the illogical god

[ubermich]

with all the discussion on these boards concerning the fallibility of logic and the bigger question of proving god's existence (from the religion section, of course,) i wanted to share a 'revelation' with you all.

this is pretty long, and its dedicated to you, tiassa, for no other reason than your long-ass post on human nature (the one that ended with horsepucky) inspired me to sit down and write out what otherwise would have stayed in my head.

ironically, and amusingly, i came up with this while nodding off to my priest's sermon at mass today, and this thought woke me up and forced to rush out my little pew, grab the nearest pen and paper from the giftshop lady, and scribble down my agnostic conclusions during my priest's ramblings on the necessities of faith/love. ha.

 

[ubermich]

i happened to be in the middle of a pretty listless and random daydream when nelson's (truthseekers?) thread on the "scientific proof of the existence of god" or whatever from the religion boards kept popping into my head. (im sorry, nelson, i want to believe that your 'proof' of god's existence based on little packages of bouncing energy was an elaborate joke, but im not so sure. plz tell me im an idiot for not catching your sarcasm. )

nelson apparently believed he was using logic in his proof, (and i mean strict premise-conclusion by that) but of course his arguments assumed a crapload. (i had to agree with starfyre on that one, and laugh at his wit) this was interesting bc nelson was so enthralled with his proof he couldn't see its inconsistensies.

(btw, nelson, don't get offended by any of this. if theres anything we all as philosophers, including myself, need to learn, its NOT to equate ourselves with our arguments. criticizing your words does not equal criticizing your person. just because i believe your arguments were pretty crappy on that thread doesn't mean i dont value your input )

and more recently, ekimklaw, or mike, has decided to regurgitate some 400 yr old god theories from aquinas, hoping to prove, several hundred years later by imitation, some benevolent deity who created all of this crap.

anyway, the crux of the issue is that i realized once you try to prove the metaphysical, you've already shot your chances of proving it.

 

[ubermich]

let me explain:
lets first start with our definitions of assumptions: what are they? perhaps we can call them "a priori truths." the specific terms don't matter. im going by your basic def.

in any logical argument, we assume x to prove y (theres always a basic assumption somewhere.) but why do we assume what we assume? yes, perhaps sometimes you can say its because of a posteriori sensory experience, but beneath even that, i say, is an emotion/urge/need manipulating what we choose to assume. you will always find conflicting sensory stimuli in this world, and we can all agree, on top of that, that sensory perception is by no means infallible, so how do we reconcile all this conflict and contradiction on a day by day basis without going mad? because of some innate emotion or belief. Understand that when im using multiple terms to describe this underlying phenomena because its always one of these things: a belief guides our contradictory scientific experiences, an emotion guides or "mixed signals" in relationships, an instinctual urge guides or reflexive actions in danger . . .

so getting back to my little realization up there: you assume x because you want to believe its conclusion, y. (keep in mind this DOES NOT apply to logic in general, but rather using logic to find a preestablished truth.) hence, you might say that the underlying emotion/urge/need is part of the assumption. and as part of the assumption, it guides the logic you apply to it. Thus our logic, because (in the case of proving) MUST reach a certain result, it is already constrained by our expectations from the get-go! and logic, of course, cannot function under constraints: it must discover, not prove.

 

[ubermich]

think about it: a lot of postmodern philosophy is all about getting back to the beginnings: embracing our intellectual origins as those of greece and revisiting the greeks' very curious, almost naive discovery-type learning method. postmodernists write scathing critiques of the enlightenment because, perhaps as a product of dogmatic christianity, it has bastardized greek epistemology, mutating it into this sick monster looking to establish an absolute environment. y? i believe its part of the renaissance, man is perfectable, reason is god, backlash against christian mysticism and human debasement. the enlightenment thinkers started out with a goal in mind, the breaking away from religious ignorance, and tried to justify that end through philosophy.

