I've never heard atheism expressed like that before. It's interesting how similar that is to James 1:26
26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Secondly, maybe it's true that an atheist can get no answer through prayer, but a Christian definitely can! I have had more prayers answered than I can remember. True, I've had some prayers answered in the negative, but that doesn't nullify all of the postitive ones.

Just my 2 centavose!

While being an inspirational interpretation of atheism it is also one that is viewed through the prism of faith, faith as used as a term for religion without the ugly organizational aspects of it, and thus is a form of atheism that merely attempts to exchange one god for another. The reasoning appears to be to replace faith with atheism but keep it trapped in the same vestments and ligatures that both cloth and bind faith. This would make for an attempt to convert the faithful to atheism because it speaks the same language but the truly faithful would see that faith and even organized religion, with all its negative connotations, already does everything here even if the author would believe that faith and religion failed at these objectives.

1) One cannot love God if they have no love for their fellow man. This called called Agape love.

2) Heaven is eternal and this world is transient. Still the faithful attempt to make this world better all the time and that starts off with making it better for those you come into contact with daily.

3) Inner conviction and strength to meet the challenged of life to enjoy it are found in prayer. The author seems to believe prayer is just for miracles and the faithful knows the one praying for only miracles is selfish and most likely his prayers will not even be heard.

4) A knowledge, not of a far away weak concept of God, but a knowledge of a relationship with God will lead to and understanding that leads to a life of fulfillment and helping that along not only in self but for the fulfillment of those around you.

5) Faith based services and organized religion has built and served more hospitals than any atheist organizations.

6) The faithful pray they will be able to get the deed done instead of just sitting around praying and hoping it will get done on its own.

7) The faithful prepare for both living life to its fullest and death and want the best for people in the world in every sense and unlike government organizations that budget dollars for foreign aid or others who merely want, the faithful are on the front lines getting their hands in the soil of third world countries and in the hearts of all people of the world through actual efforts. How many atheist organizations do the same?

8) The faithful knows he can always rely on God and that the best course of action stems from prayer and not the other way around. They also know the hereafter is also to be hoped for and that life continues after the grave.

9) Faithful accept that we are our brother's keeper.

No, atheism it is not "logical".

"Sitting on the fence" until you're "sure" is the only logical thing to be. You can only be sure once you have sat on the fence for some period of time. Once you're sure, either side is just as logical.

"Logic" is personal. "Knowing" is also personal.

I do not feel like someone who has lived their entire life in one viewpoint deserves my respect. They need to show they see the world from multiple angles, are willing to consider and accept that things change - including you're own personal opinions.


The atheist you spoke to was simply an idiot. As are you, if you think that your conclusion was valid.

Why are there so many people on a debating forum such as this, who do not understand the argument fallacies?

I suspect that's correct of randomly generated propositions, but the statements in question are not randomly generated.

In any event, for this thread, there are only two complementary propositons in play:

Some god exists.
No god exists.

It is unclear how this differs from the pair

Some120th chemical element exits.
No 120th chemical element exists.

Empirically, existence claims have a dicey history as a category or a reference class for probabilisitic analysis. Things have been discovered for which there was previously no evidence. Some of them were anticipated, others were unanticipated before their discovery.

"Mathematical chance" is simply unavailing in disposing of unresolved existence claims. "Expect the unexpected" is as good a heuristic as any other, as faithful to the empirical record of existence claims as any other, and as likely to be realized as other predictions.

All you have are heurisitics, just as those who disagree with you have theirs. Logic does not traffic in heuristics. Period.

Before you impugn the rationality of others, particularly in ad hominem remarks like "lame," you need to look elsewhere besides logic. I understood you perfectly well, I simply disagree with you.

It would have been honest of Joe to say, "I don't know what to believe." But, I find the premise of this exchange flawed, or limited. The Question guy established that God was a he in the third question, I guess he assumes everyone has the same view of 'God', whether they believe or not. If he wanted more direct and honest answers, more info on what God is or is supposed to be would have been helpful.

