There is no evidence of God

[nash8]

And Mestimia, you need to take that damn bug off your user interface. I don't know how many times i've hit my computer. I already have enough bugs in my room to be paronoid of them crawling on me, I don't need a cyber bug to peak my paranoia.

 

[Sir Doom]

Sure- call it "super-egg-salad-sandwich" for all it matters; as long as its understood that whatever we call it, its nonsense.

You can keep dodging the question all you like. It doesn't make you seem smart or anything.

Lol... All the worse for the subject then; if it admits contradictions, then it is assuredly false.

If what admits contradiction?

And you're right, you don't have to define existence based on "what I find meaningful" (codeword for "what is logically coherent" since its hardly MY criteria)- but if your definition of existence includes non-existent things (such as things with contradictory properties, like round squares and God) then your usage of "existence" differs from everyone else, and you're unable to communicate with the rest of us.

You only find the logically coherent to be meaningful? Well, that's fine and dandy. Now explain what that has to do with you suggesting that contradictions produce meaningless results and naturally those results CANNOT exist since you can't find meaning in them? Because that's what you said before.

To wit, in general its a good idea to use words in accordance with their actual meaning, rather than some novel crackpot usage you've devised on your own.

Yeah, no. I think I'll use the English language as I see fit. A vast majority of people I interact with seem to have no problem supplementing my words with their own cognitive reasoning. There is only ever issues when I encounter a willful lack of creative thinking. Which I absolutely LOVE.

Hardly. Asking about "super-omnipotence" is exactly the same as asking about "north of the North Pole"; omnipotence is, by definition, the limit of power, so "super-omnipotence" is a contradiction in terms.

It sounds a lot more like a redundancy to me. Which means terms that are so in line with one another they are not necessary to present at the same time. A contradiction would be to terms used together that functionally cancel each other out in context. 'Super-omnipotent' does not do that at all. You seem to be having trouble with your word usage... which is pleasing to me. All so that you can avoid placing an arbitrary label onto a hypothetical being.

By the way, I can imagine North of the Northpole. You should stop saying that.

(and everyone else)

You'd like to think...

Agreed. The bottom line is that there is probably no such thing as omnipotence.

This not-so-subtle opinion of yours is exactly why I chose to respond to you. If you do not believe such a being exists... then how is it that you can be so insistent about what its properties are? And when it is suggested that this non-existent being may in fact possess different properties, you act as though one is possible and one is not... when you really don't think either one is possible. Why is it that you can suspend disbelief for omnipotence... but not super-omnipotence (which I will be using from now on due to your hilarious objections to it)?

The whole "we can't comprehend it" canard doesn't help, since we're the ones attributing omnipotence to God in the first place- you're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. If we can't understand what omnipotence is, then we are hardly justified in claiming that God is omnipotent. This line of reasoning is self-defeating.

First, I have no intention of attributing omnipotence to God, so go ahead and re-can your canned answer.

Second, what I was pointing out was the ridiculousness of your argument based on how utterly arbitrary the entire affair was and how you were simply unwilling to go one more arbitrary step.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

QM is full of "logical contradictions lol. Can one object be moving and not moving at the same time?

No it isn't; counter-intuitive results yes, but not contradictions.

Your logic is limited by the number of neurons, amongst many other things, in your brain. Just because YOU conclude something is a logical contradiction according to YOUR logic does not mean it is universally illogical.

Lol... According to "my" logic. As if logic was like a purse or a cell phone, such that "my logic" which I carry around with me is slightly different from the logic everyone else carries around with them.

And no, logic is not contingent upon the number of neurons any given person has in their brain (although a particular persons ability to comprehend or utilize logic is obviously contingent upon the state of their brain).

And deductive reasoning only works in mathematics, everything else is inductively reasoned.

Um, no... That's ludicrous. Alot of our natural reasoning is deductive; in particular, we reason deductively from things we gather through induction. (for instance- say I know from experience/induction that Julie is a lawyer, and that all lawyers are smart; I conclude, deductively, that Jule is smart)

Does infinity plus one have any meaningful purpose?