all of this is a roundabout way of explaining through analogy that this same type of absolute-minded phenomena exists today in several manifestations.

these absurd attempts at using logic to prove what we intuit (like god for example) are ridiculous. and they keep showing up on these boards.

now i know what you're thinking: logic has built your f*cking computer, you idiot, the clothes you wear, the filet mignon you eat, the type of institutions you embrace. youre right.

but that is completely different from proving a metaphysical truth, the existence of god, because everything we manipulate on this earth is of the same matter, the same dimension, the same quality. i dont want to go into the essence/ontology of matter, but i think you can agree that 3D objects on earth in our spacetime continuum (the world we interact in) share a common essence, whatever that may be. thus, the fact that we've been relying on logic to create our environment does not prove that logic is infallible. logic can still work through distortions--as long as everything (our understanding of the nature of the world) is distorted likewise. it's like a simple algebraic equation: 4X+2Y=7. if we add a 4C to BOTH sides of the equation, the logic still works. if we subtract our perceptual distortions from BOTH sides of your logic equations--our premises and conclusions, the logic still works. even if we use twisted goal-oriented problem-solution logic on this earth, it doesn't matter: we get the result we want.

a metaphysical truth, however, is not of this world. it is, by definition, and acknowledged by all religious people, to be beyond our grasp of understanding. thus, we cannot get away with our epistemological crimes on the metaphysical scale.

let me throw in mr. god to get us back to my church revelation. i think kant had it right when he said that the notion of god must assume his existence. you cant "add" the characteristic of existence to him, otherwise you alter him fundamentally. in other words, using logic (fallible here because of both our problem-solution orientations AND its inability to encapsulate the metaphysical) changes him.

 

[ubermich]

heres a simple example:

the christian conception of god assumes he is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni-so-and-so. but "omnipotence" implies that god is master of everything, slave to nothing. NOTHING, and if you take that conclusion to its fullest implication, it includes logic. so to use logic asserts that god is subject to it, and your all-powerful, unknowable, infinite god becomes limited, defined, and finite.

furthermore, look to the fact that logic even denies the essence of god: he cannot be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. lets consider a little soul on the verge of damnation, why does god not save hiM? because he wants to reward exercising free will you say. but if thats true, why cant god just force the little guy to exercise his free will in a good way, or teach him to exercise his free will properly, that way god can save him all the pain of having to roast for eternity. obviously, god could do this, outside the rules of logic if he wanted to. to say that it is impossible is to curtail god's omnipotence. (its not impossible btw; its a matter of defining what we call free will. god gave us free will, and it has its physical limits, he could just limit it further.)to say that he doesn't want to save the man is to prove that god has the capability of preventing pain, but wont act, that means hes a malicious, not omnibenevolent, SOB.

what do religious people say to this? "dont assume you can know god, you pretentious prick." right on, you brainwashed docile bodies, for once in your pathetic existences.

we all, religious fanatics and dilettante pragmatists, agree. human application of logic on the metaphysical, sux. so i hope these ridiculous 'god exists bc this' or 'god doesnt exist bc that' slowly die out.

one final implication: if logic cannot control our omnipotent god, then that means he does not follow it. perhaps hes an irrational god. :bugeye: thats pretty f*cking scary.

thanks all of you, who took the time to read this. i hope i get some insightful responses, or i will be pissed. no seriously though, i hope that gives you some food for thought .

 

[ubermich]

sorry for multiposting guys, but i was having problems uploading the entire thing, so i had to cut it into little bite sized pieces for my 350 megahertz CPU w/64 megs of ram and a 56k modem to handle. or maybe the servers are just busy. whatever.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Irrational is more towards the "senseless" side. Mentally insane and so on.

Illogical just means disregarding the principles of logic.

They aren't the same, don't be manipulative like Cris and assume that. He seems to think "know" and "believe" are somehow intricately related.

Nice post though, let me find something to add.