Well, maybe part of the problem is just the way the OP used language in framing the dialog (or perhaps he would have been better off to retract lame and been done with it).

"I believe there is no god" is a different thought from "I don't believe in any god." The first is what most people would call atheist (but not agnostic), and the second agnostic (as well as atheist).

If "Joe" is to be an agnostic, then the hypothetical dialog might more plausibly read:

Q: B, do you believe in God?

B: No, I don't believe in any god nor goddess.

Q: Joe, do you believe in God?

J: No, I don't believe in any god nor goddess.

Q: So, B and J, you are in agreement?

J: No, but neither of us believes in God. Ask us whether we believe that there is no deity.

Q: J, Do you believe that there is no deity?

J: No. It isn't possible for anyone to know whether or not some deity exists.

Q: B, do you believe that there is no deity?

B: Yes, that is what I believe, that there is no deity.

Q: B, J said something else when he answered my last question. Do you think it is possible for anyone to know whether or not any deity exists?

B: No. But, all the evidence supports my belief.

Q: J, B said something else when he answered my last question. Do you think that all evidence supports J's belief?

J: <any number of responses might be made by an agnostic>, but I remain unpersuaded.

Q: B, what do you think of J's beliefs?

B: I won't call J himself lame, this is a moderated forum, after all, but his beliefs are lame.

Q: J, what do you think of B's beliefs?

J: When you asked him whether he (anyone) knew (could know) whether any deity exists, he doesn't. He has an opinion on the subject, based on the evidence he's seen, how nice, but an opinion just the same. I think personal opinion is a shaky basis for tossing around words like lame.

If you had read the thread you'd have realized I was once a theist which completely invalidates this quote.


The atheist I spoke to was an idiot? I spoke to a theist... and now I'm an idiot for believing my conclusion is valid? What conclusion? I'm an idiot? Why am I an idiot? It seems you lack basic reading skills. You couldn't even comprehend my very short original post. Perhaps it is you who are the idiot. That is, if you believe your conclusion is valid.


You really are amusing. I made no argument, so how exactly was it fallacious...? Why are there so many people like you on a debating forum such as this, who do not even have basic reading comprehension?

I didn't say agnostics were irrational. I said they refuse to answer a question. That statement is true. I am clearly not attempting to insult agnostics as by definition I am an agnostic as well as an atheist. Atheism and theism ventures into the realm of belief. Agnostics refuse to enter that realm. In my oppinion, that is lame. I am entitled to that oppinion.

It is limited. It was just a simple example to show what I meant. I wasn't attempting to create a technical definition of god.

No, that is untrue. I don't know is a permissible answer to any yes-or-no question.

I cannot refuse to do that which I am incapable of doing. You know, like the way lame people do not refuse to walk with a normal gait.


That is a self-contradictory statement. One cannot both assert and not assert "I believe that no deity exists."


Yes, you are entitled to that opinion. And I am entitled to object. It is an insulting reference to your distorted idea of my religion.

I didn't say it wasn't permissable.


An agnostic is capable of formulating an oppinion.


No it isn't. I explained earlier how someone can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. The definitions aren't contradictory.

Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience; a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You can see how these are not contradictory. I assert that it is not possible for a human being to know if there is or isn't a god. However, I do not believe there is a god. I meet the criteria for both an agnostic and an atheist.


Yes, you are. I did not distort anything. Agnostic simply means, "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience; a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study." What I said was that one who uses their agnostic beliefs to avoid formulating oppinions is lame.

So....
I am an agnostic Christian I suppose.
Perhaps a longer label will be more entertaining for me.
I could try it out here and there.

The issue is not whether I can form an opinion, but whether my opinion takes the form which you demand it take.

And your slip is showing,


You previously denied that you meant to call a person lame. Yet here you did just that.

Finally someone who doesn't distort my words.