Infinity plus one - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hyperreal number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it logically impossible to have a cube with more than six sides?
Tesseract with Time as Fourth Dimension

Looks like you completely missed the point of the example and read me far too literally; the illustration had nothing to do with transfinite cardinalities but the colloquial expression "infinity plus one" (as you'll note your Wiki article mentions) which illustrates the unintelligible nature of something being greater than the limit for a particular attribute. Saying something is "more powerful than all powerful" (i.e. "super-omnipotent") is like saying "taller than the tallest thing", " north of the north pole", and so on.

So did you have anything to say to that point, or were you just being a pedant?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You can keep dodging the question all you like. It doesn't make you seem smart or anything.

I answered your question; you simply don't like the answer. No dodging going on. I can repeat myself a few more times if that makes you feel edified.

If what admits contradiction?

The subject matter- you said whether it admits contradictions or not is irrelevant to this particular subject; to which the obvious response is, as I said, that that is all the worse for that subject matter then.

Now explain what that has to do with you suggesting that contradictions produce meaningless results and naturally those results CANNOT exist since you can't find meaning in them? Because that's what you said before.

Um, that is not what I said at ANY point on this thread. I didn't say contradictions cannot obtain because "I don't find meaning in them", contradictions cannot obtain because... well, they're contradictions. Contradictions are self-denying, self-defeating; if a single contradiction actually obtained or were true, then it would follow that every possible claim or fact imaginable would be both true and false.
(this is referred to as logical explosion, a very fitting term)

Yeah, no. I think I'll use the English language as I see fit.

Have fun with that.

You seem to be having trouble with your word usage

Lol... Says the raven to the crow. And you just exploded my Irony Meter BTW- thanks, now I have to go get a new one.

By the way, I can imagine North of the Northpole.

Then you may need to see a psychiatrist. North of the north pole is nonsense, just like "super-omnipotent" (i.e. more powerful than all powerful). The north pole is the limit or maximum of north-ness, as omnipotence is, ex hypothesi, the limit of power. You can't go any further north than the north pole, and you can't be any more powerful than omnipotent, by definition.

This not-so-subtle opinion of yours is exactly why I chose to respond to you. If you do not believe such a being exists... then how is it that you can be so insistent about what its properties are?

Because there are thousands of years worth of literature documenting these purported attributes (i.e. Christian theology and scripture).

Second, what I was pointing out was the ridiculousness of your argument based on how utterly arbitrary the entire affair was and how you were simply unwilling to go one more arbitrary step.

And tripped over your own two feet in the process. Funny how life works, eh?

In any case, its clear you've failed to grasp the argument in a rather severe way. But don't dispair- I'm patient. (super-omni-patient times infinity perhaps? )

 

[Astravalon]

Nonsense. A contradiction. Word-salad.

See – and I don't mean to be insulting at all when I say this – I'm finding the elaborate rationalizations to explain away the existence of the Divine as word-salad (maybe more of a casserole ... but then I'm a bit hungry right now so I've got food on the brain) in and of itself.

Anyway, it just baffles me that it would be that important to do, especially over an entity that one doesn't believe exists anyway. There's got to be more at work behind it than just a healthy appreciation for reason and logic (which is a fantastic thing, by the way).

I feel like Kirk trying to explain emotions to Spock: logic and reason are the latter's specialty, but he struggles with the idea that there just might be something beyond those things that eludes them.

Like denying the possibility of square circle – that's all well and good for the practical purposes of navigating this world. While there's no reason to anticipate encountering a square circle in this world, and we don't need to build our entire lives around its possibility, it's quite a leap to assume that such a thing cannot exist elsewhere. This world is just this world; logic and reason are tools that equip one for navigating this world; they speak to issues relating to this world. Logic and reason might not as easily address aspects of reality in its entirety, beyond this world. Until all of reality has been explored by an individual, it's simply too early for them to say that “there's no such thing as X”. It might be more reasonable to say, “I doubt that there's such thing as X”, and "We don't need to believe in X before enjoying this delicious casserole", but that's really as far as a human can reasonably go with it.

The only purpose declaring "there is no X" seems to serve is to keep lovers of debate occupied. But then the casserole gets cold.

