# logical argument



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2011)

I would assume every atheist here uses logic in coming to their conclusions. I assume that atheists believe in logic and has faith that their logic will bring them to truthful conclusions. One would want others to use logic in situations, example, you would want a firefighter to use logic to save you from your burning house.
As Christians, we are scolded for using God to prove God. So my question is, if someone told you they did not believe logic is real or needed, what would you tell them?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

I would then use evidence and probability.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So my question is, if someone told you they did not believe logic is real or needed, what would you tell them?



All evidence supports that I would tell them they're an idiot.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I would then use evidence and probability.



You would give them a* logical *explantation of why evidence and probability will get you to the correct conclusions?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> All evidence supports that I would tell them* they're an idiot*.



Logically


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Logically



Either that or I'd tell them an invisible being that sees our every move, much as Santa Claus does, has not blessed them with strong intellect.


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So my question is, if someone told you they did not believe logic is real or needed, what would you tell them?



I would ask them how they came to that conclusion. Or any conclusion.


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 21, 2011)

Saying logic doesn't exist or is wrong is the most pointless exercise possible, because it would be completely impossible to prove such a conclusion without using logic. 

It's saying 'Here is my logical argument why logic is false'. 

If that's not the way they did it - if they simply made an illogical argument to support logic is false, then their conclusions can be easily dismissed. 

Ergo, 'Logic is false because a snake wearing a tie can't drive at night without his penguin!'


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> *Saying logic doesn't exist or is wrong is the most pointless exercise possible, because it would be completely impossible to prove such a conclusion without using logic. It's saying 'Here is my logical argument why logic is false'. *If that's not the way they did it - if they simply made an illogical argument to support logic is false, then their conclusions can be easily dismissed.


You are 100% correct sir, so the same can be said for an argument against God.



> Ergo, 'Logic is false because a snake wearing a tie can't drive at night without his penguin!'



 Thats just funny.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 21, 2011)

I would ask them how they can determine if their assumptions are true or false without logic. Do they just go through life trusting the voices in their head? And how could anyone else verify their claims were true without using logic?


----------



## Hooty Hoot (Mar 21, 2011)

Faith and logic are two opposite terms. Faith is what you are willing to believe when logic tells you that it just ain't so.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 21, 2011)

Hooty Hoot said:


> Faith and logic are two opposite terms. Faith is what you are willing to believe when logic tells you that it just ain't so.



Faith has many synomyms, some of these don't oppose logic. I wonder how many synomyms can be tacked to logic. I suggest that when we invest in the real world be it Potash, technologies and people we do so with faith and logic...in the real world.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Achilles Return View Post
> Saying logic doesn't exist or is wrong is the most pointless exercise possible, because it would be completely impossible to prove such a conclusion without using logic. It's saying 'Here is my logical argument why logic is false'. If that's not the way they did it - if they simply made an illogical argument to support logic is false, then their conclusions can be easily dismissed.





> You are 100% correct sir, so the same can be said for an argument against God.



You can't apply logic to an illogical figment of imagination.


----------



## Hooty Hoot (Mar 21, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Faith has many synomyms, some of these don't oppose logic. I wonder how many synomyms can be tacked to logic. I suggest that when we invest in the real world be it Potash, technologies and people we do so with faith and logic...in the real world.



Tell me. If you remove all religious connotations from the word faith, how would you define it?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I would ask them how they can determine if their assumptions are true or false without logic. Do they just go through life trusting the voices in their head? And how could anyone else verify their claims were true without using logic?



ok, now replace the word logic with the word God in your post.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

Or Replace it with:
Purple, licorice, mighty mouse, or any other word you can think of. It changes nothing because the definition of logic is not God.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Or Replace it with:
> Purple, licorice, mighty mouse, or any other word you can think of. It changes nothing because the definition of logic is not God.



The point is, you cannot explain logic without logic, the same goes for God.


----------



## JFS (Mar 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The point is, you cannot explain logic without logic, the same goes for God.



Sorry, but this makes zero sense. 

Is this from a flimsy Ravi Z presentation you only heard half of or something?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 21, 2011)

JFS said:


> Sorry, but this makes zero sense.
> 
> Is this from a flimsy Ravi Z presentation you only heard half of or something?



I guess you dont really have much to add them?


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The point is, you cannot explain logic without logic, the same goes for God.



Im not following you either String.


----------



## JFS (Mar 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I guess you dont really have much to add them?



Guess not. 

But that's not because there isn't necessarily something here to talk about- many mystics have commented on something similar, but in a way that made a bit more sense than your faulty syllogisms.   Just trying to figure out if your argument is incoherent or just inarticulate.  If you got it from somewhere we could look to the source to figure out the whole story (which I'm sure we'd shoot down too, but at least we would know the whole argument ).  This just smelled like a RZ gimmick.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You would give them a* logical *explantation of why evidence and probability will get you to the correct conclusions?



Evidence and probability speak for themselves. Often though the people with religious earmuffs on cannot hear them.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> ok, now replace the word logic with the word God in your post.



