already.
The problem with my thesis is that you personally don't want to go there, you don't wish to challenge reason's limits, as perhaps it's become a type of god to you. Ok, no problem, you have every right to this. But it means you're unlikely to ever benefit from or enjoy my posts. It might be time to bring the ignore function in to play in regards to my account?
This is a very common question, which I've already answered multiple times, including just above, and should you ever emerge from rejectionism, you'll see it for yourself with no help from me required.
Except that's not what I said. Do you see how your need to reject is causing you to not even read what you're rejecting? I said, repeatedly, over and over, only that it has not been proven that the rules of human reason are binding everywhere.
EXCEPT SAME PROCEDURE as the true claim that the infinite power of holy books has not been proven. All I am doing is applying entirely valid atheist principles to atheism itself, a process which rarely seems to occur to those who express the most ardent loyalty to atheism. You aren't arguing with me, but with your own stated principles.
Where is the evidence that the ancient search for The Answer to this question is going anywhere? Ardent theists AND atheists simply refuse to address this, and thus there's no point in continuing past that.
Apologies Shad, sincerely no personal offense intended, but I'm ready to get off the merry-go-round. Good luck to you!
Shad
Veteran Member
I was talking about logic not reasoning. Reason is when a subject matter is applied to basic principles. Bad/false ideas were once well reasoned, such as geocentric models, it was the data which was limited for the subject matter. People can have faulty reasoning due to this lack of data, among other faults of humans. However the logic still stands. The data just proved proof/evidence of the argument is unsound, not invalid.
Actually reality is properly the most misunderstood concept we have. Think about the theist's concepts of Heaven or a fiery Hell. This is part of their concept of reality while neither is part of reality as physics describes. Both are prescriptive views only based on faith not evidence. So does children children taught that both these place exist actually have a grasp on reality or merely what non-experts tell them is part of reality?
Your simply reasoning is flawed as pointed out above. However in part I do agree. I would attribute this just to parroting apologetics and counter-apologetics parrots. They are told what to think, not how to think. However this is a problem with the education system itself so is hardly unique. Such parroting is just the result of an already fault education system.
One can only be responsible for themselves in this case. We can attempt to reform the education system or religions can tone down their conceptual absolutism.
It was not intended for this purpose. All I am doing is pointing out your flawed reasoning and inconsistency
You brought up being agnostic yourself while also talking about theists and atheists. God has been part of this discussion for weeks now. However the point was that your own idea that logic is flawed renders your agnostic view questionable as a logical conclusion of your views on logic.
Actually it is incoherent as you removed logic from reasoning. Yes reasoning is flawed however logic is not. You conflate logic with reason and flip-flop with the terms. Either you are being deceptive or ignorant of the distinctions between the two. I have continuous use the word logic not reasoning while you change between the two to suit your argument rather than addressing my own.
Again I am talking about logic not reason. I already acknowledge reasoning can be flawed once subject matter is introduce. However logic has basic principles not context subjects. It is these subjects we use reason to resolve, find conclusions, etc.
Again I am just pointing out basic flaws with your own reason to conclude logic is flawed, which you agree with in principle. However it is not I ignoring you rather I think either you are ignoring me or rehashing my comments into something else as pointed out above with your flip/flop between logic and reason.
I ignore no one. I do not silence opposing views or render these views invisible to me. The only thing I do I refrain from commenting on what I read from others. I still read what others have to say.
I already acknowledge reasoning is flawed. My issue is you confuse logic with reasoning. So you are not talking about the same topic or conflate the two as the same. Reasoning and logic are not the same. Reasoning is subjective to the person. Logic is objective to reality.
No. It is not I conflating logic with reason. I have no need to reject anything. I am pointing out that are in fact confused regarding logic and reason. I am talking about logic. Maybe if I repeat myself enough clearing talking about logic not reason you will get the point....
Atheism is just a rejection of a claim. Only strong atheism is a view which puts forward it's own idea. Do you believe in unicorns or gnomes? If no then all you have done is reject the claim these exist by those claim that they do due to lack of evidence or unsound arguments. If you put forward these do not exist then this would be a view similar to theism.
I do not believe X exists vs I do not believe the claims that X exists.