Excuse me? What form do I demand? All I said was one can formulate an oppinion whether he knows it to be true or not. At first a few people misunderstood me, and I clarified. After clarifying they were fine and agreed. Why is it only you have a problem with this?


I am going to ask you to please stop presenting my statements out of context. I denied calling agnostics lame. You continually distort my words. Why?

He never said it wasn't permissible, he said "I don't know" doesn't answer the question, which it doesn't.

This is probably, absolutely THE best thing I have read on these boards this year.

Dante, that is an excellent post......One I hope many derive the profound wisdom contained within it.....


Life has it all we could benefit alot from understanding that there are alot of experiences in the process and that a perspective of optimism and meeting life on its terms is the "big secret"....

Technically, Agnostics are correct. It's impossible to know, either way, for absolute certain. Technically, I'm fairly sure that it's impossible to know anything for certain.

However, for some people, there becomes a point when the probability for an event occurring is so ridiculously high or low in their personal experience, that they assign a degree of certainty to them. Technically, every single atom in your body could teleport you across your bedroom simultaneously via quantum uncertainty. Technically, via the same uncertainty principle, you could, at the same time, morph into a very large Teddy Bear called Sir Ralph Frompton, with a pipe, a tweed smoking jacket and a fondness for yodelling Michael Jackson songs in Swahili. The odds of it actually happening to anyone, however, are so low, as to be absolutely negligible - hence the shocking lack of YouTube videos featuring recently-knighted stuffed animals moonwalking and the suspicious absence of any Government funded departments issuing instructional leaflets and support for the recently transmogrified.

For those that believe in a Diety, they believe that the probability of that Diety existing is sufficiently high for them, that they're willing to take the rest on Faith. Some believers have absolute personal certainty that their diety of choice exists.

As an Athiest, I personally believe that the probability of there being a Diety, as described in any of the current Earth religions, as being slightly lower than the chance of NASA discovering chocolate hula-hooping pixies living on Mars. I realise that this isn't an absolute certainty, but, as the bassist in my old band used to say, "It's near enough for Jazz".

great post..

Tiggs:

The American (and maybe British, too) legal term for what you describe


is scrupulous doubt.

While some agnostics may found their views based upon scrupulous doubt, I do not. My faith (if that is what it ought to be called) is what it is because I have seen no persuasive evidence on the question of whether any deity whatsoever exists or not. I also have no idea how to formulate an a priori argument one way or another.

It is not merely that I do not know in some strenuous sense, but that I have no basis to form an opinion, and so I have formed none. In casual English, one says "I don't know" under those circumstances.

BlindMessiah:


The entire record of the thread is here verbatim. It is impossible to quote you "out of context."

another very good post......

Thank you!

"I don't know" is always a valid answer, in my books.

One man's a priori argument is another man's logic bomb.

Initially, mine followed this line of thinking:

Each religion has their own set of doctrines. While it's impossible to test for a Diety directly, using these doctrines, it's possible to implement various scientific tests to determine the effects that the doctrines claim, such as the power of prayer, for example. By analysing the results of scientific testing for each of these claims, I came to the conclusion that none of the effects that should be there, if the doctrine was correct, were present for the world's major religions.

For me, however - I think the thing that made me readily embrace athiesm, as opposed to agnosticism, was the realisation that my perception of the injustice within the World was such, that there was no Diety that I would ever respect enough to worship. In short - any entity that would create the Universe in this manner, is not one that I would ever associate with my personal interpretation of what a Diety should be. Thus, for me, personally, it's impossible that one could exist.

Everyone else's mileage, however, may vary.

I some how knew you'd like it!

Maybe I'm taking the Agnostic route... in that, what I believe may not be true for you. It has been easy for me to say in the past- "I'm atheist, I do not believe in the God set forth by the religions of the world." I've said it many times before.

But, what if I was asked- "What is God?" Of course I would answer with a level of bias, but I would answer "God is the essence of all things, the spark."