Sorry string but God and logic are not interchangeable. One is a proposition, the other is a framework for determining whether propositions are true or not. You may as well replace logic with purple polka dotted space monkeys if you are going to go down that road.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 21, 2011)

Let us say that evidence and probability are two variables x and y respectively. Then you have z which equals knowledge. The equation to make your "logical" statements about God would look something like this: xz multiplied by yz equals the likeliness of God not existing. MOST of you on this forum have a z score of about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. 

Point is you can not make claims without proper knowledge of the evidence and probability you are using to find your answer.  Well...you can and you will come up with some awfully skewed points of view.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

It all adds up to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz snore zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 21, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Let us say that evidence and probability are two variables x and y respectively. Then you have z which equals knowledge. The equation to make your "logical" statements about God would look something like this: xz multiplied by yz equals the likeliness of God not existing. MOST of you on this forum have a z score of about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.
> 
> Point is you can not make claims without proper knowledge of the evidence and probability you are using to find your answer.  Well...you can and you will come up with some awfully skewed points of view.



I haven't seen anyone suggest they can prove God doesn't exist. I'm open to the possibility. But I'm not going to accept any such claim on faith. Theists of all stripes are regularly invited to present the evidence for their God and they always fall short. I will say if there is a God the odds of it being the God of the bible are pretty slim given what we know about the bible and the claims it makes.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 21, 2011)

Every single argument on this forum between Christians and atheist boils down to this. There is not 100% concrete proof that God exist. There never will be until Christ comes back. God has given us plenty of evidence to see Him in, but there is not a single smoking gun and that is the way he wanted it. God would not gain defeat over Satan without humans having blind faith in his providence. Satan fell and then we followed right behind him. We are here to overcome our moral Nihilism and accept that we are here for a purpose greater than we can perceive. If you are looking for someone or some thing to bring you tangible, palpable proof of God's existence then go ahead and give up. You will not find it. 

But, if you truly research some of things you and I debate here and are objective about your findings you might see that it is not so hard to have faith in something with so much evidence supporting a living, breathing, caring God.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 21, 2011)

Hooty Hoot said:


> Tell me. If you remove all religious connotations from the word faith, how would you define it?



relationship, as in: I have faith in you. I believe in you.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Every single argument on this forum between Christians and atheist boils down to this. There is not 100% concrete proof that God exist. There never will be until Christ comes back. God has given us plenty of evidence to see Him in, but there is not a single smoking gun and that is the way he wanted it. God would not gain defeat over Satan without humans having blind faith in his providence. Satan fell and then we followed right behind him. We are here to overcome our moral Nihilism and accept that we are here for a purpose greater than we can perceive. If you are looking for someone or some thing to bring you tangible, palpable proof of God's existence then go ahead and give up. You will not find it.
> 
> But, if you truly research some of things you and I debate here and are objective about your findings you might see that it is not so hard to have faith in something with so much evidence supporting a living, breathing, caring God.



I gotta admit that you stated that well. I cannot say I agree, but well stated.
The reason I cannot agree is that you could replace the word God with any other deity and it would still be the same. Nothing that one has supposedly done hasn't been claimed to have been done by another and the thing they all have in common is NONE of them, despite centuries of trying by their followers, have been proven to exist.
Now, substitute other things that have been worshiped by man like trees, wind, the Sun, Moon etc... at least they are real. I doubt they are gods of any sort either, but at least they have been proven to exist.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I gotta admit that you stated that well. I cannot say I agree, but well stated.
> The reason I cannot agree is that you could replace the word God with any other deity and it would still be the same. Nothing that one has supposedly done hasn't been claimed to have been done by another and the thing they all have in common is NONE of them, despite centuries of trying by their followers, have been proven to exist.
> Now, substitute other things that have been worshiped my man like trees, wind, the Sun, Moon etc... at least they are real. I doubt they are gods of any sort either, but at least they have been proven to exist.



Exactly. Now...time to do your due diligence and make your choice.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> relationship, as in: I have faith in you. I believe in you.



Gimme 10% of your earnings per year and I can guarantee you get into heaven. Have faith that I can do it and it will be done. My track record is as proven as any.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Exactly. Now...time to do your due diligence and make your choice.



That is the best part. I don't have to choose. Maybe they all have part of it right, maybe none have any of it right. I get by with everyday life without religion as good as anyone with religion.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Gimme 10% of your earnings per year and I can guarantee you get into heaven. Have faith that I can do it and it will be done. My track record is as proven as any.



You are being rediculous or attempting faint at psycopathy. Tell you what for nothing at all, you are in heaven as we speak. My faith in you is growing. PS. How do you know there is a heaven?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

Oh good. Now I have the bases covered. If I am wrong I'm in and if I am right I have nothing to lose! I'll just tell em you said it was OK.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh good. Now I have the bases covered. If I am wrong I'm in and if I am right I have nothing to lose! I'll just tell em you said it was OK.