The lack of about 10,000 years of theist failures in meeting their burden of proof is evidence enough. Once there were a number of other concepts attached to God; plagues, wars, etc. Now we have germ-theory and know wars are caused by humans for their purposes not the divine's. The concept of God has been getting smaller while being pushed into a field which can not be falsified nor proven by proof or evidence. Atheists have addressed this repeatedly for centuries. Atheism is just a form of skepticism for one question. Skepticism has existed beyond recorded the history by the first person that said to another "I do not believe you". It is the theists which have continuously put forward arguments to support their presuppositions. So are you suggesting skepticism should be hindered or stopped completely? Maybe you should realize it is not the atheist starting these types of dialogues you question but the theists as pointed out above.
You jump off of one and jump on to your own merry-go-round. All you have done is shifted to your own views without any argument in support other than stating the obvious, human reasoning is flawed. This question has been brought up and demonstrated for centuries but just as the theist you refuse to provide any alternatives but use gray area to hide as a form of your own god of a the gaps argument.
If you wish to propose a new method you are free to do so. Until you do so there is no reason why anyone should accepts your questions views based on your reasoning which you have already acknowledge could be faulty. I am just pointing out those faults.
Last edited:
I suspect you'll never get this, not for a lack of intelligence or education, but simply because it's clear you don't wish to get it, which is your right.
I never said logic is flawed. I've explained this repeatedly. It's indisputable that logic is useful for very many things, a point I've made all over the forum.
I'm withdrawing from the conversation because you seem unwilling to read or challenge what I've actually said, preferring instead easier targets of your own invention. I'm not mad about that, really I'm not, just weary of explaining this to committed ideologues for years to no effect, my own form of irrationality. But because I'm a hopeless typoholic, here's one more try.
We see that holy books have brought comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years, this is beyond doubt. However...
We also see that no one has been willing to prove that statements made in holy books are binding upon all of reality. And so we decline to believe in those statements. This is the simplest thing in the world, a solid atheist principle, which we both agree with.
Now we will apply THAT VERY SAME VALID PRINCIPLE in a fair even handed objective manner to another chosen authority on this topic, human reason.
We see that human reason, like holy books, has been proven to be useful in the daily lives of human beings, this too is beyond doubt.
And we also see that no one has been able to prove that the rules of human reason (a process invented by a single half insane species racing towards self extinction on one little planet, in one of billions of galaxies) are binding on all of reality.
And thus, when someone tries to use those rules to make claims or counter claims about the most fundamental nature of all reality we do EXACTLY THE SAME THING we did with holy books, we decline to believe those claims and counter claims.
This does not invalidate human reason in all those many areas where it has proven to be useful. It only invalidates human reason in areas where it has not been proven to be binding. As example....
There is nothing at all self contradictory about me using my human reason to conclude that I am not smart enough to get in to Harvard Med School. I'm smart enough to know I'm not that smart, but not smart enough to attend that school.
In the very same way, we can accurately reason that we don't even know what "all of reality" refers to, and thus it's not credible that we know what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality.
Point being, if we apply valid atheist principles in an even handed objective manner to all claims and counter claims on the subject of god, the entire theist vs. atheist debate comes crashing to the ground with a loud thud.
There are at least three possible things that may happen next.
1) A great many people will reject such reasoning out of hand if it disturbs an ideology which they've become emotionally attached to. This is their right of course.
2) Other people will accept the reasoning, and decide to shift their focus away from God talk to other topics where knowledge and conclusions can be developed. This is an entirely reasonable decision for very many people.
3) A third group will wish to continue the ancient inquiry. They will see that the incredibly pervasive persistence of religion is clear evidence of some fundamental human need. They will seek to understand and meet this need by some method other than the pursuit of fantasy claims and counter claims.
They will reject the assumption shared by both theists and atheists, that the point of the inquiry should be to find The Answer, come to a knowing. And they will do so for a very simple obvious reason which is fully in compliance with atheist principles.
After thousands of years of earnest effort by some of the best minds humanity has to offer, there is STILL no evidence the search for a knowing on this topic is going anywhere at all.
Einstein said that doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Continuing a theist vs. atheist debate that's been going on for centuries to no result is, if not insane, highly irrational.
Until a reader has that simple insight, it's likely pointless to disturb them further. If they wish to see this, they will. If they don't, they won't. There's likely nothing anybody can do to affect that decision.
Which is why I should probably shut up.