(I have to go eat something now :run

 

[Enai de a lukal]

See – and I don't mean to be insulting at all when I say this – I'm finding the elaborate rationalizations to explain away the existence of the Divine as word-salad (maybe more of a casserole ... but then I'm a bit hungry right now so I've got food on the brain) in and of itself.

Since your fairly hyperbolic charaterization of my demonstration as a "elaborate rationalizations to explain away the existence of the divine" strongly suggests you're not fully grasping the argument or its force, I'm hardly offended.

Anyway, it just baffles me that it would be that important to do, especially over an entity that one doesn't believe exists anyway.

Is it really that hard to understand? Do you not have any hobbies or things you're interested in then?

What an odd statement.

Like denying the possibility of square circle – that's all well and good for the practical purposes of navigating this world. While there's no reason to anticipate encountering a square circle in this world, and we don't need to build our entire lives around its possibility, it's quite a leap to assume that such a thing cannot exist elsewhere.

No, not a leap at all- just plain old inevitable logical consquence.

Of course, the difference between demonstrating that a round square does not exist and demonstrating that God does not exist is that people don't base their actions, lives, and morals around belief in the former. And since theistic belief often leads to violence, divisiveness, and interolerance, and always is infantalizing and intellectually irresponsible, undermining the foundations of a bankrupt worldview is important and necessary work.

I'm a philosophical laborer, slaving away for the cause of humanity.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

See – and I don't mean to be insulting at all when I say this – I'm finding the elaborate rationalizations to explain away the existence of the Divine as word-salad (maybe more of a casserole ... but then I'm a bit hungry right now so I've got food on the brain) in and of itself.

Anyway, it just baffles me that it would be that important to do, especially over an entity that one doesn't believe exists anyway. There's got to be more at work behind it than just a healthy appreciation for reason and logic (which is a fantastic thing, by the way).

I feel like Kirk trying to explain emotions to Spock: logic and reason are the latter's specialty, but he struggles with the idea that there just might be something beyond those things that eludes them.

Like denying the possibility of square circle – that's all well and good for the practical purposes of navigating this world. While there's no reason to anticipate encountering a square circle in this world, and we don't need to build our entire lives around its possibility, it's quite a leap to assume that such a thing cannot exist elsewhere. This world is just this world; logic and reason are tools that equip one for navigating this world; they speak to issues relating to this world. Logic and reason might not as easily address aspects of reality in its entirety, beyond this world. Until all of reality has been explored by an individual, it's simply too early for them to say that “there's no such thing as X”. It might be more reasonable to say, “I doubt that there's such thing as X”, and "We don't need to believe in X before enjoying this delicious casserole", but that's really as far as a human can reasonably go with it.

The only purpose declaring "there is no X" seems to serve is to keep lovers of debate occupied. But then the casserole gets cold.

(I have to go eat something now :run

But the definition of a square is created in such a way to make it not be a circle. True you can say that it is for this world, but if we went to another world, do you think we would be able to accept the concept of a square circle?

We would just go (oh that's just what they call it), but to us it's still just a circle.

But I think part of what makes a square a square is also a mathematical proof, as such this world would have to have completely different Math, and as such communication and understanding with that world would be impossible.

 

[yoda89]

See – and I don't mean to be insulting at all when I say this – I'm finding the elaborate rationalizations to explain away the existence of the Divine as word-salad (maybe more of a casserole ... but then I'm a bit hungry right now so I've got food on the brain) in and of itself.

Anyway, it just baffles me that it would be that important to do, especially over an entity that one doesn't believe exists anyway. There's got to be more at work behind it than just a healthy appreciation for reason and logic (which is a fantastic thing, by the way).

I feel like Kirk trying to explain emotions to Spock: logic and reason are the latter's specialty, but he struggles with the idea that there just might be something beyond those things that eludes them.