We cannot lose what we never had. Who is "em" and again how do you know heaven is real? Stay cool. Peace.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> That is the best part. I don't have to choose. Maybe they all have part of it right, maybe none have any of it right. I get by with everyday life without religion as good as anyone with religion.



I like gambling too, but only in Vegas.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Gimme 10% of your earnings per year and I can guarantee you get into heaven. Have faith that I can do it and it will be done. My track record is as proven as any.



You forgot to say God sent you with a message.

It is pretty funny when you think about it that the sort of claims men made in the past forming the foundation of the Abrahamic religions if made today would get someone classed as mentally ill. Unless of course you have reverend in front of your name. Then it all makes perfect sense.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

True atlas!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> We cannot lose what we never had. Who is "em" and again how do you know heaven is real? Stay cool. Peace.



But you gave me the OK to go to heaven. I believe you and in you. You have at least one follower and your own religion now.

"em" St. Peter. He is at the pearly gates right? 

Heaven is as real as Santa's Village up in the North Pole. Now we all know how REAL that was at certain ages in our lives. And we all know how it felt when you found out that everything you were told about Santa and his Village was a load of........well,banana peels.
We were SURE it all existed, we fought the truth for a while until it finally made sense that the story was just too unbelievable.
Some of us have just grown up and accepted the truth sooner than others.


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 22, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Exactly. Now...time to do your due diligence and make your choice.



And here comes the cosmic 'game'. See how pointless it is? Now over over 4 billion people on the earth today are going to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, most of which don't believe simply because of where they were born. _That's_ the system your god supposedly set up? I don't see 'grace' in that, sorry. 

If the christian god is real and what you have stated is true, then god _wants_ people in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. There is absolutely no reason for it unless he's fine with it.


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 22, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I like gambling too, but only in Vegas.



That's the thing. You're the one gambling. I'm simply refusing to play the game.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 22, 2011)

Thanatos you say there is so much evidence of God. If that is true then not much need of faith. The more evidence you have the less faith is needed. So what is the evidence?


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> But you gave me the OK to go to heaven. I believe you and in you. You have at least one follower and your own religion now.
> 
> "em" St. Peter. He is at the pearly gates right?
> 
> ...



Good morning. Although you have grown out of childhood and are a grown up as you say, does not mean you are not still in your teenage yrs.

It is not religion that makes me say that as we speak you are in heaven. Rather simple scientific logic would place you and I on earth, the earth which is in heaven, which makes you and I in heaven as we speak. So I am not your religious savoir.

You are correct when you say heaven is as the North Pole; Or at least it is to you because you are confused about heaven, the earth, man, God, salvation etc in the christian context.

My hope is that someday the heaven you know will open up and you will be all you can be.

The Lord's Prayer is a very interesting bit (short) for a quick study of what heaven, the earth, the kingdom, and christian practice is all about. Note that just because you don't understand these now is not a big deal really as many christians are similarly in your boots. I suspect your railing is because  of these christians. However, like Newton's claim that he demonstrated the framework of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica) some christian can do likewise from this prayer.

I suggest to you that you study this pray as you would Newton's world. To it bring all you cleaverness, smarts, upsets, ridicule, critique, analysis, everything your genetics and those of your friends will throw at it, just for the fun of it...  Take it apart, pick it apart, blow it up, shrink it, bury it, dig it up, drown it, pump it with wit and air.... And then I will grant you you will know what heaven is and how it is opened up.

Until you do this...you are just playing conspiracy theory with smarts like many on the political forum do.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2011)

I dont know a different way to explain it?!?!?!

One cannot argue logic without using logic, its a circular argument, that doesnt seem to be a problem in this forum.

One cannot argue God without using God, its a circular argument, that does seem to be a problem in this forum.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2011)

gordon2, Those are your opinions. I do not believe in it like you do. I have been there and done that once being a Christian and it has guided me in the direction that I am in now. 
I am glad you get out of it what you need to so that you are comfortable. I do not feel the same way.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2011)

JFS said:


> Guess not.
> 
> But that's not because there isn't necessarily something here to talk about- many mystics have commented on something similar, but in a way that made a bit more sense than your faulty syllogisms.   Just trying to figure out if your argument is incoherent or just inarticulate.  If you got it from somewhere we could look to the source to figure out the whole story (which I'm sure we'd shoot down too, but at least we would know the whole argument ).  This just smelled like a RZ gimmick.



What exactly is your problem with RZ? Have you ever listened to him apart from the couple short videos I have posted on here?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Evidence and probability speak for themselves.



Using logic.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2011)

RZ is philosophy 101 with a religious twist.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> rz is philosophy 101 with a religious twist.



ok?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Using logic.



Yes, because logic is established and accepted, therefore real. Unlike your other example.

Your entire question is hypothetical. You are trying to take a known and accepted word and pretend it is not real to put it on the same level as god. It just doesn't work.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 22, 2011)

String, if you can't make a case for God without making an assumption that he exists that should tell you something.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> String, if you can't make a case for God without making an assumption that he exists that should tell you something.