Shad
Veteran Member
I suspect you'll never get this, not for a lack of intelligence or education, but simply because it's clear you don't wish to get it, which is your right.
I never said logic is flawed. I've explained this repeatedly. It's indisputable that logic is useful for very many things, a point I've made all over the forum.
I'm withdrawing from the conversation because you seem unwilling to read or challenge what I've actually said, preferring instead easier targets of your own invention. I'm not mad about that, really I'm not, just weary of explaining this to committed ideologues for years to no effect, my own form of irrationality. But because I'm a hopeless typoholic, here's one more try.
We see that holy books have brought comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years, this is beyond doubt. However...
We also see that no one has been willing to prove that statements made in holy books are binding upon all of reality. And so we decline to believe in those statements. This is the simplest thing in the world, a solid atheist principle, which we both agree with.
Now we will apply THAT VERY SAME VALID PRINCIPLE in a fair even handed objective manner to another chosen authority on this topic, human reason.
We see that human reason, like holy books, has been proven to be useful in the daily lives of human beings, this too is beyond doubt.
And we also see that no one has been able to prove that the rules of human reason (a process invented by a single half insane species racing towards self extinction on one little planet, in one of billions of galaxies) are binding on all of reality.
And thus, when someone tries to use those rules to make claims or counter claims about the most fundamental nature of all reality we do EXACTLY THE SAME THING we did with holy books, we decline to believe those claims and counter claims.
This does not invalidate human reason in all those many areas where it has proven to be useful. It only invalidates human reason in areas where it has not been proven to be binding. As example....
There is nothing at all self contradictory about me using my human reason to conclude that I am not smart enough to get in to Harvard Med School. I'm smart enough to know I'm not that smart, but not smart enough to attend that school.
In the very same way, we can accurately reason that we don't even know what "all of reality" refers to, and thus it's not credible that we know what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality.
Point being, if we apply valid atheist principles in an even handed objective manner to all claims and counter claims on the subject of god, the entire theist vs. atheist debate comes crashing to the ground with a loud thud.
There are at least three possible things that may happen next.
1) A great many people will reject such reasoning out of hand if it disturbs an ideology which they've become emotionally attached to. This is their right of course.
2) Other people will accept the reasoning, and decide to shift their focus away from God talk to other topics where knowledge and conclusions can be developed. This is an entirely reasonable decision for very many people.
3) A third group will wish to continue the ancient inquiry. They will see that the incredibly pervasive persistence of religion is clear evidence of some fundamental human need. They will seek to understand and meet this need by some method other than the pursuit of fantasy claims and counter claims.
They will reject the assumption shared by both theists and atheists, that the point of the inquiry should be to find The Answer, come to a knowing. And they will do so for a very simple obvious reason which is fully in compliance with atheist principles.
After thousands of years of earnest effort by some of the best minds humanity has to offer, there is STILL no evidence the search for a knowing on this topic is going anywhere at all.
Einstein said that doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Continuing a theist vs. atheist debate that's been going on for centuries to no result is, if not insane, highly irrational.
Until a reader has that simple insight, it's likely pointless to disturb them further. If they wish to see this, they will. If they don't, they won't. There's likely nothing anybody can do to affect that decision.
Which is why I should probably shut up.
I never argued reasoning was perfect. I argued logic is universal. Reasoning creates conclusions which can be wrong. Logic is a method to create conclusions, not the conclusion itself, in which context and contents is applied by the subject matter. If one rejects logic as a universal you also reject math as math is pure logic. The subject matter could be flawed, true or false, it has no impact on logic. Just as mistakes in math, 1+3=5, has no impact on math. Both just show the person using the method can make mistakes.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
I suspect you'll never get this, not for a lack of intelligence or education, but simply because it's clear you don't wish to get it, which is your right.
I never said logic is flawed. I've explained this repeatedly. It's indisputable that logic is useful for very many things, a point I've made all over the forum.
I'm withdrawing from the conversation because you seem unwilling to read or challenge what I've actually said, preferring instead easier targets of your own invention. I'm not mad about that, really I'm not, just weary of explaining this to committed ideologues for years to no effect, my own form of irrationality. But because I'm a hopeless typoholic, here's one more try.
We see that holy books have brought comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years, this is beyond doubt. However...