Now this answer is not too far removed from a religious POV, but I did not attach 'entity' in there. I would continue, "God is the spark, by itself the spark cannot create fire, it needs something to light. God is like a hammer, it cannot build something by itself, it needs a hand." This is also not too far removed from certain religious POV's, yet I never threw in that God is an entity.

To make a long story short, "Is Atheism A Logically Sound Belief?", no... not for me anyway. As I said, its easy for me to say, I do not believe in the entity set forth by religious teachings, there's a certain level of empowerment by opposing something, and it may bring temporary comfort. If I tried to hold God to a certain standard, I would be disappointed... and would not believe in it or I'd hold anger towards it. But, do I believe there is a force (God) in the universe that I can tap into and use for good? Yes, absolutely.

*claps*

Simply put, atheism is the only logical belief if you're working within the strictures of logic. When you have a subject completely lacking any and all evidence, even a framework of infered evidence, it is simply not logical to even say maybe. Looked at objectively there is nothing that even slightly infers the existance of diety. There is nothing to base such a belief on. Saying you can't prove it either way implies an equal weight of possibility and probability. It also touches on the idea of not being able to prove a negative. Something that certainly can be done. There are a few ways to prove a negative. If the subject is inherently illogical (square circles for instance) it can logically be dismissed. If the existance of a subject would lead to a detectable and measurable state of affairs and no such state of affairs exists it can be logically dismissed. If the only proof of the subject is subjective evidence for which prior objective contrary evidence existists then the subject can be logically dismissed.

Can I prove the Toothfairy, Easterbunny and Santa Claus don't exist? Logically? Using the above criteria, most certainly. Prior to popular belief, anything is not possible.

bravo

Although there is such a thing as graduated possibility, I don't think that's what you meant. If you did, then we'll discuss it.

What is equally weighted is the evidence. There is none that I know of either way.

That does not imply an equal weight of probability, except for "principle of insufficient reason" or "maximum entropy, minimum cross-entropy" Bayesians. (For obscure reasons, these folks are also called "necessitarian probabilists.") And, BTW, it does imply it for them, that is, given their premises, it is exactly logical for them to place equal probabilistic weight on the two incompatible, exhaustive hypotheses.

Most subjective probabilists will accept some sort of wagering assessment. The details are fraught, and the whole thing gets confused with Pascal's wager, because of the subject matter of the question. But, long story short: assume there is an oracle who knows and would say truthfully. What would you pay to acquire a "lottery ticket" that pays $1 if the oracle says "Yes, there is some god," and pays nothing otherwise.

Note: there are no infinities, in fact, it is material that the stakes in this wager are small, not just finite. You may also assume "probabilistic currency" if you need to make change for a penny. The oracle will speak as soon as you name your price. There are no "tricks." The price in cents is your subjective probability for the hypothesis expressed as a percentage.

For an atheist, the answer (presumably) is identically zero. For an agnostic, the answer is (presumably, too) strictly positive, except maybe for the "scrupulous doubt" kind.

It should be obvious that just because I say that my price is strictly positive, that it is not the case that then my price must be fifty cents. It is very well established that any price is "rational," no more than one dollar, of course.

I'll go zero for the "Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy" ticket. I have affirmative evidence for disbelief: the people who perpetuate these stories have confessed and implicated others. The "Any god" play-the-field ticket? A penny or more for sure, fifty cents is too rich for my blood.

Yet there very much is. Along the lines I put forth, hence I don't see the argument outlined below as inherently rational at all.



A diety doesn't meet any of the criteria that would disallow it to be dismissed. It's logically inconsistent. It requires monstrous leaps of logic to infer an entire universe was made by a being that leaves no trace of it's existance and is modeled after humans, subject to human whims and similarly limited by current human knowledge. If contact with such a being was real the people in contact with said being would be privy to information far beyond their educational, social and historic standing yet such has never been the case. It's absent of any emperical or infered evidence. There is nothing ever observed that implies or requires such a being to explain any observed phenomenon. It's subject to objective contrary evidence. Miracles can't happen and origin stories are not correct. The subjective does not align with the objective. More to your point about Santa Claus, etc... You say you dismiss it because people who have perpetuated the stories have "confessed and implicated others". This could easily be applied to theism. Objectively, we know holy books were written by men not gods. This is an implicit contradiction to said origins of the beliefs and a confession by proxy. Similarly I could argue, though I wouldn't because I consider it a weak argument but it fits the example, that anybody who has left theism equates precisely to the people who have confessed in your above example.

