The belief in God is Unreasonable

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Phaedrus
This is undoubtably true. The issue of God has many more epistemological (knowledge related) problems than your foot would. I was just trying to show that belief in both require faith, but it is completely correct to say that there is more reason in the belief of your foot than god.



I was just trying to show that it is impossible to argue against the idea of god itself. My example was something with hardly and properties and thus, to argue against it you would have to argue against its existence purely on the basis of its existence. This is almost impossible to do in any case. I maybe if I show the same type of example in another context it will illustate why I did it.

I want you to argue against my shoe (just an illustration)
1) You have never seen it
2) It has a rubber sole
3) It has shoelaces

See, remarkable like the god example. Yes the premises are different, but all I was trying to do is show that it is almost impossible to argue over the existence of something when the only argument is existence, with no more premises.

It was only an example not to be taken very seriously.



Not at all, you are not trained in logic but you are doing the best you can. No one is educated enough to be completely logic, leaps of "faith" are required all the time, just some has more merit as we have shown.



So hurry up and get back to this, I would like to see your points.

- Phaedrus

"Only a brave person is willing to honestly admit, and fearlessly to face, what a sincere and logical mind discovers."
-Rodan of Alexandria

sorry if I'm slow and I'm not going to really address it directliy at the moment... but a little loose flavor about subjectivity:

The human mind seeks to find context in which to place its stimulus. That is to say, the mind is perpetually trying to cram stuff into a schema of concepts you've created which only exists within your particular brain. Additionally, and this is experimentally verified by some guy I saw on the science channel: The brain provides/fabricates said context when it cannot make sense of things otherwise. (on a funky note: the path of least resistence regarding thought is exactly to let your brain do its thing, otherwise you have to exert the effort of thought at some or many levels)

The human mind, being aware of itself, cannot help but to ponder its creation hence "why is everything so X?" and/or "why am I here?" blah blah etc. The brain attempts to employ its only real tool "thinking" (which may resemble reason if the person is actually mature and uninfected by a meme) to provide "reasonable" (e.g. "whatever will trip that particular brain's trigger to make the answer seem reasonable") explanations such that it can be filed per the prior bullet.

Sorry for taking so long but my dad is visiting and my oldest daughter (2.5 years old) will not sleep. It's been a hectic but lovely day. I promise to rejoin the conversation sometime Sunday. I'll think about my approach.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Phaedrus
This is undoubtably true. The issue of God has many more epistemological (knowledge related) problems than your foot would. I was just trying to show that belief in both require faith, but it is completely correct to say that there is more reason in the belief of your foot than god.

a point of common ground. refreshing. i enjoy relating to the other humans.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
I was just trying to show that it is impossible to argue against the idea of god itself. My example was something with hardly and properties and thus, to argue against it you would have to argue against its existence purely on the basis of its existence. This is almost impossible to do in any case. I maybe if I show the same type of example in another context it will illustate why I did it.

I want you to argue against my shoe (just an illustration)
1) You have never seen it
2) It has a rubber sole
3) It has shoelaces

Well, I might have touched your shoe. I might be blind. I know what you probably mean, but if I had no conception of your shoe I certainly wouldn't believe in it. I would probably believe in it once you explain it to me first because of it's function and secondly because of its mundane nature. the assumption of it, or belief in it doesn't really impact me in the same way that the existence of god might.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
See, remarkable like the god example. Yes the premises are different, but all I was trying to do is show that it is almost impossible to argue over the existence of something when the only argument is existence, with no more premises.

You ignore your knowledge: Your shoe is not an astounding claim. (it might be to you, but it wouldn't be to me: subjectivity?)

Originally posted by Phaedrus
It was only an example not to be taken very seriously.

Okay, I'll chill.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
Not at all, you are not trained in logic but you are doing the best you can. No one is educated enough to be completely logic, leaps of "faith" are required all the time, just some has more merit as we have shown.

I sometimes think that to be excessively trained in logic would impair my ability to reason.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
So hurry up and get back to this, I would like to see your points.

- Phaedrus

that's all I got for now... I went farther than I thought for the night.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
"Only a brave person is willing to honestly admit, and fearlessly to face, what a sincere and logical mind discovers."
-Rodan of Alexandria

man a bunch of people on here have the most inspiring quotes. seriously, I've never heard most of them and sheez.. that's quality shit. thanks for sharing everyone. sincere thanks with a dash of goofy non-chalance so as not to appear gay not that there's anything wrong with that.

Rodan would have been more correct if he(she?) would have used the phrase "truly reasonable" rather than the word logic. Of course that's just my opinion. Or IS it? (bamp bamp BUH! (you know that three note thing played when someone does something dastardly in a drama or spoof or something and the camera zooms all up in on them and junk and then it's all bamp bamp BUH!!! and you're all "whoa, that dude did something" or something?)

 

[wesmorris]

Here is something that I posted in teh "God DOES exist" forum. I believe it's relavent.

You know why science geeks, athiests and agnostics refuse to succumb to the statement "God did it."?

It is very simple. If you answer "God did it." you are a huge wuss. It's a simple, silly answer. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but to a reasonable being all possibilities must be exhausted before accepting something so uh... well, seems stupid to me. Seems like you don't have the intellect, will or creativity to consider other possibilities. That doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you a little pathetic from the perspective of a person who is compelled to seek objective truth.

I mean really, if you are interested in seeking objective truth, isn't it inherent that you HAVE to maintain agnosticism? Refute that? Everything else is just justifying your assumptions.

Comments?

 

[Tnerb]

Wes:

I think you've scared everyone away. I'll try to bring this thread back if it isn't just you and me talking. I am interested in the thread title, that "The belief in God is Unreasonable". I consider myself a "believer in god", and so I would like to test out my thinking skills.
ur pal

 

[Cris]

No. Please don't restart a 4 year old thread, start a new one.

Thread closed.