We also see that no one has been willing to prove that statements made in holy books are binding upon all of reality. And so we decline to believe in those statements. This is the simplest thing in the world, a solid atheist principle, which we both agree with.
Now we will apply THAT VERY SAME VALID PRINCIPLE in a fair even handed objective manner to another chosen authority on this topic, human reason.
We see that human reason, like holy books, has been proven to be useful in the daily lives of human beings, this too is beyond doubt.
And we also see that no one has been able to prove that the rules of human reason (a process invented by a single half insane species racing towards self extinction on one little planet, in one of billions of galaxies) are binding on all of reality.
And thus, when someone tries to use those rules to make claims or counter claims about the most fundamental nature of all reality we do EXACTLY THE SAME THING we did with holy books, we decline to believe those claims and counter claims.
This does not invalidate human reason in all those many areas where it has proven to be useful. It only invalidates human reason in areas where it has not been proven to be binding. As example....
There is nothing at all self contradictory about me using my human reason to conclude that I am not smart enough to get in to Harvard Med School. I'm smart enough to know I'm not that smart, but not smart enough to attend that school.
In the very same way, we can accurately reason that we don't even know what "all of reality" refers to, and thus it's not credible that we know what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality.
Point being, if we apply valid atheist principles in an even handed objective manner to all claims and counter claims on the subject of god, the entire theist vs. atheist debate comes crashing to the ground with a loud thud.
There are at least three possible things that may happen next.
1) A great many people will reject such reasoning out of hand if it disturbs an ideology which they've become emotionally attached to. This is their right of course.
2) Other people will accept the reasoning, and decide to shift their focus away from God talk to other topics where knowledge and conclusions can be developed. This is an entirely reasonable decision for very many people.
3) A third group will wish to continue the ancient inquiry. They will see that the incredibly pervasive persistence of religion is clear evidence of some fundamental human need. They will seek to understand and meet this need by some method other than the pursuit of fantasy claims and counter claims.
They will reject the assumption shared by both theists and atheists, that the point of the inquiry should be to find The Answer, come to a knowing. And they will do so for a very simple obvious reason which is fully in compliance with atheist principles.
After thousands of years of earnest effort by some of the best minds humanity has to offer, there is STILL no evidence the search for a knowing on this topic is going anywhere at all.
Einstein said that doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Continuing a theist vs. atheist debate that's been going on for centuries to no result is, if not insane, highly irrational.
Until a reader has that simple insight, it's likely pointless to disturb them further. If they wish to see this, they will. If they don't, they won't. There's likely nothing anybody can do to affect that decision.
Which is why I should probably shut up.
It is basically an irrational struggle between fact and opinion, a head vs heart struggle. Obviously we require both fact and opinion, but people are prejudiced to prefer fact over opinion.
It is the heart which generally loses, opinion loses, subjectivity loses, expression of emotion loses, faith loses.
Very few deny facts are valid, very many deny opinions are valid.
Just to draw attention to what you said, this above /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
People need to speak of what is observed as objects. It is perceived, and subsequently experienced as other to one's self. But is "being" itself other to one's own being? It's like trying to see the seeing itself of the seer as the seer. We cannot think in these terms using logical dualistic frames of reference. It is valid however to speak in terms of subject and object divisions, but that is not Reality itself. It is reality in a relative sense, in a finite sense. If all someone sees as reality is the world of subject/object distinctions, that is all there is to them. They do not move into the perception of the relative self through the eyes of nondual consciousness, seeing both the relative and the Absolute.
This is something that cannot be observed to be known, but rather is something to be realized in one's very being, to realize the beingness of one's own relative being is the Ground of all Being. And then when realized, not with the mind and logic analyzing a world of objects but as the Seer in the knowledge of one's own Being, there is no conflict between the relative and the Absolute, between reality and Reality. I am the universe and all objects within it, and I am the individual dancing within this world of objects I perceive. I am Love, and I am loved. I give, and am the Giver.
This sort of knowledge is not deduced logically, but realized in one's own being, as one's own Being. As I quoted Aurobindo, "Our way of knowing must be appropriate to that which is to be known."
Last edited:
So it appears that you are saying that logic is binding upon God, if such exists. In the context of the monotheistic model of the universe this discussion is set upon, the Monotheistic God exists OUTSIDE of the universe, is transcendent to the realm in which logic was created to be useful. It is an assumption, not a proven fact, that our binary system of logic applies everywhere in the universe (which may well be infinite, and we have only started to study a very small part of it), as well as "outside" the universe, where the transcendent God supposedly is.