Well, that's fine. Differences of opinion are what make betting possible .

Just out of curiosity, though, you were the one who brought up "probability." So if you don't recognize the rationality of a usual (De Finetti) assessment for belief-representing probability, then what did you mean by probability? How would your probability be measured (in general, not just when you assess it at zero or one)?

Got the right thread this time...

I don't know what label would fit me best - I've been told "atheist" so I'd consider my response valid for this topic.

This is the way I look at the situation...
IMO, logic is intertwined with belief ie. I believe that following the logical rule "I will believe in things that I can corroborate with others to have existence via a common rigid/rigorous method (scientific method)" is a good rule to follow, for my own sake. I follow this logical rule because personally I find it has the least risk involved with regards to my survival and it provides a solid base (of information) that I can rely on to be as close to reality as can be. It is a bottom-up approach, starting with nothing and building that which we can be certain of. This base holds all the common beliefs like "I believe the grass is, what we would classify as, green" etc. etc. as well as science related 'beliefs' like I believe the speed of light is constant and has been measured to be X with Y precision. Notice though that my logical rule is "I will believe in things I can corroborate..." and my base contains "I believe A,B,C,D... exists" and each is hinged on other "exists" that indeedy resolve to empirical evidence (by default of the method used) in which the only belief one could question is a ) I believe I measured that right, and b ) I believe I interpreted the measurement right. Since these are repeated over and over (peer review/experimental validation) then the only belief there is left IMHO, is "I believe that applying logic and reasoning (evidenced in mathematics/physical equations) can sufficiently describe our reality".

Using the bottom-up approach however one has to agree that there are necessarily 'things' that we have not yet found that may exist. We do not know what these are but we get hints, for example, the Higgs boson. We cannot say that it exists but we have a test that can falsify our belief that it may exist. What is the difference between god and perhaps the Higgs (ironically dubbed the "God Particle")? Afterall, some would argue that there are hints (religious writings of all sorts and anecdotal evidence) that god exists and therefore we could say that god may exist, no? This is indeed, imo, what defines an agnostic BUT an atheist relies, or at least I do, on the scientific method and therefore without there being a test that could falsify a presumed (but really non existent for an atheist) belief that god may exist I CANNOT really say that "god may exist". Hence I am not agnostic.

It is interesting to note that the logical system described above (the one I use) also proves a few things that mostly "believers" pay little attention to the nature of the beast, err human. Using the same scientific method (and anyone could do the same) I can falsify the following statements that would deem the various religious works and anecdotal evidence, imo, valid...
"People always tell the truth"
"People never exaggerate"
"People never misunderstand"
"There are no conditions that would make a person hear voices or see things that are not there"
"A person's memory is infallible"
"People never manipulate others"
There are literally millions of cases (if not billions) now and throughout history that falsify the above statements. Now, we know and believers concede that religious works of any kind were written by men (and perhaps women to be politically correct) even if one claims a god inspiration and since we can easily prove that people can lie, exaggerate, misunderstand, manipulate, falsely recollect or see/hear things that don't physically exist, IMHO, it is less logically sound to believe none of these have happened in the case of their 'evidence'.

Oh, I can see it coming already. Yes, one may have a valid claim that scientists are also people and they can lie, exaggerate, manipulate etc. etc. BUT by the nature of the method they use any such issues are minimised into almost non-existence. They have an investment to protect - their careers and reputation.