Like denying the possibility of square circle – that's all well and good for the practical purposes of navigating this world. While there's no reason to anticipate encountering a square circle in this world, and we don't need to build our entire lives around its possibility, it's quite a leap to assume that such a thing cannot exist elsewhere. This world is just this world; logic and reason are tools that equip one for navigating this world; they speak to issues relating to this world. Logic and reason might not as easily address aspects of reality in its entirety, beyond this world. Until all of reality has been explored by an individual, it's simply too early for them to say that “there's no such thing as X”. It might be more reasonable to say, “I doubt that there's such thing as X”, and "We don't need to believe in X before enjoying this delicious casserole", but that's really as far as a human can reasonably go with it.

The only purpose declaring "there is no X" seems to serve is to keep lovers of debate occupied. But then the casserole gets cold.

(I have to go eat something now :run

Lack of evidence does not prove that there are not unknown possibilities. The concept of no evidence is not to bring out a big stick and beat people because they believe something different. That's happened too much. Your notion of seeing square-circle is possible. It's possible that there is a McDonalds on the far side of Titus.(They are everywhere). Its saying well I don't see a square-circle so here lies no square circle. Please provide me with one so that take it in. However, X can be believed by someone doesn't make it true if there is no evidence behind it. That is self-belief.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

yet there are millions upon millions of people who claim to not only understand it, but even speak for it...

Exactly. This is called "wanting ones cake and to eat it too".

 

[Sir Doom]

I answered your question; you simply don't like the answer. No dodging going on. I can repeat myself a few more times if that makes you feel edified.

Oh, I love the answer, chief. I really do. It's hilarious.

The dodge is that you keep trying to categorize it away as something you simply can't describe, when I'm literally providing a description for you already. You just refuse to assign it out of some sort of bent principle that prevents you from assigning hypothetical attributes to a hypothetical being in your imagination. Why you think this gives you some kind of edge here is beyond my reckoning. Its nothing more than: :ignore:

The subject matter- you said whether it admits contradictions or not is irrelevant to this particular subject; to which the obvious response is, as I said, that that is all the worse for that subject matter then.

I don't believe the subject matter is here to admit anything. I'm pretty sure that would require that it actually existed in reality, and additionally had the ability to communicate to us what it admits. Since, we are actually discussing a hypothetical the only thing determining anything is your mind and mine. And we're doing it arbitrarily. Would you like to address this point now? Or will you just fall back on: :ignore:

Um, that is not what I said at ANY point on this thread. I didn't say contradictions cannot obtain because "I don't find meaning in them", contradictions cannot obtain because... well, they're contradictions. Contradictions are self-denying, self-defeating; if a single contradiction actually obtained or were true, then it would follow that every possible claim or fact imaginable would be both true and false.
(this is referred to as logical explosion, a very fitting term)

What you wrote was:

...and so "omnipotence but can also do logically impossible things" is no more meaningful than "infinity plus 5" or "north of the North Pole".

This conclusion states that YOU do not find these three specific things 'meaningful'.

This conclusion was based on this which you wrote just before:

"do logically impossible things" is a contradictory phrase (being "logically impossible" means that it cannot be done, even in principle)

Combined together with your opening answer, this is stating: "I do not find meaning in contradictory things, therefore they do not exist."

Of course, there is no contradiction and 'meaning' is 100% subjective and arbitrary so what you actually said was: :ignore:

Have fun with that.

I am having fun with that right now.

Lol... Says the raven to the crow. And you just exploded my Irony Meter BTW- thanks, now I have to go get a new one.

Gee, I see what you mean, but what I don't see is any sort of rebuttal. I wonder why that is? Probably because you have none to make and conceding the point would wound your pride too much, so instead you attempt to ridicule me and use that as some kind of shiny object to draw attention away from the fact that you really just can't dispute what I said at all.

Then you may need to see a psychiatrist. North of the north pole is nonsense, just like "super-omnipotent" (i.e. more powerful than all powerful). The north pole is the limit or maximum of north-ness, as omnipotence is, ex hypothesi, the limit of power. You can't go any further north than the north pole, and you can't be any more powerful than omnipotent, by definition.

I am capable of imagining nonsense. I don't find this to be a mental disorder. I find it to be the very essence of imagination, in fact. And, as I am not required to GO North of the North Pole in order to IMAGINE North of the Northpole, the fact that it may not exist makes no difference at all. Of course, if I was omnipotent... that might be a different story. CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT? No... you probably can't...