Then how do I make a case for logic?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2011)

It is simple, because you believe in god you do not use or believe in logic. You have made that clear in most of your posts.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> *Yes, because logic is established and accepted, therefore real.* Unlike your other example.
> 
> Your entire question is hypothetical. You are trying to take a known and accepted word and pretend it is not real to put it on the same level as god. It just doesn't work.



Really????

I establish and accept God is real, therefore He is real.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 22, 2011)

Logic is just the term we use for a method of rationally differentiating the truth or falsehood of a proposition. God is not logic and logic is not God. If you want to abandon logic that is your choice. Just say so. What I would say is if the god proposition is true and especially if this god is intervening in our world then you should be able to see that using logic. If you can't and you have to abandon logic and just assume God then just say that is what you're doing. If you think this is a path to knowledge and truth go for it. All I can say is you're on no better ground doing that than anyone who assumes any other claim to be true.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> gordon2, Those are your opinions. I do not believe in it like you do. I have been there and done that once being a Christian and it has guided me in the direction that I am in now.
> I am glad you get out of it what you need to so that you are comfortable. I do not feel the same way.



Feelings are not always logical. Peace.


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 22, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Then how do I make a case for logic?



Because it's provable. 

1+1 = 2

2 + 3 = 5

And you can use physical objects to prove abstract numbers.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> God is not logic and logic is not God.


This is not the point I am making, I think everyone is reading a little to far into the point.




> If you want to abandon logic that is your choice.


When did I say that I wanted to abandon logic???


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It is simple, because you believe in god you do not use or believe in logic. You have made that clear in most of your posts.



why the shots at me? Grant you, I am not the smartest guy in town nor do I have most wisdom, but are posts like this necessary? I learn alot in hear about Atheism as well as Christianity, most of my post are questions to get to the bottom of how and what people think about theism. If you think I have made it clear that I am illogical, why dont you try to teach me something?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 22, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> When did I say that I wanted to abandon logic???



I'm not saying you did. We are just talking about different ways of approaching the question.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> why the shots at me? Grant you, I am not the smartest guy in town nor do I have most wisdom, but are posts like this necessary? I learn alot in hear about Atheism as well as Christianity, most of my post are questions to get to the bottom of how and what people think about theism. If you think I have made it clear that I am illogical, why dont you try to teach me something?



stringmusic, First, there are no shots at you. I am just calling it like I see it. 

I am NOT up on the christianity forum trying to de-convert anyone. I am here in the A/A/A forum. Every post has a few christians trying to push their beliefs on everyone else. I am trying to be civil. I try to make a point as clear as possible with tangible, real evidence, and yes (gasp!)logic. You ask, I/we answer, but the answer is never good enough. When it is good enough or makes some sense it is never acknowledged by you, it is just on to the next thing.
You are always the one to point out a reply that might not be 100% accurate while sidestepping ten that are. If you really here to learn you have to listen.


----------



## JFS (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't agree with theist conclusions but it would be boring if we all just sat around agreeing. Glad they are here and willing to share.  More fun to 

And I don't think string is necessarily illogical.  To give him the benefit of the doubt, seems like maybe some of his positions are alogical, which is where I thought he might be going with this thread but never got there.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2011)

JFS, I am not saying that I don't enjoy the discussions, I do.  I like to pick their brains as much as they like to pick ours. Hopefully we each learn something. It is the hypothetical questions and ensuing arguments that leave me wondering WHY?? It is almost like asking who is stronger, Mighty Mouse or Superman. While a case could be made for either side, none of it matters because neither are real so the thoughts points and counter points are, well, pointless.  But I do enjoy hearing others takes on the matter.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 22, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> And here comes the cosmic 'game'. See how pointless it is? Now over over 4 billion people on the earth today are going to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, most of which don't believe simply because of where they were born. _That's_ the system your god supposedly set up? I don't see 'grace' in that, sorry.
> 
> If the christian god is real and what you have stated is true, then god _wants_ people in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. There is absolutely no reason for it unless he's fine with it.



He is fine with it because he gave you the opportunity. 

What happens to a man in Africa that has never herd the word of God...I truly don't know. Will he be in H E L L when he dies? Maybe so...maybe not. You can not say one way or the other either. It is my belief if he hears the word of God and accepts, or rejects it that is on him. Good or bad.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 22, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Because it's provable.
> 
> 1+1 = 2
> 
> ...



To bad relationships are not based on mathematical principals.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Because it's provable.
> 
> 1+1 = 2
> 
> ...



Math proves nothing. A one is a one because we have defined it as such. Math is a language used to describe things.

this + that = something, because we said so. Big deal.


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Math proves nothing. A one is a one because we have defined it as such. Math is a language used to describe things.
> 
> this + that = something, because we said so. Big deal.



While the specific characters are defined by us, the relationships don't change. Mathematics is an observation, not an invention. Logic is the same way.


----------



## ADB (May 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Sorry string but God and logic are not interchangeable. One is a proposition, the other is a framework for determining whether propositions are true or not. You may as well replace logic with purple polka dotted space monkeys if you are going to go down that road.