Logic is a system for simplifying our observations of the universe in which we live, so that we can make some useful discoveries about that universe; it is not an inherent aspect of that universe. Our classical binary (true/false) logic makes 3 formal assumptions about the world: I've seen them referred to as the "laws" or "principles" of logic: law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of the excluded middle. It doesn't take much thought to come up with examples from the real world where an object has more than one nature, where over time objects change to become contradictory, or where an object shares traits of being A and Not-A at the same time.
There are more than one form of logic. Classical binary logic is probably the simplest and best developed form today, but there are also what are called many-valued logics. The assumptions in these many-valued logics are that these three "laws" of classical logic may be relaxed or eliminated, because they are recognized as being the extreme case, which may only be appropriate in certain circumstances. The many-valued logics vary depending on which and how much of the classical laws are relaxed or eliminated; all rely on mathematics for their structure and application. By the way, mathematics is only in the broadest sense "one" thing; just as there are many logics, there are many mathematics, which make different assumptions about numbers and sets and functions, etc. These other logics have more than two truth values, and some seem to even abandon the concept of "truth" altogether; one, for example, finds statements justified, invalid, or unknown, based on whether evidence exists to support the statement. One version allows statements to be neither true nor false, or BOTH true and false at the same time.
In my hunting around on this topic, I didn't see any cases of a logician of this type addressing the question of the existence of God. Doesn't mean they haven't, just that I didn't find any; but I also didn't spend all that much time looking...I'm neither a mathematician nor a logician, but I am smart enough to understand that both logic and math are human-created tools that help us understand the universe we live in, and like any other tools, have limited usefulness. Applying human-created binary logic--or maybe even human-created many-valued logic--to the question of the existence of a transcendent omni-max God strongly appears to be one of those situations where the tool of logic (perhaps of any kind) is inadequate.
You don't throw out your tools when they aren't appropriate to the task, you set them aside and try to figure out what tool or tools might help you. Abandoning binary for many-valued logic might help, but it might not. We haven't really tried it yet, as far as I can tell. And what other tools might be out there? I don't know, but I suspect if we were to stop insisting on binary logic, we might start to make some progress.
Shad
Veteran Member
Can God make a stone so heavy he can not lift it? If logic is not binding then the omni concept has no basis. The monotheistic concept of God is based on philosophical concepts and logic. Transcendent is the realm of the first mover not immunity to logic. Beside if God is bound to logic then anyone can assert whatever they wish with no reason as support. That is fine for a personal view. However you are not going to convince those that even show the slightest bit of skepticism beyond special pleading.
Your example is not a contradiction since you added another premise. Change over time becomes a part of the argument thus does not violate the law of noncontradiction due to this very shift in context. You have provided no more than A is B if C(time)
There are more than one form of logic. Classical binary logic is probably the simplest and best developed form today, but there are also what are called many-valued logics. The assumptions in these many-valued logics are that these three "laws" of classical logic may be relaxed or eliminated, because they are recognized as being the extreme case, which may only be appropriate in certain circumstances. The many-valued logics vary depending on which and how much of the classical laws are relaxed or eliminated; all rely on mathematics for their structure and application. By the way, mathematics is only in the broadest sense "one" thing; just as there are many logics, there are many mathematics, which make different assumptions about numbers and sets and functions, etc. These other logics have more than two truth values, and some seem to even abandon the concept of "truth" altogether; one, for example, finds statements justified, invalid, or unknown, based on whether evidence exists to support the statement. One version allows statements to be neither true nor false, or BOTH true and false at the same time.
Which is used in my examples above as context which is just the applied "value" of MVL. MVL is also used in negation.
I'm neither a mathematician nor a logician, but I am smart enough to understand that both logic and math are human-created tools that help us understand the universe we live in, and like any other tools, have limited usefulness. Applying human-created binary logic--or maybe even human-created many-valued logic--to the question of the existence of a transcendent omni-max God strongly appears to be one of those situations where the tool of logic (perhaps of any kind) is inadequate.