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

They aren't the same, don't be manipulative like Cris and assume that. He seems to think "know" and "believe" are somehow intricately related.

No I don't, but it's going to take an effort to teach you the correct interpretations.

Cris

 

[Ekimklaw]

Originally posted by ubermich
more recently, ekimklaw, or mike, has decided to regurgitate some 400 yr old god theories from aquinas, hoping to prove, several hundred years later by imitation, some benevolent deity who created all of this crap.

anyway, the crux of the issue is that i realized once you try to prove the metaphysical, you've already shot your chances of proving it.

Hello Ubermich,

I don't know what specifically you are referring to with repect to Aquinas, but one "proof" for me that God exists (among other things) is that we are here. I believe that *nothingness* cannot create *somethingness*? So, there had to be a first cause.

And... I agree about your assertion that proving metaphysical things is a lost cause from the outset by the way. But it's still fun to exercise the ol' brain sometimes with a lively debate.

As for the rest of your multiple posts... I guess they're a little dry.

No offense though.

Take care Ubermich.

-Mike

 

[Firefly]

once you try to prove the metaphysical, you've already shot your chances of proving it.

Isn't God metaphysical?

I disagree with your definitions:

why do we assume what we assume? yes, perhaps sometimes you can say its because of a posteriori sensory experience, but beneath even that, i say, is an emotion/urge/need manipulating what we choose to assume.

OK, we might because of a posteriori knowledge, but I don't think we have a "need" to assume. We simply assume because it's an easier way of living (for example, there's no way of proving that anything besides my consciousness exists, yet it's impossible to life like that). Or, as Hume says, constant conjunction. Though we don't "choose" to assume that, we often just do it by habit, because we think it's a necessary causal relationship.

you assume x because you want to believe its conclusion, y.

Possibly (in trying to explain a pre-established truth), but that doesn't make the reasoning correct.

Explain this:

we intuit (like god for example)

logic has built ... the filet mignon you eat

I'd be inclined to call it evolution.

And finally, you seem to have contradicted outrself here:

once you try to prove the metaphysical, you've already shot your chances of proving it...but that is completely different from proving a metaphysical truth, the existence of god

 

[Avatar]

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
but one "proof" for me that God exists (among other things) is that we are here. I believe that *nothingness* cannot create *somethingness*? So, there had to be a first cause.
-Mike

there has not to be nothingless if you are not really comfortable with it. There is a theory of the "begining" of universe tht was discussed smwhere at the Physics forum recently. Basically it explains what was before the big bang. like cycles of big bangs and big crunches.

oh and here is one other theory worht a read
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bound.html

 

[Amp]

Nice post Ubermich

"... implies that god is master of everything, slave to nothing. NOTHING, and if you take that conclusion to its fullest implication, it includes logic. so to use logic asserts that god is subject to it, and your all-powerful, unknowable, infinite god becomes limited, defined, and finite...

'God' isn't bound by any thing, even logic, but it has its own volition and does what it says and limits itself by itself, which is a true statement when you consider 'God' is beyond our understanding. Just because all things are possible for 'God' that doesn't mean it must do everthing, or that it has to do what we want. As you said, 'God' is the master.

 

[Raithere]

you assume x because you want to believe its conclusion, y. (keep in mind this DOES NOT apply to logic in general, but rather using logic to find a preestablished truth

A few points:

1) X cannot be assumed, it must explicitly be true or false otherwise the premise is unfounded and the equation is incomplete.

2) In the equation X therefore Y, Y must logically follow X

3) In logic there is no such thing as a preestablished truth, if the truth of a premise or conclusion is in question is must be demonstrated.

Thus our logic, because (in the case of proving) MUST reach a certain result, it is already constrained by our expectations from the get-go! and logic, of course, cannot function under constraints: it must discover, not prove.

Entirely inaccurate. What you have expressed here is not logic at all. Logic operates under extremely demanding constraints. Do a web-search for Logical Fallacies if you disagree.