Because there are thousands of years worth of literature documenting these purported attributes (i.e. Christian theology and scripture).

Izzatafact? Far as I can tell the term omnipotent has only been used since the 14th century. And the dictionary really doesn't mention anything about logic when defining omnipotence... oh noes...

And tripped over your own two feet in the process. Funny how life works, eh?

In any case, its clear you've failed to grasp the argument in a rather severe way. But don't dispair- I'm patient. (super-omni-patient times infinity perhaps? )

You say that, but then you offer absolutely no rebuttal whatsoever. Do you really think that works? You just make some sweeping negative remark and try to gloss over the fact that you are not even disputing what I'm saying? My point stands. Your move, slick.

 

[Astravalon]

Is it really that hard to understand? Do you not have any hobbies or things you're interested in then?

Of course. But, as one who doesn't believe in a Santa Claus, for example, challenging others' belief in him isn't one of them.

No, not a leap at all- just plain old inevitable

logical consquence.

'Logical consequence' as defined by (for now) an earthbound collective humanity who very likely hasn't yet even scratched the surface of reality in its entirety.

Again, our current use of logic, etc., is great and practical for conducting life on earth while in our mortal bodies, but we can't declare authoritatively what is or what isn't beyond where we are now. I mean – we can if we want (free speech and all that!), but it's self-limiting in a way. Maybe the idea that the unknown is so vast is a tad unsettling, but I don't think it has to be. But if it is disconcerting, just don't think about it – it's not a requirement, just …. a hobby some of us have!

And since theistic belief often leads to

violence, divisiveness, and interolerance, and always is infantalizing and intellectually irresponsible

“Often”? Really?

How can one be sure that it's theism specifically that does all that, especially given that there is more than just one type?

Also, what about theists who aren't violent, divisive, intolerant, infantilizing, and intellectually irresponsible? If theism alone were responsible for such behaviors, wouldn't every single theist in existence be engaging in them?

How about non-theists – are they incapable of violence, divisiveness, intolerance, infantilizing and intellectual irresponsibility?

undermining the foundations of a

bankrupt worldview is important and necessary work.

This sounds a lot like what I thought I was doing when I was a religious fundamentalist. Hmmmmm....

I'm a philosophical laborer, slaving away for the cause of humanity.

But the definition of a square is created in such a way to make it not be a circle. True you can say that it is for this world, but if we went to another world, do you think we would be able to accept the concept of a square circle?

I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of possibility. I mean, I really can't, because I personally haven't explored all facets of reality beyond our immediate one. Time will tell. I won't even get started on rectangular ovals …

But I think part of what makes a square a square is also a mathematical proof, as such this world would have to have completely different Math, and as such communication and understanding with that world would be impossible.

True; it's a radical, theoretical concept at this point. Whatever math, communication and understanding would be required to accommodate such a thing is something that's being saved for later, if indeed it does exist (probably on the same dimension as that proverbial 'barefoot boy with shoes on, who stood sitting on the grass' ).

Lack of evidence does not prove that there are not unknown possibilities. The concept of no evidence is not to bring out a big stick and beat people because they believe something different. That's happened too much. Your notion of seeing square-circle is possible. It's possible that there is a McDonalds on the far side of Titus.(They are everywhere).

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Wouldn't that be fabulous?
Their fries …. lordy, those fries.... :cloud9:

Its saying well I don't see a square-circle so here lies no square circle. Please provide me with one so that take it in.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Y[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]e[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]s, and I think that's a very rational approach to it.

If the individual can then provide one, that's fantastic.

If they can't, it proves not that there's no square circle at all, but rather that they are unable to provide one at this point in time (and space, etc.).[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]And i[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]f someone's beliefs simply make [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]their day better – and, more importantly, make them a better person for it – then I would have to ask “why all da fuss?” [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Again, though, if a believer in[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] – [/FONT] whatever [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] – [/FONT]were to become a direct threat to another based upon how that believer approaches their belief, then one can certainly understand questioning it more aggressively – though it might be less the [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]belief[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] and more just [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]that individual's personality[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] that causes them to be downright obnoxious about it.