This is my logic and all of my beliefs resolve to one final 'belief' if you will AND of course the initial belief that the logical rule I follow is sound. In other words, I start with a belief in a logical rule under which all subsequent beliefs resolve to an "axiom" type belief which is the belief that logic and reasoning (evidenced in mathematics/physical equations) can sufficiently describe our reality. So far, they have, more than some care to realise.

So, if I am an atheist, is my belief logically sound?

I believe it is and it is more logically sound than "believer's" or agnostics.

Cheers

Good post aj guardian... long... but good. Especially this part.

Dear BlindMessiah,

I understand that you feel the need to understand what makes someone not believe in a general God and claims that he or she is a non believer, an atheist. I am an athesit but that does not mean that I do not believe. In my opinion, to believe is not limited to the believe in a general through society acknowledged God. All believes have the same principal and in my opinion that is that to believe in a God is to have guideness in your life. You turn to this God to confess or to ask for forgiveness, to help whenever you are in need or to stand by you when you need faith. I do all this as well, but the only difference is that I turn to my family and friends or myself instead to someone that is not "mortal". I believe in my own strength. Right and wrong, my norms and values are my guideness in life. If this was supposed to be so wrong in the eyes of those who are strong believers, then why am I not suffering as much as some people are in this world. I am happy and in full control of my life and when I make mistakes it is me who is trying to make it right or to reach an objective in life.

I chose to be an atheist, to not worship any kind of God, because I do not believe in using a religion to make a statement or to proove that one religion is better than another. Religion divides people even more than the boundries of our countries or origin and race. Nowadays, relgion and believe are not doing any good to us. We should trust more on our capability to act from our heart and the main principle to respect every human being and form of life. We are all born in to this world the same way and we all leave this world the same way. It is us humans that label a person: in our profession, in our believe, in our community and that is often based on things that we people made up.

I often ask myself the following question: why are we making things so hard on ourself. What good has come out of it.
Next to that, is we go back in history. I mean way back when life was still simple. People were happier and healthier. They did not have so much to worry about, so much to fight for or to proove to each other.

This is what we are doing here as well. We have become some sort of opponents and try to defend our point of view and at the same time we create a distance between the so called believers and non believers. I we think rationally, with respect for the believers, we know that it is a endless journey to explain why people believe in something or not. We as human beings are privileged to choose which path to follow in life. Freedom of choice and to have preferences. How do I explain that I love yellow and that I am attracted to a particular type of man.

WHat I am trying to say is that, are we putting our effort and energy in the right thing. Instead of fighting all these years and in the years coming, we must learn at one point that we have control over everything we do. In the end it is us who makes a decision.

And if there is a God, I really can not see the higher purpose in all the suffering that is going on in the world. This is all done by people. SO instead of me trying to explain why one is an atheist and what an atheist means or what his principal is. I would like to ask you for some good arguments that clarify the existence of an actual GOD.

Why must you have a god to believe in? Does it make death more palatable?

NOPE

I like to believe in a God..it helps me get through life..and it is harmless

Agnosticism and Atheism are not contrasting beliefs.

Agnostics' belief is not based on whether or not there is a deity. It is based on the idea that we can not KNOW if there is, which completely negates the whole argument itself. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not beliefs.

When asked if there is a God, I will say I don't know. That is completely honest, true, and valid response, because I believe *gasp* no one knows if there is a God or not.

There is a belief in agnostisicm, but instead of it being a belief about the existence of a God, its about the ability of anyone to KNOW. It is not a direct belief regarding the existence/non-existence of God. It's one step before that in the thought process.

However, Atheism can be defined as a belief that there is no God. It is a direct belief about the existence of a God. So is Theism. Atheism and Theism are both steps arrived at after Gnostic and Agnostic.

They are all interchangable in this way:


Agnostic Atheist: believes that there is no way to KNOW whether God exists or not, but does not BELIEVE God exists.

Agnostic Theist: believes that there is no way to KNOW whether God exists or not, but does BELIEVE that God exists.