An omni-max God requires binary logic, it is one of the oldest binary concepts we have. So before we discuss the tools we use to answer these question maybe we should address the question itself... If neither forms can be applied what is your basis for even entertaining the idea of God. I am all ears, I have been for several weeks now. I have yet to see anyone propose any argument for God. All I have seen is people put forward their ideas on logic then fail to put forward any argument for, against or the null view. I have yet to see one put forward even a concept of God without being invoking the very logic they are questioning
I apologize in advance for the length of this response; however, it is the only way I know of to explain these ideas.
Not sure where you get the idea that our system of binary logic must be binding on God. Perhaps logic must be binding on human reasoning about the concepts we associate with the concept of God, but if something really were omni-everything, you feel confident asserting that it must actually conform to human reason? I just don’t see that.
All humans have shown so far is that in the investigation of material phenomena on the surface of this planet (and we assume, elsewhere in the visible portion of the universe because we can observe that much of the universe—beyond that we cannot detect so we cannot test, and therefore cannot KNOW), binary logic is a pretty good tool. But that is all it’s been shown to be a reliable tool for. Just because it is good for that, does not mean it’s good for understanding anything else that might be out there.
You are absolutely right, if God is not bound to our human logic, then anyone could assert anything about it. But what evidence do you have that God IS and MUST BE bound to classical logic? We assert properties for this deity, and then we reason about those assertions, but you cannot seriously assert that anyone really knows anything about a transcendent God. Some of our assertions may be correct, but some may also be incorrect, or only partially correct. But we don’t know, and probably can’t know—and until we can identify some evidence of some sort, it’s really pretty silly to spend lots of time arguing about what might be.
Again, logic helps us build a map of the territory, and it’s helped us build what so far appears to be a pretty good map of how the material world functions here and now, and within the last few billion years. But our map is not the territory, and our map is built on several assumptions which have to be accepted as true for the logic to work, but cannot be demonstrated within the system of logic itself. And, the territory of the material world where our logic seems to work is not the purported transcendental realm where the Monotheistic God is supposed to be. This is why classical logic is not the right tool for assessing assertions about a transcendental deity.
So, the argument is that non-contradiction only applies at one point in space and time in relation to any given assertion/phenomenon, and that is still supposed to say something meaningful about the state of the REAL world, rather than about our map of the world?
Still not seeing that an omni-max God requires binary logic. You may be trying to assert that our understanding (our map of the territory) of such a deity would require binary logic, but I don’t see that either. There are ways to address such a deity using logic, just not classical binary logic—but the stumbling point remains our inability to actually meaningfully detect and measure the presence and properties of such a transcendental God.
Mind you, I am not a defender of this idea of the Monotheistic God—I find it beyond my comprehension, and I cannot see how any humans, or humanity as a whole, would ever be able to comprehend or in any meaningful way define such a deity. But, I came across a Christian website (Attributes of God) that identifies 18 characteristics of God, all taken from the Bible—all the traditional omni-max assertions. Because I am somewhat familiar with fuzzy set theory I will attempt to show how that form of logic might be used to investigate the concept—our map—of a Monotheistic deity.
In classical binary logic, we have two sets when we talk about the omni-max God: one set contains that God, and nothing else. The other set contains everything else—so anything that shares even in large part any of the characteristics that are maximum in God, get thrown into the second set. An entity that is 99 percent omni-eveything—that is, knows 99 percent of everything there is to know—what God knows--and 99 percent of the all-powerful strength, is 99 percent Just, and so on) is not God, even though it is absolutely nothing like a human being or a rock.
Fuzzy logic rejects the law of the excluded middle. In fuzzy sets, any given object can have membership in a set (remembering that sets are mental constructions, maps, and are not reality), with a partial membership value (that is, a truth value) anywhere between 0 and 1 (so long as it’s a real number)…which we can convert into percentages for convenience—0 is 0 percent, and 1 is 100 percent. Thus, we have a set that could contain entities that have somewhere between 0 and 100 percent of each of the 18 attributes of the Monotheistic God, which is the special extreme case of being 100 percent on all 18 of the attributes.
So, those attributes: wise, infinite, sovereign, holy, trinity, omniscient, faithful, loving, omnipotent, self-existent, self-sufficient, just, immutable, merciful, eternal, good, gracious, omnipresent.