Purple Polka-Dotted Space Monkeys....... I knew they were real !!!!!!
I love watching wits-matching contest. They move us foward.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yes, because logic is established and accepted, therefore real. Unlike your other example.
> 
> Your entire question is hypothetical. You are trying to take a known and accepted word and pretend it is not real to put it on the same level as god. It just doesn't work.



Logic is a scientific system invented by humans. Humans control all the givens. Thus, it makes perfect sense to us. It is a merely a language, like any other science, that we use to agree with ourselves.

God is and always has been, void of humans controlling the givens. Thus, logic does not apply to God, and cannot be used to explain God. God is far beyond our feeble human understanding no matter what scientific system you use.

God is definetly illogical.

Logic is a security blanket.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 11, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> While the specific characters are defined by us, the relationships don't change. Mathematics is an observation, not an invention. Logic is the same way.



A language (which we wrote to define the relationships) used to describe an observation.

I agree, Logic is the same.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Logic is a scientific system invented by humans. Humans control all the givens. Thus, it makes perfect sense to us. It is a merely a language, like any other science, that we use to agree with ourselves.
> 
> God is and always has been, void of humans controlling the givens. Thus, logic does not apply to God, and cannot be used to explain God. God is far beyond our feeble human understanding no matter what scientific system you use.
> 
> ...



Wrong. Even a god wouldn't be able to defy logic.


----------



## stringmusic (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Wrong. Even a god wouldn't be able to defy logic.



I may not understand this right, but it seems your making logic out to be this being with a mind, the same thing you seem to give "mother" nature. IMO, logic is something completely made up by humans, so why would God not be able to defy logic?


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I may not understand this right, but it seems your making logic out to be this being with a mind, the same thing you seem to give "mother" nature. IMO, logic is something completely made up by humans, so why would God not be able to defy logic?



Wow. You really do have a propensity for making living beings out of abstract concepts. No, I wasn't suggesting that at all.

Here is a question for you. Can God exist and not exist simultaneously? Why or why not?


----------



## stringmusic (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Wow. *You really do have a propensity for making living beings out of abstract concepts.* No, I wasn't suggesting that at all.


I think thats the other way around.



> Here is a question for you. Can God exist and not exist simultaneously? Why or why not?


I'm going to give you my best answer....


----------



## TTom (May 12, 2011)

edited to make sure it makes good sense here in answer to Atlashunters question to Stringmusic about can god exist and not exist at the same time. (end of edit)

If you put him in a box he could Atlashunter. LOL Just like a certain cat. LOL

Not a Christian but still a theist so I guess I can answer a couple questions from a different view here.

1. Logic applies to natural world and sometimes in the "super" natural world. But Logic does not confine the supernatural world.
That said I cannot prove God with pure logic, I have to include some irrational thought to have a chance to prove God.
I can point to things in the natural world that indicate to me some supernatural guiding hand. That's about as good as it gets when sticking to pure logic and trying to explain the supernatural. If it could be explained with logic it would be natural not supernatural.

Logic though I have an appreciation for and as much as anyone else I try to use some form of it to force things to "make sense" to my human mind. But I do recognize it as a framework/system for processing information.


----------



## stringmusic (May 12, 2011)

TTom said:


> edited to make sure it makes good sense here in answer to Atlashunters question to Stringmusic about can god exist and not exist at the same time. (end of edit)
> 
> If you put him in a box he could Atlashunter. LOL Just like a certain cat. LOL
> 
> ...



Great point TTom, that was basically the point in this thread. A person cannot try to explain God without using God. God is who He is because He is God, I think the same applies to logic, one has to use logic to prove logic.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 12, 2011)

Ahh... I see this now, but the sentence equates the two comparisons, when really they are not equitable... 

You use god's godliness and being god to define god... Which is an illogical definition... But since he's god, it's expected.

You use the a logical process to define logic.

No matter what logic IS... it still IS... undoubtfully.


----------



## TTom (May 12, 2011)

I disagree with your conclusion stringmusic.
Your analogy is flawed on multiple irredeemable levels.
logic isn't something to prove or disprove, logic is a system of organizing thoughts. You can select it or not based on logical or illogical reasoning. Your attempt to equate the two is flawed on so many levels people had trouble with where to start their disagreement.

and every attempt to explain that to you failed not because their argument was flawed but because you were hemmed into your argument and unwilling to admit your original position made no sense.

One does not have to prove logic at all is the point and it destroys your premise entirely. Logic is now and since it's creation has always been a system for organizing thought. It's value as a system is proven by the results it has displayed for inferring the same answer that eventually proved correct.

So don't put me in your boat cause we are thousands of miles apart here. I did not and will not ever agree that you cannot prove God without God. It is the very worst sort of circular logic . 


I logically choose not to use logic as a means for proving God because by definition God is SUPER natural and thus by definition not subject to logic.  You can use other non rational means to infer god exists.