The only instance where I would blame a belief [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]for behavior is if [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]each and every believer[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] in that belief, that ever lived, exhibited the same threatening behavior towards nonbelievers.... then, yeah, Houston, we have a problem. Like anything, though, I see it as being less the tool and more how it's used that can cause potential harm.[/FONT]

However, X can be believed by someone doesn't make it true if there is no evidence behind it. That is self-belief.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I agree. Belief alone doesn't necessarily make something true (though sometimes power of suggestion, or the placebo affect, has done wonders in some situations... but that might be more in the areas of meditation practices and the like, I suppose). Also, what appears to be no evidence at all may just be a case of evidence being out of manageable reach from whatever spot one is in.


[/FONT]

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Of course. But, as one who doesn't believe in a Santa Claus, for example, challenging others' belief in him isn't one of them.

Santa Claus doesn't tell gay people they can't get married or rape victims they can't get abortions. Belief in Santa Claus is harmless and generally not imposed on people by those who view themselves as superior.

 

[nash8]

No it isn't; counter-intuitive results yes, but not contradictions.

So what exactly is logical about a moving object that isn't moving, or for that matter, a non moving object that is moving.

What's the differnece between counter-intuitive and contradictive?

Lol... According to "my" logic. As if logic was like a purse or a cell phone, such that "my logic" which I carry around with me is slightly different from the logic everyone else carries around with them.

And no, logic is not contingent upon the number of neurons any given person has in their brain (although a particular persons ability to comprehend or utilize logic is obviously contingent upon the state of their brain).

If logic is all the same, then why does my "logic" tell me something totally different from your "logic"? Is your logic better than mine?

So logic has nothing to do with the amount of information that can be stored, and the physical ability to connect that information to other relevant information?

Um, no... That's ludicrous. Alot of our natural reasoning is deductive; in particular, we reason deductively from things we gather through induction. (for instance- say I know from experience/induction that Julie is a lawyer, and that all lawyers are smart; I conclude, deductively, that Jule is smart)

Let me rephrase that. Deductive reasoning only works in mathematics. And that is only because proofs that use deductive reasoning are based on previously established inductive proofs.

Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reasoning on generalized statements doesn't work well in life settings, as evidenced by your lawyer example. Are all lawyers smart? What is a generalized statement about the requirement for one to be smart?

Looks like you completely missed the point of the example and read me far too literally; the illustration had nothing to do with transfinite cardinalities but the colloquial expression "infinity plus one" (as you'll note your Wiki article mentions) which illustrates the unintelligible nature of something being greater than the limit for a particular attribute. Saying something is "more powerful than all powerful" (i.e. "super-omnipotent") is like saying "taller than the tallest thing", " north of the north pole", and so on.

So did you have anything to say to that point, or were you just being a pedant?

My point was to show that things that you say are "illogical" in your idea of reality, serve a logical purpose in certain areas. How can something be inherently illogical yet serve a logical purpose?

And as for the pedant remark.
Pedant - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I am a male and I am a certified teacher. I was making a show of knowledge. And I believe I have precision in my teaching abilities. So according to 1, 2a, and part of 2c, yes I was being pedant. As far as 2b goes, no I don't think I was. Was my assessment of my pedantness logical?

Exactly. This is called "wanting ones cake and to eat it too".

 

[nash8]

Santa Claus doesn't tell gay people they can't get married or rape victims they can't get abortions. Belief in Santa Claus is harmless and generally not imposed on people by those who view themselves as superior.

Actually, one of my buddies at work the other day, was telling me how ole St. Nick used to literally beat people that he judged as naughty. If thats not a view of superiority I dunno what is lol .

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Actually, one of my buddies at work the other day, was telling me how ole St. Nick used to literally beat people that he judged as naughty. If thats not a view of superiority I dunno what is lol .

Makes sense; he is the patron saint of prostitutes lol

 

[Astravalon]

Santa Claus doesn't tell gay people they can't get married or rape victims they can't get abortions. Belief in Santa Claus is harmless and generally not imposed on people by those who view themselves as superior.