In a set of entities that to some degree have these traits, humans and rocks would (I would expect and estimate) be very close to zero on each, with humans being just a little higher than the rock on some of them—but in fuzzy logic, even if an entity were at absolutely 0 percent on each of the 18 characteristics, it would still be a member of the set—it would be the special extreme case of being 0 percent on all 18.
From here, it would be possible to start discussing whether it would be possible for there to be entities that score higher than humans. We could start to ask, what would that look like for something to display 10 percent of maximum wisdom? What would it look like for something to be 50 percent just, in a universal sense? What would be the difference between an entity that is 99 percent on all of these traits, and 100 percent? Would humans even be able to discern such a difference, from our position? The special case of the omni-max Monotheistic deity can then be approached in a more piecemeal fashion, so we might find the right tools to measure each of the parts, if possible—something I don’t think binary logic is well prepared to do, and maybe not other human logic.
Of course, the problem remains, can we, or could we even, hope to find evidence of entities toward the higher end of the spectrum, as it were? It might be we could. Not saying it is, but it might be. Then again, it’s humans using human reason and human perceptions and human conceptions to try to understand something that by definition should be beyond our comprehension.
Shad
Veteran Member
NHL playoffs are distracting me at this time. I will get to your post when I can. Just skimming a lot of your points have already been addressed by me especially the omni-God concept which is based on human reasoning and logic, just not sound logic. Keep in mind the omni-concept is proposed by theists not by myself. I use it as an example not as a view I support, it is just another point of an argument for me. It is the theist asserting what is known about God, what God must be in order to be God. Each omni-concept can be reduced to binary logic and in fact used often that many do not realize this point. An issue is many premises have hidden premises within an argument. Once one digs into these premises the argument becomes far more complex than the simple argument has been presented as. Those that can spot these take issues with the hidden premises, those that do not usually have no formal education in logic nor philosophy.
Who you rooting for?
As an atheist might say, prove it please.
I say, we don't even know what the word "universal" refers to.
It doesn't matter who proposed the idea, whether they proposed it as binary logic, or if it can be reduced to binary logic. The point is that to this point, both theists and atheists arguing using classical binary logic has not resulted in any progress--as our participation in this thread has again demonstrated. Just because that's how the question has been framed for hundreds of years doesn't mean it's the right frame, or that we shouldn't try something different, since it's obviously not working.
What I am suggesting is that perhaps if those on both sides of the issue stopped trying to make it either/or (or even either/or with Unknown/unknowable as an option) and starting looking at it from different perspectives, using different tools, it might be possible to move toward some resolution. You have repeatedly pointed out that no one has proposed an alternative to classical logic; I just have. I noted that there are a number of other valid forms of logic out there, and gave an example of the alternative I'm most familiar with. You speak of hidden premises. Applying nonclassical logics would force everyone to consider and explicitly confront their hidden premises. Yes, the question of a monotheistic all-God is complex. Obviously, binary logic hasn't solved it. Breaking the problem down into component parts using a different tool might help solve it.
Now then, I'm neither an atheist nor a monotheist (although I have been both in turn), and I certainly don't go for the Monotheistic God. But I can recognize the arguments that both sides bring to bear, and the fact that none convinces everyone. I recognize that classical logic isn't solving the problem. But because of my beliefs, I'm much more interested in the intermediate cases of god-like entities, which are irrelevant to theists, and usually not even considered by atheists because both sides are using classical logic.
There was a news article this week, which announced that a study of a number of galaxies found no evidence of modification/disruption of stellar radiation that might be expected of hypothetical civilizations that were using a significant fraction of the radiation to run their civilizations. For me, that would be an example of an intermediate god-like entity, because if they exist, they would certainly have powers that would be far beyond ours, but just as certainly wouldn't be universal in their scope. In a fuzzy set, they would score somewhere between us and the omni-max deity that's so important to monotheists.
Shad
Veteran Member
I root for no one. I take issue with flawed arguments for or against the idea. If an "strong-atheist" were to make a case I had issues with I would tear it apart just as quickly as I would for a theist. I take the position that there is no reason to believe but there is also no reason to believe in the non-existence of God. Neither has provided logical proof nor evidence.