----------



## stringmusic (May 12, 2011)

TTom said:


> I disagree with your conclusion stringmusic.
> Your analogy is flawed on multiple irredeemable levels.
> logic isn't something to prove or disprove, logic is a system of organizing thoughts. You can select it or not based on logical or illogical reasoning. Your attempt to equate the two is flawed on so many levels people had trouble with where to start their disagreement.
> 
> ...



You, just as everyone, else took a _very_ simple idea and turned it into something very deep in thought, not my objective at all. God and logic where to stay seperate in the analogy. This thread should have stayed at the bottom or in my head. Have a nice day.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

TTom I disagree when you say logic is constrained to the natural world. One can say there is a being that is not constrained by natural laws such as the laws of physics. Whether or not that is really possible in reality is another question but I'll at least concede that the "supernatural" is theoretically possible. But I don't agree that the supernatural realm can defy logic. For example if we say that God exists and does not exist (and I mean this in absolute all encompassing terms) then we have created a contradiction that by definition cannot hold true. If we say he exists in a supernatural realm but does not exist in the natural we haven't defied logic, we've simply changed the parameters by specifying where he exists and where he does not.


----------



## TTom (May 12, 2011)

Atlashunter, you may have misread something not sure.

I was not saying logic was confined to the natural world.

I said:

"Logic applies to natural world and sometimes in the "super" natural world. "

I say that logic does not confine the supernatural world because th supernatural does not function under the rules that we know.

Since the rules for the supernatural are unknown to us we simply lack the ability to know the relationships of cause and effect necessary for logic in that realm. (for lack of a better word)

If we knew the rules they would no longer be super natural and would move into the natural world instead.

Wish I wasn't so rushed, this deserves more explraton.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 12, 2011)

TTom said:


> Atlashunter, you may have misread something not sure.
> 
> I was not saying logic was confined to the natural world.
> 
> ...



Logic is confined to the world of humans because it is a system that we created. Bears do not have logic, neither do fish, or donkeys (even ones that talk).


----------



## Achilles Return (May 12, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I may not understand this right, but it seems your making logic out to be this being with a mind, the same thing you seem to give "mother" nature. IMO, logic is something completely made up by humans, so why would God not be able to defy logic?



Let me put it this way string. If logic was a human invention, then its adherence would only exist as long as humans existed. 

Imagine a world without humans - does a square suddenly become a triangle? Does 1 + 1 start to equal 3? I think you know the answer to this.


----------



## Achilles Return (May 12, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Logic is confined to the world of humans because it is a system that we created. Bears do not have logic, neither do fish, or donkeys (even ones that talk).



Whether or not bears recognize logic doesn't dictate its existence. Do bears suddenly float away because they don't recognize gravity?


----------



## stringmusic (May 12, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Let me put it this way string. If logic was a human invention, then its adherence would only exist as long as humans existed.
> 
> Imagine a world without humans - does a square suddenly become a triangle? Does 1 + 1 start to equal 3? I think you know the answer to this.



 We can only use our logic to think of a world without humans. To answer your question, a square is only a square because humans say so, 1 + 1= 2 because we say it equals 2. If there were no humans, why would 1 + 1 not equal 3? Who would say that it's wrong or illogical?


----------



## Achilles Return (May 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> We can only use our logic to think of a world without humans. To answer your question, a square is only a square because humans say so, 1 + 1= 2 because we say it equals 2. If there were no humans, why would 1 + 1 not equal 3? Who would say that it's wrong or illogical?



Reality exists independent of your ability to perceive it. 1+1 will always equal 2, regardless of whether or not someone recognizes it. Note that I'm not speaking about the literal characters 1 and 2 - but the concepts that they represent. 

To put it another way, do you think 1 + 1 = 3 before humans were able to comprehend math? Of course not, the idea is ridiculous.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 13, 2011)

common sense x facts = logic         ----    "a square is a square, not a square is round"


----------



## ted_BSR (May 13, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Reality exists independent of your ability to perceive it. 1+1 will always equal 2, regardless of whether or not someone recognizes it. Note that I'm not speaking about the literal characters 1 and 2 - but the concepts that they represent.
> 
> To put it another way, do you think 1 + 1 = 3 before humans were able to comprehend math? Of course not, the idea is ridiculous.



Your examples of gravity and math have no relevance. Reality exists only because of your ability to percieve it, define, name it. A bears reality is totally different than ours because of the Bear's perception of reality.

It is not as simple as you are making it out to be.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 13, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> common sense x facts = logic         ----    "a square is a square, not a square is round"



A square is a square because that is how we defined it. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square because of how we wrote the rules of squares.


----------



## TheBishop (May 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> A square is a square because that is how we defined it. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square because of how we wrote the rules of squares.



If we define a square, can a square exsist without definition? Can there still be an object with four equal sides? Can a bear exsist without man here to call it a bear? If a bear jumps off a cliff does it still not fall becuase of the force we call gravity?  The answer off course is yes.  Than Logic exsist with or without us to define what logic is.


----------



## TheBishop (May 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Your examples of gravity and math have no relevance. Reality exists only because of your ability to percieve it, define, name it. A bears reality is totally different than ours because of the Bear's perception of reality.
> 
> It is not as simple as you are making it out to be.



