Is God logical?

[ratiocinator]

The belief in real is no different that the belief in God. They are both subjective. Both words have no intersubjective referent, they are both in the mind and no where else apparently.
Unless you can tell how to see the real world, I am just fine not believing in it. I don't need that word to live, it is subjective and it doesn't work for me.

I simply don't believe you. You believe in the real world just as much as everybody else does, at least in practice, otherwise, there'd be no point in posting on a forum, there'd be no point in eating or looking after yourself.

You can try and make yourself feel special, and perhaps a little superior, by claiming that you don't believe in the real world, and that it's just the same as belief in god, but the way you live life, and the fact you're bothering to argue about it here, says otherwise.

And actually in practice is the way I'm saying that I believe it, too. As I said, I'm making no claim to know but I do claim that it's unavoidable (which your life and your continued argument tells me that you believe too) and therefore might as well be real, even if it isn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I simply don't believe you. You believe in the real world just as much as everybody else does, at least in practice, otherwise, there'd be no point in posting on a forum, there'd be no point in eating or looking after yourself.

You can try and make yourself feel special, and perhaps a little superior, by claiming that you don't believe in the real world, and that it's just the same as belief in god, but the way you live life, and the fact you're bothering to argue about it here, says otherwise.

And actually in practice is the way I'm saying that I believe it, too. As I said, I'm making no claim to know but I do claim that it's unavoidable (which your life and your continued argument tells me that you believe too) and therefore might as well be real, even if it isn't.

Yes, but all of the world is not the intersubjective world. So in practice we both act the same for the part of the world we share.
And that is all there is to you as the real is to you real. But there is more to the world to me that the intersubjective.

So here is how the subjective work. Any belief as real to the person acting upon it as a reason to act, works as long as the subsequent behavior works for the world as such.
I believe in effect to some religious non-believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that works for me and as long I act and behave according to world as such, my belief works. That is, how subjectivity works in practice.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, but all of the world is not the intersubjective world.

Yes but the point is that claims that cannot be tested intersubjectively are in a different category. The intersubjective world is generally referred to as "objective" and the rest is strictly subjective. So belief in the "real" world is not the same as beliefs in gods because gods cannot be intersubjectively verified.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes but the point is that claims that cannot be tested intersubjectively are in a different category. The intersubjective world is generally referred to as "objective" and the rest is strictly subjective. So belief in the "real" world is not the same as beliefs in gods because gods cannot be intersubjectively verified.

There are at least 6 categories:

• Objective as the physical and so on.
• Objective as the abstract logical.
• Intersubjective as shared culture, laws, language and so on, that is not objective.
• Subjective as individual world-view.
• Imagination, i.e Superman is real.
• The metaphysical and ontological as the really real, that is unknown.

They overlap in some sense, but your model of only 2 is to simple.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, another different question is if it is knowable what reality really is, including if reality is natural or from God?

To me it is unknowable.
Start with checking if you can ask questions, that have neither a concrete positive nor a correct negative answer?

If yes, then there are questions, which have unknowable answers.

And if the answers are unknowable -- even in principle -- why worry about them at all?

 

[halbhh]

Which is why I don't believe people when they tell me implausible things about God.
I think they're making it up, or repeating something someone else made up. Like the Legend of Christ.

Tom

Of course to say that Jesus is only an legend is itself such an thing too, a notion someone invented who was "making it up, or repeating something someone else made up".

 

[columbus]

Of course to say that Jesus is only an legend is itself such an thing too, a notion someone invented who was "making it up, or repeating something someone else made up".

This is kind of a big problem discussing religion with religionists. I didn't say Jesus was only a legend, I don't think He was. The implausible parts are the Legend of Christ.

Nobody made it up and expected me to take it on Faith. I know the Bible, Christian history and teachings, a layman's knowledge of the culture and events of 1st century Judea. The conclusion I draw from all of that(and more) is that Jesus lived and was executed for treason against Rome. His followers made up a bunch of implausible fiction afterwards for their own purposes. Jesus is not a legend, He's the kernel of truth at the center of the Legend of Christ.
Tom

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And if the answers are unknowable -- even in principle -- why worry about them at all?