Shad
Veteran Member
Universe is physical reality made of matter, energy and space-time. We have a definition, just most have no clue what the definition is. This is an issue with language games in which technical terminology is lost for the sake of communicating ideas with laypeople
Shad
Veteran Member
Logic is basic principles and axioms. If these principles do not hold then one can not use the law of identity to identify God as an object, hence God would be non-existent. Omni is just just the logical argument of what is required to be God. If God is limited by a lack of knowledge then it is not God. If God can not do what is logically possible then it is not God. If God can make a stone God can not lift then it is not God, it is also logically impossible o do this by following the definition of the omni concepts.
Incorrect. We can create abstract concepts, and do all the time, which are not material rather only produced by a material mind. Democracy is not an object but an idea. We can discuss ideas without the need of material evidence for an idea. We can discuss the idea purely through proposals, counter-ideas, dialogue, etc with requiring material evidence at all. This is what philosophy does and have done for millennia.
Due to the law of identity, if not bound we can not identify God nor can God considered an object that exists. God could be God and could be some guy named Bob at the same time. This is an issue with the Trinity obviously. In my opinion we know nothing about God since we lack observations of God. Both rationalist and empiricist views require observation. So God is an idea that people think is an object that exists, an abstract. I am still waiting for evidence and/or proof for this leap from concept to reality. However the vast amount of this speculation which is worth considering is based on logic not magically wishful thinking like "gnomes stole my car keys". These are theist arguments not mine. If God is not bound by logic we have no basis for the concept and the word God. The concept becomes nonsensical. There is no discussion to be had if God can exist and not exist in the same context. It allows the very idea we are discussing to break the very principles we use to discuss it.
Not just the material based objects but mental abstracts which are immaterial. You are only arguing against a materialistic concept which has no basis in reality, it is either a strawman or a misunderstand you have. Again all I see is people repeating the claim that God is not bound by logic then refusing to propose any system to recover this. Even MVL can not be applied to this since each value is still binary. MVL breaks down a object/ideas by context. It also works for ideas/objects which can not be defines by a single binary. For example you have an apple. This apple is 80% red and 20% green. MVL can be applied so that we have 4 values. 80% of the apple is red, 80% is not green, 20% is green, 20% is not green. The later two are just flipping the view rather than a false value. Each is still binary in isolation. We just can not have a binary the apple is green or red.
Again, I am all ears at someone proposing a new methodology for discussing this topic. I have yet to see one propose a method which not only contradicts their dismissal of logic but shows their inconsistency or lack of understanding logic.
Yes, this has been the standard method for centuries since Aristotle. There is a normal dog which is within (t)ime. At t1 the dog has 4 legs. At t2 the dog has three legs. This is not a contradiction since there is a shift in context via time. If the dog had 3 legs and 4 legs at t1 this would be a contradiction.
Look at an omni concept. It is the maximum properties. Either the object has a max property or it does not.
If you take the position we can not comprehend God you have already accepted God exists, just that you or I can not understand it. I question the basis for even such an acceptance.
God can be be a set.
99% "everything" is still binary isolation of MVL values.
It does not reject it., it just not applicable in every argument. As per my apple example. Each value still follows LEM in isolation but does not as a unified MVL proposal. 80% red follows LEM, 20% green follows LEM. 80% red and 20% green combined does not but the statement is not applicable to LEM.
An absolute 0 entity which still be binary not only in isolated values but as unified concept. Does X lack all of Y characteristics, True/False?
Yes it is very piecemeal. Omni concepts are abstracts. Knowledge for example. To be all knowing one must know everything at all times. The position of X black hole in Y galaxy, etc. If the subject does not know this as innate knowledge then it can not be omni. This is a simple abstract concept. However we can never test this idea since God is a no-show. Again this is a basic issue with the concept of God, it has yet to produce a single sound argument since soundness requires evidence.
It depends. If there is a "spiritual/divine" dimension which allows communication between us and this dimension then there is a connect between the two. The possibility of developing a reliable view to investigate this connect and/or to use it to communicate is low at this time. It would also be something those that accept such ideas would need to develop since they are the proponents of these ideas. However until this has been accomplished there are few option. One can accept they have no basis supporting the concept of God. The concept is not worth discussing due to our inabilities. Accept logic as a binding axioms to have a discussion regarding the abstract concept. The last would be to actually discuss what tool we have and proposing a new set of tools. If one can only criticize the existing set without proposing a new set they must accept there is no basis in support of or for a discussion of the concept.
Like I have said before many like to point of issues with logic then propose the view same logic they take issues with as the "new method".