Gnostic Atheist: believes it is possible to KNOW whether God exists or not, but does not BELIEVE that God exists. (And therefore usually says "I KNOW there is no God."

Gnostic Theist: believes it is possible to KNOW whether God exists or not, and does BELIEVE that God exists. (Usually stating that they KNOW God exists.)

Therefore, based on the above explanation, it is very possible to be an Agnostic Atheist, like the OP has claimed.

No, I believe in God because I stumbled upon it randomly, I suppose. Death is just the same as it was when I was Catholic, Atheistic, and now that I am a Deist. It doesn't look comfortable and it is not something that I can say anything about with any certainty. My belief in God does not comfort me against the knowledge of my own mortality.

Belief, is simply a spun story until at which time it can become knowledge, since when is any experince ever so apparent or transparent it does not require interpretation of any kind??

i am aware that religious writers have insisted that this is indeed the case....arguments are not transparent, self guaranteeing, or free of the need of interpretation.... In essence this 'interpretation has made it possible for all kinds of spun stories, cultural conditionings and theologys that have been woven..


I also understand many are interpreting to the best of their understanding, but from a posit of beleifs, it is not the only way to look at life. ....ones faith doesn't have to be compromised to question or is this an an excuse to keep from applying the tools of philosophy or science to weigh the merit or value of something... as a culture it is on us to look at the things we call sacred and see how they hold up if they do...

Exactly dayze, that's what I've been trying to say. Also Mireng... what the hell?!! I think you need to reread the original post man.

BM, I just read an article that presented some interesting points and your thread seems like a good place to present them.

Lets begin with a couple of definitions:

God - God is that Supreme Being who exists independent of the universe, who does not change, is absolute, transcends space and time, who is self aware, who is all-knowing, ever present, and can accomplish whatever he desires to accomplish.

Logic - Logic is the process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern the validity of arguments.

Logical absolutes - logical absolutes are conceptual realities that do not depend upon human minds or the physical universe for their existence.



Since logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcend space and time, there must be an absolute and transcendent mind from which these logical absolutes are derived. This absolute and transcendent mind is God.

The premise is that logic itself is proof that God exists.




I look forward to reading your opinion.

No. Logic itself is proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Hey! Quiet in the peanut gallery!!

Why must the source mind be "absolute?" It would seem sufficient, taking your definitions, that there be any mind capable of conceiving something as absolute and transcendent.

Tiggs' mind, who can conceive of the A&T Flying Spaghetti Monster (may she grant us eternal pasta), will do nicely, and already has.

"Now, another question. Is it logical to conclude that if there's a concept, there must also be a mind? This seems reasonable.

Concepts reside in the mind and thoughts reflect the mind. Since we have absolute and transcendent logical truths which are conceptual by nature, I conclude that there is an absolute and transcendent mind that, for a lack of a better term, has authored the logical absolutes. I call this absolute and transcendent mind, God."

But isn't that like saying if something has a property, whatever made that thing, must also exhibit the same property?

Like?

I'm not sure because this is not talking about "making something" it's talking about a developing a concept. Can a mind which is not absolute develop an absolute concept?

Why not?

Something that comes up repeatedly in a variety of contexts hereabouts is that human cognition relies heavily on conceptual opposition. It is, for us in time and space, all but (?) impossible to think about the concept "relative" without summoning into consciousness the idea of its opposite.

You might argue that our ideas of "absolute" are deficient or defective, but for you, that is a trap. If our concept of "absolute" is defective, then so, too, must our concept of anything that is absolute. So, any conception any of us might have of God must be defective.

That would include your own. And, BTW, the idea that God is properly inconceivable by actual living human beings is and has long been an attested religious belief. For example, it forms one affirmative case for agnosticism.

A simple question, but a good one. The thing is that if one man thought up these absolutes, then they can be invalidated by another man... but they can't be invalidated so easily, so that argues that they were not conceived by a human mind.

I didn't mention anything that in any way implied God as properly conceivable, so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up.