Well that's true – though it probably depends on the values of the household in which the Santa concept is being applied. If the parents are against something, then they're likely going to tell their kids that Santa's not thrilled with it either.

The Santa thing is, I believe, a bit more insidious than one might think (it probably deserves a thread of its own, lol!) First, there are quite a number of parallels between the Santa concept and the average Christian god-concept. I'm sure you're familiar with the lyrics to “Santa Claus is Coming to Town” ... it can come across as downright threatening. “You better watch out!” … “You better not cry!” … because Santa's coming, by golly. Its like a freakin' judgment day or something. And I won't even get into Santa's stalking tendencies articulated in the song.

The whole message: “You better be good – or else”. The “or else”, in a child's eyes, can seem rather apocalyptic. So, if one is raised in a household where homosexuality or abortion are considered “bad”, then “You better be good for goodness sake” (which will be encouraged by the parents well beyond the Santa years) is probably going to address that as well, sooner or later.

It doesn't end there, though. We were the kind of parents who, while we told our kids about the Santa tradition, we didn't tell them he was real (we told them the historical Saint Nick fellow, but we assured them that the fellow who comes down the chimney is just a fun story). When some of our friends/family/others got wind of that, the grief we got was a bit startling. Especially from our Christian friends/family, who I had thought for sure would've valued truth-telling. It's seen as a bad thing not to essentially lie to your kids about how the gifts got under the tree (or how the Easter eggs got under the bushes, or how the tooth magically transformed into coins under the pillow). The Santa/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy-supporters I have encountered are surprisingly devoted to the practice, and they don't always take kindly to others deviating from it. They may not get all Westboro on you for it (though one family member kinda did, in hindsight), but frankly they don't need to for it to sting a bit. It's a bit twisted, if you ask me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Oh, I love the answer, chief. I really do. It's hilarious.

The dodge is that you keep trying to categorize it away as something you simply can't describe, when I'm literally providing a description for you already. You just refuse to assign it out of some sort of bent principle that prevents you from assigning hypothetical attributes to a hypothetical being in your imagination. Why you think this gives you some kind of edge here is beyond my reckoning. Its nothing more than: :ignore:

There is no "something to describe" in the first place- the conjunction of "super" and "omnipotent" ("super" denoting extra, more, greater than) is illicit, for the reasons we've already covered.

I don't believe the subject matter is here to admit anything. I'm pretty sure that would require that it actually existed in reality, and additionally had the ability to communicate to us what it admits.

Needless to say, you need to check the definition of "admits", then re-read this portion of our exchange. I'm not saying Christian theology verbally "admits" anything- that's ludicrous- the point is that if it "admits", in the sense of allowing, contradictions (i.e into it's discourse), then it is assuredly false.

This conclusion states that YOU do not find these three specific things 'meaningful'.

I don't find them meaningful becuase they are not meaningful; they do not denote any logically possible object or state of affairs. Which is the basically the whole point here.

Of course, there is no contradiction and 'meaning' is 100% subjective and arbitrary

No, it isn't. If this were so communication would be impossible. It is not.

Gee, I see what you mean, but what I don't see is any sort of rebuttal. I wonder why that is? Probably because you have none to make and conceding the point would wound your pride too much, so instead you attempt to ridicule me and use that as some kind of shiny object to draw attention away from the fact that you really just can't dispute what I said at all.

There is no point to dispute or concede here; you've said virtually nothing, despite all the words on the page... Sort of an accomplishment in itself, typing so many words and yet managing to say so little.

I And, as I am not required to GO North of the North Pole in order to IMAGINE North of the Northpole

Clearly, and yet you can do neither, because "north of the north pole" does not denote a logical possibility- you can not imagine this any more than you can imagine a round square.

You say that, but then you offer absolutely no rebuttal whatsoever

If and when you raise a salient point, I will rebut it. Until you do so however, there isn't much to say here. Needless to say, nonsensical bluster about "super-omnipotence" has no bearing on my argument that various properties ascribed to God are logically contradictory, such that no such object could exist, even in principle.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So what exactly is logical about a moving object that isn't moving, or for that matter, a non moving object that is moving.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here; Heisengerg's principle does not imply that any objects are "moving and not moving". You should probably be more specific about what you have in mind.