As long as you don't claim that it objectively makes better sense for us all to believe in your worldview, then you can believe as you like.
So as long as you don't support any version of what reality really is or any version of objective morality, I don't care. Because that is connected as far as I can tell.

 

[halbhh]

This is kind of a big problem discussing religion with religionists. I didn't say Jesus was only a legend, I don't think He was. The implausible parts are the Legend of Christ.

Nobody made it up and expected me to take it on Faith. I know the Bible, Christian history and teachings, a layman's knowledge of the culture and events of 1st century Judea. The conclusion I draw from all of that(and more) is that Jesus lived and was executed for treason against Rome. His followers made up a bunch of implausible fiction afterwards for their own purposes. Jesus is not a legend, He's the kernel of truth at the center of the Legend of Christ.
Tom

Ok, but do you think this is made up? --

Mark 12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
Mark 12:31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' No other commandment is greater than these."

Perhaps you'd say 'no', and if you do think these above are accurate things Jesus did say (The Gospel of Mark being written down only about 35 years or so after Christ: Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia ), then in that case, what about this? --

Mark 11:25 And when you stand to pray, if you hold anything against another, forgive it, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your trespasses as well."

Do you think this is correct?

If you do, then what about this? --

Mark 6:34 When Jesus stepped ashore and saw a large crowd, He had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And He began to teach them many things.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Correct and that is the point. We are playing with human logic to determine something which is beyond human logic.

Except that it ISN'T beyond human logic. IF your god was created by something else THEN your god is not all powerful. IF you can't provide verifiable evidence that your god wasn't created by another being THEN you can't make the claim that your god is all powerful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that it ISN'T beyond human logic. IF your god was created by something else THEN your god is not all powerful. IF you can't provide verifiable evidence that your god wasn't created by another being THEN you can't make the claim that your god is all powerful.

It is about the limit of logic, when dealing with God. Not to prove or disprove God, but showing the limit in trying to apply logic on God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It is about the limit of logic, when dealing with God. Not to prove or disprove God, but showing the limit in trying to apply logic on God.

Sorry, but the fact that your proposed god being is completely illogical doesn't point out the limits of logic, it points out the absurdity of your god claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, but the fact that your proposed god being is completely illogical doesn't point out the limits of logic, it points out the absurdity of your god claim.

Try it yourself. Try only using logic to decide what the universe really is, creator God or no creator God.
You can't because logic is a process in your brain. It is not out there in the universe with or without a creator God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Try it yourself. Try only using logic to decide what the universe really is, creator God or no creator God.
You can't because logic is a process in your brain. It is not out there in the universe with or without a creator God.

They've come up with this method for determining how the universe works... it's called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. It is BY FAR the most effective method we've ever come up with for reliably determining how the universe works. This method employs basic logic. It helps us to determine realities... like the reality that the Earth orbits the sun. If you want to learn how logic and reason helps us determine what the universe is, I suggest that you start with a book on basic astronomy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They've come up with this method for determining how the universe works... it's called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. It is BY FAR the most effective method we've ever come up with for reliably determining how the universe works. This method employs basic logic. It helps us to determine realities... like the reality that the Earth orbits the sun. If you want to learn how logic and reason helps us determine what the universe is, I suggest that you start with a book on basic astronomy.

Yes, and it is called methodological naturalism for a reason.
And it has these limits:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

It doesn't tell us what the universe is. It tell us how it looks to us, when we use science. There is a difference.
I suggest you start with some basic philosophy of science.

 

[MJ Bailey]

In response to the OP, what if everything that exists is a part of GoD? Thinking logically, according to most Religions there is "deity" in which created existences, therefore wouldn't everything have to be a part of what was put there?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In response to the OP, what if everything that exists is a part of GoD? Thinking logically, according to most Religions there is "deity" in which created existences, therefore wouldn't everything have to be a part of what was put there?

Then how come people can be non-believers if everything is a part of GoD? How can GoD not believe in GoD?

 

[columbus]

Then how come people can be non-believers if everything is a part of GoD? How can GoD not believe in GoD?

Because God doesn't believe in anything.
That's something humans do.
Tom

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because God doesn't believe in anything.
That's something humans do.
Tom

So there something God doesn't do. How do you know that?

 

[MJ Bailey]

LOL; pretty sure GoD had no problem believing in Himself, that doesn't mean anything aside for Him doesn't.