Disproving god with the laws of logic

[Humanistheart]

No, it was posted because you requested it,... "What scripture says this?"
Please reread your post 1088 addressed to me!

Ah, thank you for explaining, and for bringing yet more contradictions of the bible to my attention

 

[Thief]

So you really don't get it.
The collective knowledge of Man, is one rewrite after another.
That you are witness to an event to someone else's error does not continue to say the entire idea is incorrect. Nor can you say of yourself that you got it right, because the other guy had it wrong.

Moses had a one on one discussion with Someone he believed to be God.
Thomas placed his finger into the wound of a resurrected Prophet.
But of course, you would be willing to discount these reports as error.

I related my experience, because of it's first hand observation how an incorrect idea can be formed, and had I remained silent my fellow classmates would have continued on with their lives, having an error in their perspective.

But it doesn't follow that my perspective is absolute. It took forty years for someone else to say as I did. As time goes by further detail and examination will sharpen the viewpoint.

The same is true for theological discussions.
It will simply take longer, for the lack of a tangible medium.
For now the existence of God remains an item of faith.

 

[Humanistheart]

So you really don't get it.
The collective knowledge of Man, is one rewrite after another.
That you are witness to an event to someone else's error does not continue to say the entire idea is incorrect. Nor can you say of yourself that you got it right, because the other guy had it wrong.


The same is true for theological discussions.
It will simply take longer, for the lack of a tangible medium.
For now the existence of God remains an item of faith.

Then by your argument, as people progress in our understanding of 'god', it's entirely probable that we will come to a point where the world recognizes the fact that there are no gods.

Then there are religions such as islam, which claim to have eternal truth directly from god in the quaron. When a religion claims to have it right, and is proven in fact to have it wrong, it rather discredits that religion.

As for moses, you suggest he did not really see god. So who then gave moses the ten commandments, a basic tenant of judiasm? If not god, then the religon must be false, and all those that later sprung from it are basing their religions on a false religion, making it rather difficult to think that those religions are any more valid than it's false predicessor.

 

[Thief]

Well in the case of Islam....it is said there will be no more prophets.

I think this to be an error.
But that's not to say there is no God.
Nor does it follow that Islam is altogether bad.

 

[Humanistheart]

Well in the case of Islam....it is said there will be no more prophets.

I think this to be an error.
But that's not to say there is no God.
Nor does it follow that Islam is altogether bad.

I never said Islam was bad. However, you say Isalm is in error. The quaran suggests muhamid is the final prophet, and Islam holds the quaran to be the literal word of god, so in the context of that religion you are either claiming god's wrong, or you must agree with me that the relgion is inccorect, and the islamic god does not exist. In that same spirit, all thiestic religions can be shown to be false, and that their gods do not exist.

 

[Thief]

No, of course I disagree with you.
And I reiterate, Man's knowledge is a continual rewrite.
An attempt to finalize the progress will fail.

 

[Venatoris]

Man's knowledge is a continual rewrite.

Congrats, you just proved that religion and knowledge are in direct opposition. Nice.

 

[rageoftyrael]

thief, i'm really curious. could you explain what it is that you said when it was asked about the whole gravity thing? you keep mentioning it, but you haven't said what it was that you said. i'm really interested to hear this. plus, if you are telling the truth, you are over 50 years old..... which doesn't surprise me, lol.

 

[Thief]

No Venatoris the continual rewrite does not place one discipline against the other.
Sooner or later all of this will come together.

Under another topic heading, I just made note that Copernicus, a man of astronomy and science, also served as Canon of Fauenberg, during the latter portion of his life.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

why was sevenz banned?

 

[Humanistheart]

No Venatoris the continual rewrite does not place one discipline against the other.
Sooner or later all of this will come together.

If you think it's all going to come together, your again implying that all religions are in fact, incorrect currently. And you just said that an attempt to finalize anything will fail, but many religions have done so, so by your own admission said religions must be false.

 

[Thief]

Not altogether false.
Both disciplines are still developing.
Science will be a long time finalizing all of the equations to understand the universe.
Religion will some day set aside ritual praying, and indoctrinations.

Some day, we will look at one another, and simply nod our heads.

 

[rageoftyrael]

that's a nice thought. i doubt it though.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Hi ThereIsNoSpoon, understand your logic, but the point is the human mind is only capable of functioning according to conceptual reality and that is understood by the Source of the scripture which is beyond mortal conceptual reality.

It is my understanding that the higher wisdom can't be conveyed to humans in any conceptual way, and this is implied in the quoted scripture. IOW, human logic is being used as an expedient to explain that there is Divine wisdom beyond the ken of human logic,...

The Tao that can be described is not the Eternal Tao.

Hi ben,

i think your reasoning will end up in paradoxes and way to many assumptions.