What's the differnece between counter-intuitive and contradictive?

Something which is counter-intuitive is something which strikes us as implausible, unusual, contrary to what we would expect. But it needn't be contradictory, as in "P and not P" ("Socrates is not Socrates" "The cat is on the mat and the cat is not on the mat", etc.).

If logic is all the same, then why does my "logic" tell me something totally different from your "logic"? Is your logic better than mine?

We don't have personal logics- that isn't what "logic" means in the technical sense here. Logic is a formal axiomatic system of reasoning- there are various logics (sentential, predicate, modal, paraconsistent, alethic, etc.), but they aren't "my" logic and "your" logic.

Let me rephrase that. Deductive reasoning only works in mathematics. And that is only because proofs that use deductive reasoning are based on previously established inductive proofs.

You're simply restating your (patently false) claim from your last post. Deductive reasoning can be applied to ANY subject matter, as the lawyer example shows. Here's another famous example of deductive reasoning, which has nothing to do with mathematics-

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
(therefore) Socrates is mortal.

My point was to show that things that you say are "illogical" in your idea of reality, serve a logical purpose in certain areas. How can something be inherently illogical yet serve a logical purpose?

Because you're using the word "logical" equivocally.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Of course. But, as one who doesn't believe in a Santa Claus, for example, challenging others' belief in him isn't one of them.

If adults believed in Santa, and used this belief as a basis to demonize, make war upon, and exclude others, then challenging others belief in Santa would be a perfectly legitimate activity.

Again, our current use of logic, etc., is great and practical for conducting life on earth while in our mortal bodies, but we can't declare authoritatively what is or what isn't beyond where we are now.

We can declare authoritatively that the basic laws of logic hold universally, because they are not laws in the same sense that our physical laws of nature are laws- they are simply consequences of the way we use language. And I have no idea what you mean by "what is or isn't beyond where we are now"; do you mean, something like "outside of the physical universe"?

“Often”? Really?

Yes, really.

How can one be sure that it's theism specifically that does all that, especially given that there is more than just one type?

Because it is common to every form of theism.

Also, what about theists who aren't violent

What about them?

divisive, intolerant, infantilizing, and intellectually irresponsible?

It isn't theists who are divisive and infantalizing, but theism. And any form of theism is intellectually irresponsible, because there is no adequate justification for theistic belief.

If theism alone were responsible for such behaviors, wouldn't every single theist in existence be engaging in them?

No, that doesn't follow, and I never said that theism alone was responsible for these behaviors in the first place. Read more carefully.

How about non-theists – are they incapable of violence, divisiveness, intolerance, infantilizing and intellectual irresponsibility?

Sure, but not qua non-theism.

 

[Thief]

If adults believed in Santa, and used this belief as a basis to demonize, make war upon, and exclude others, then challenging others belief in Santa would be a perfectly legitimate activity.


We can declare authoritatively that the basic laws of logic hold universally, because they are not laws in the same sense that our physical laws of nature are laws- they are simply consequences of the way we use language. And I have no idea what you mean by "what is or isn't beyond where we are now"; do you mean, something like "outside of the physical universe"?


Yes, really.


Because it is common to every form of theism.


What about them?


It isn't theists who are divisive and infantalizing, but theism. And any form of theism is intellectually irresponsible, because there is no adequate justification for theistic belief.


No, that doesn't follow, and I never said that theism alone was responsible for these behaviors in the first place. Read more carefully.


Sure, but not qua non-theism.

I liken this perspective to a shallow retort....
I don't believe... I won't believe.... and you can't make me!

And nobody can.

But to say as you do you would have to surrender all kinds of 'obvious' reasoning's.

Like....
all of these copies of a learning device.....the human body....
each one generating a unique soul....
and the likelihood of no one surviving the last breath?

It might pain you to think someday you might have to face Something Greater than yourself.
Most believers seem to think so.
It's called judgment day.

Logic isn't want you want it to be.
And there are rules.

But no one is going to force you to believe.
Only you can do that.
And a better logic would help.

Or perhaps you might be favoring belief and I can't see it?
Are you believing ....or not?