Yes it actually is, and your example lack logic. Reality exsist wether we percieve it or not.  The world has been here alot longer than we have, and reality didn't just come about becuase of man.  A bear might percieve reality different but the reality is just the same, thats logic.  A bear in the woods, is a bear in the woods.  Becuase we define what the bear is and what the woods are does not change the reality of the were and what of those objects.


----------



## atlashunter (May 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Your examples of gravity and math have no relevance. Reality exists only because of your ability to percieve it, define, name it. A bears reality is totally different than ours because of the Bear's perception of reality.
> 
> It is not as simple as you are making it out to be.



If that were true then that would mean we brought black holes into existence by looking for them.


----------



## Achilles Return (May 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If that were true then that would mean we brought black holes into existence by looking for them.



And this is a scientist.


----------



## Achilles Return (May 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Your examples of gravity and math have no relevance. Reality exists only because of your ability to percieve it, define, name it. A bears reality is totally different than ours because of the Bear's perception of reality.
> 
> It is not as simple as you are making it out to be.



Sorry, this is simply nuts. Very clearly wrong.


----------



## bad0351 (May 15, 2011)

The word "one" is just that, a word....same as "two"...words to describe a symbol.
Now this on the other hand...."1"......"111"......in the first example there is a single symbol which man decided to call "one"....in the second example we see what man decided to call "three"....three of the same symbols together...could be three sticks....three ice cubes, or whatever.
logic says there are "one stick"...and "three sticks".......show me god  that I can see and I could begin to believe.....until that time, all of the folks claiming a real god are in my opinion....illogical.

Dale


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Logic is a scientific system invented by humans. Humans control all the givens. Thus, it makes perfect sense to us. It is a merely a language, like any other science, that we use to agree with ourselves.
> 
> God is and always has been, void of humans controlling the givens. Thus, logic does not apply to God, and cannot be used to explain God. God is far beyond our feeble human understanding no matter what scientific system you use.
> 
> ...



Ok I was out of state for a while but now I'm back to play....

After reading all these posts I have determined(in my mind) that God is logical and illogical and that feat is no greater than or different than being the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, an outer space Alien, Ghost, Leprechauns, Unicorns, Dragons, Godzilla, Mothra, Where wolves, Vampires, etc. In other words it is no great feat.

Now getting to "God is and has always been"...... so say YOU! So has "every" other God man has conjured up. If logic is man made then so is time. Without man time does not exist so we cannot measure how long God may or may not have been around. And without man God does not exist.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2011)

We MAY be able to prove someday that God existed exactly as long as man has existed, but no further.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 17, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Sorry, this is simply nuts. Very clearly wrong.



That is a really compelling arguement Achilles. Must be the water is too deep for you.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If that were true then that would mean we brought black holes into existence by looking for them.



Try explaining a black hole to a bear.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 17, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> The word "one" is just that, a word....same as "two"...words to describe a symbol.
> Now this on the other hand...."1"......"111"......in the first example there is a single symbol which man decided to call "one"....in the second example we see what man decided to call "three"....three of the same symbols together...could be three sticks....three ice cubes, or whatever.
> logic says there are "one stick"...and "three sticks".......show me god  that I can see and I could begin to believe.....until that time, all of the folks claiming a real god are in my opinion....illogical.
> 
> Dale



Yes, we are. Logic ain't all it's cracked up to be.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 17, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> And this is a scientist.



I even get paid for being a scientist!!!


----------



## ted_BSR (May 17, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Yes it actually is, and your example lack logic. Reality exsist wether we percieve it or not.  The world has been here alot longer than we have, and reality didn't just come about becuase of man.  A bear might percieve reality different but the reality is just the same, thats logic.  A bear in the woods, is a bear in the woods.  Becuase we define what the bear is and what the woods are does not change the reality of the were and what of those objects.



The reality to the bear is that the woods are civilization, and civilization is the woods. The woods are where he is supposed to be, and everything makes sense to him. Logic you say? I say phlptttttt!


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Try explaining a black hole to a bear.



Can we explain god to a bear?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Can we explain god to a bear?



No, good thing there is no need for it.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2011)

Right! And the reason why we use logic, knowledge, math and all things accepted by mankind is to put it into accepted terms that we understand. We use those things every day in every day life. Except religion. If we dismiss those things as being human and with faults then we must also lump religion in the same category. None of it existed before mankind, the bears didn't care about it and neither did any other creature.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Right! And the reason why we use logic, knowledge, math and all things accepted by mankind is to put it into accepted terms that we understand. We use those things every day in every day life. Except religion. If we dismiss those things as being human and with faults then we must also lump religion in the same category. None of it existed before mankind, the bears didn't care about it and neither did any other creature.