We both agree that our perception of reality is limited.
We both might agree that there can be more beyond our perception and beyond our ability to comprehend.
I wouldn't state that there is anything beyond fundamental logic however.
Anyway...
What you do not is in my view problematic for several reasons.
First of all you claim and assume a state for the scriptures, God and "faithfull" people without being able to rationalize it. Based on these claims you want to argue. I would ask you to reason these claims first before continuing.
Why would it be that the "source of the scripture" understands our limitations? Why would it bother at all?
Of course this brings us back to the initial question: "Does this source exist at all".

Lets us leave that aside for a moment. Now you speak about the scriptures and their messages. We are perceptive beings able of thinking. Any scripture that conveys things should acknowledge that. And there are many ways by which one could do this. What however we find is a source of texts which is indistinguishable from forged documents of all the thousands of false prophets we had over the time. Documents that contain factual errors that need to be "interpreted away" by the faithfull. The only means we do have to decide on who tells the truth and who doesnt is the thinking capabilities we have. Thus it would be reasonable to provide information in a way that fits our limitations.

Now we face a final problem. As i said before you can't so easily argue that God is way beyond logic. If he is then ALL arguments for or against him will fail INCLUDING his own (if he exists).
Actually your own reasoning above wouldnt fit.
If God is beyond logic then no "because", "why", "then", "ergo" is usable, nor is any scripture or source you mention in any way. All that you say is just a personal opinion like any other one and without any arguable truth behind it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi ThereIsNoSpoon, thank you for your thoughtful response and sharing your present understanding on these matters.

However it is my understanding that there is a state of awareness which is beyond the conceptual logic of human mind, i.e. it is not a function of the intellect, and though it may not be very well developed in most, the potential is there in all. Since you are not of that opinion, there is little to discuss, for my interest is not limited to the material reality only, but the' whole', i.e. the immanent reality that is perceived and conceived of by the mind, and the transcendent which is unknowable by the mind. Actually there is only ONE reality, 'immanent' and 'transcendent' are mere mental concepts to represent aspects 'perceivable' and 'not perceivable' respectively to the human mind.

Please don't take this to be in anyway critical of your present understanding, nor take it as an attempt to persuade you of its correctness, it is just simply my present understanding which is being shared with you as you shared yours.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Hi ThereIsNoSpoon, thank you for your thoughtful response and sharing your present understanding on these matters.

However it is my understanding that there is a state of awareness which is beyond the conceptual logic of human mind, i.e. it is not a function of the intellect, and though it may not be very well developed in most, the potential is there in all. Since you are not of that opinion, there is little to discuss, for my interest is not limited to the material reality only, but the' whole', i.e. the immanent reality that is perceived and conceived of by the mind, and the transcendent which is unknowable by the mind. Actually there is only ONE reality, 'immanent' and 'transcendent' are mere mental concepts to represent aspects 'perceivable' and 'not perceivable' respectively to the human mind.

Please don't take this to be in anyway critical of your present understanding, nor take it as an attempt to persuade you of its correctness, it is just simply my present understanding which is being shared with you as you shared yours.

Hi ben,
thanks for the reply. Don't worry, I find no persuation or critics in your post (hopeyfully you dont find any in mine either).

i have no problem with your current opinion. Its an opinion and as such you are entitled to it just like anybody else is entitled to his own.

I do fear that i have a different idea about the term "understanding" though. Understanding in my view is related to conceptional thinking and i would even claim that all that you posted above is nothing else than conceptional thinking.

You kind of conceptionally think about something that supposedly is not conceptionally grabable. This in my view constitutes a grave problem in your view provided you want to make actual claims concerning this supposed being.

When you now speak about your understanding then (in my view) you would be able to show a certain behaviour, provide knowledge or be able to apply that understanding in a way people could share.

How would you show anybody that you behave apropriately to the "god-being" that you speak about ?
How would you provide knowledge about the unknowable?
How could I verify that your application of your understanding corresponds to the truth?

I hope you see my problem with the term "understanding".
It is a term that (used as you do) can't be verified by others.

Hence i would use the term belief or concept or idea or opinion rather than understanding.

No offense meant.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi ThereIsNoSpoon, thank you,

Concerning the concept 'understanding', perhaps it does appear a little pretentious, but it comes from the teaching of Badhidharma,..see my signature. What was left off the signature (which completes the point he was making about 'true' understanding is,.."If you understand anything, then you just don't understand!"

No it is not correct to assume that what is being stated is all due to some understanding that has come about by conceptual thinking, my life has been filled with dhyana meditation practice whose goal it is to still the mind by the complete cessation of thought to realize what and who one really is beyond the mortal mind's conceptual opinion garnered indirectly from others opinions.

In this case, concepts are only being used as an expedient to share with you my understanding that concepts prevent/obscure true understanding.

And yes, you are logically correct, understanding of the nature of THAT which is non-conceptual can't be conveyed to another through conceptual language,... but the potential to realize true understanding is inherent in everyone, so long as they don't expect it to come from another.

If you respond to my post for further explanation, then you just don't understand.