I agree that religion definetly has its faults. Man can corrupt anything. Bears don't need it. They don't have souls.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2011)

True Ted, very true. I am totally fine with what each individual believes in their heart. If peeing on a flat rock each morning gets a person through the day and makes them a better person so be it. If someone believes that a being up in the sky is the source of everything they see and hear and makes them a better person then that is fine too. What I do not have a stomach for is anything "organized" by man because it boils down to that organization benefiting the organization. Organized religion is BIG business and that should be nowhere included or used to guide what is in the hearts of individuals. Man can, has and will ruin everything despite the truest of intentions.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 20, 2011)

bullethead said:


> True Ted, very true. I am totally fine with what each individual believes in their heart. If peeing on a flat rock each morning gets a person through the day and makes them a better person so be it. If someone believes that a being up in the sky is the source of everything they see and hear and makes them a better person then that is fine too. What I do not have a stomach for is anything "organized" by man because it boils down to that organization benefiting the organization. Organized religion is BIG business and that should be nowhere included or used to guide what is in the hearts of individuals. Man can, has and will ruin everything despite the truest of intentions.



Yep, I have to agree, but it is not about organized religion for me. It is about meeting with like minded individuals that I can learn from, and we can offer and give support and wisdom/knowledge. More than that, it is about how the Almighty God knows and cares for me, and how he sacrificed all so that I could be with Him for eternity.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2011)

Ted what did he sacrifice?


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 20, 2011)

Definitely.. Jesus supposedly died, went to the bad place... which I've heard described as eternal separation from god, but he is god, so was it temporarily not the bad place, and it doesn't seem eternal to me because Jesus now sits at right hand of god... So did he really sacrifice? Eh.. I don't know.

I think for many, this meeting with like minded individuals has been part of life since childhood, so why stop when you gain the ability to think critically and  understand big pictures?


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2011)

I don't think sacrifice is the word. Planned could be more like it. It is not like God had his Son playing on the swing set in Heaven and was given the ultimatum that it was either save mankind or his save his only Son.
If the story is true, God CREATED a Son specifically to save mankind. Where was the Free Will when Mary was suddenly with child? Where was the Free Will when Jesus was a human for 33 years? Where was the Free Will of Mankind?  I don't see that any had Free Will. Accept it or burn. Ultimatum is more like it.
What greater symbol could the authors of the NT have used to show a loving and compassionate God for mankind than one that offered up his only Son to save us? BUT, was it necessary? Why did God HAVE to prove anything to us? Why being God did he feel the need to appease Man? We did not give him the ultimatum, heck we didn't know anything about it. Why would he create a life full well knowing we would take it? Is that really a sacrifice? Certainly there was an easier way like winking one eye and the same thing is accomplished. I am just not getting how the most powerful, just, loving, compassionate, vengeful, creative and all knowing being in all of the cosmos HAD to sacrifice anything in order accomplish what he wanted accomplished. Is it really a sacrifice if it was planned from the start?

2000 years ago it sounded like the ultimate sacrifice as Sons were a fathers greatest wealth, but enough time has passed that those thoughts and stories are outdated and do not make sense in todays world.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 21, 2011)

I believe that Jesus had a choice.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I believe that Jesus had a choice.




By Jesus, you mean God, right?  That's thoroughly mind blowing......


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2011)

Ted you have to believe that in order for any of the rest of the story to make sense at all. Did Mary have a choice? Did the people have a choice? Only after Jesus was "born" did the people get an ultimatum. Believe or Burn. Before that it was business as usual.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 22, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> By Jesus, you mean God, right?  That's thoroughly mind blowing......



By Jesus, I mean God incarnate. The trinity discussion seems like a new thread.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Ted you have to believe that in order for any of the rest of the story to make sense at all. Did Mary have a choice? Did the people have a choice? Only after Jesus was "born" did the people get an ultimatum. Believe or Burn. Before that it was business as usual.



These "belive or burn" comments are interesting. It is a frightening twist on the concept of, God doesn't want you to burn, so trust in God.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> These "belive or burn" comments are interesting. It is a frightening twist on the concept of, God doesn't want you to burn, so trust in God.



They are really the only two options. What other options are there Ted?


----------



## ted_BSR (May 30, 2011)

As far as I am concerned those are the only two.

You could always take your chances for the 72 virgins, or go out with Mr. Spock style and just try and cease to exist.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

Being that no one has ever come back to confirm that there is anything after death(despite numerous promises to do so), I am content with the thought that when it's over, it's over.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Being that no one has ever come back to confirm that there is anything after death(despite numerous promises to do so), I am content with the thought that when it's over, it's over.



Sounds like Mr. Spock then. If it is different than that, and you go first, how about giving the rest of us here on the AAA forum a heads up?


----------



## bullethead (May 31, 2011)

No problem Ted. I am not one for creaking a door or muffled footsteps in the basement. If I can make contact after death, people are gonna know for sure it is me.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> No problem Ted. I am not one for creaking a door or muffled footsteps in the basement. If I can make contact after death, people are gonna know for sure it is me.



Maybe you could start a new profile here! What would your name be so we are sure it is you?

Really though, I don't wish anything but a long long happy life for you, and maybe some salvation.


----------