I understand what you're getting at though and it's dead-end reasoning. Yes, our perception and understanding are inherently limited and conditioned by our nature and the nature of the Universe. There is, however, no point in asserting the alternative, because there is no means by which you can eliminate this influence. To operate under an alternative presumtion is simply irrational... one might as well query lunatics.

but that is completely different from proving a metaphysical truth

Without proof how do you determine truth?

a metaphysical truth, however, is not of this world. it is, by definition, and acknowledged by all religious people, to be beyond our grasp of understanding. thus, we cannot get away with our epistemological crimes on the metaphysical scale.

You refute logic and even comprehension of the metaphysical, whence comes your assertion of truth then? Why even bother?

~Raithere

 

[Ekimklaw]

Originally posted by Avatar


there has not to be nothingless if you are not really comfortable with it. There is a theory of the "begining" of universe tht was discussed smwhere at the Physics forum recently. Basically it explains what was before the big bang. like cycles of big bangs and big crunches.

oh and here is one other theory worht a read
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bound.html

There are many typos to wade through, but I think I understand what you intended to say here...

"Cycles of Big Bangs" and "crunches"??

Were they there? Or is this just a matter of faith?

This in NO WAY attempts to explain how *something* can, without ANY outside agency, occur from *nothing*.

If I had a box of nothing, how long would I have to wait before it became something?

-Mike

 

[ubermich]

thanks for reading my post(s).

to firefly:

i think a lot of the problem youre having with my definitions/conclusions is a misunderstanding. im trying to prove that god can neither be proven nor disproven.

once you try to prove the metaphysical, you've already shot your chances of proving it.

Isnt god metaphysical?

yes, therefore you cant prove god.

OK, we might because of a posteriori knowledge, but I don't think we have a "need" to assume. We simply assume because it's an easier way of living (for example, there's no way of proving that anything besides my consciousness exists, yet it's impossible to life like that). Or, as Hume says, constant conjunction. Though we don't "choose" to assume that, we often just do it by habit, because we think it's a necessary causal relationship.

again, i think youre missing a fundamental distinction i made in my original post: theres a difference between discovery and proof. both use logic, but discovery is potentially more viable. youre example of assuming youre own consciousness to exist is an example of "discovery." descartes sat back and said, "what do i know about the world," and he came up with the only thing he can know is his consciousness. people who try to prove the existence of god say, "what must i know about this world?" and fall in the pitfalls of their emotional assumptions.

as for hume: he just proves my point. all of hume's causal relationship arguments are circular. he has his 2 definitions of causality and they amount (im paraphrasing because i dont have a book in front of me) to circular arguments that assume phenomena A, because it occurs before phenomena B several times in our sensory experience, A causes B. Kant tore that sh*t up, by breaking down time as just another product of our transcendental aesthetic. in this context, though, hume looked at singular phenomena A and later singular phenomena B, and said "i think they are causally related." that failed because he wanted to believe it so much, he constructed circular definitions.

you assume x because you want to believe its conclusion, y.

Possibly (in trying to explain a pre-established truth), but that doesn't make the reasoning correct.

my point exactly. the reasoning is flawed by your emotional assumption.

and finally, you seem to have contradicted yourself here.

once you try to prove the metaphysical, you've already shot your chances of proving it...but that is completely different from proving a metaphysical truth, the existence of god

no, no, no, my friend. the first part, before the ellipses, pertains to any proof of the metaphysical, including god. the second part, cut and pasted, after the ellipses, is qualifying the notion that logic works in this world and therefore should work on the metaphysical.

 

[Xev]

ubermich:

furthermore, look to the fact that logic even denies the essence of god: he cannot be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. lets consider a little soul on the verge of damnation, why does god not save hiM? because he wants to reward exercising free will you say. but if thats true, why cant god just force the little guy to exercise his free will in a good way, or teach him to exercise his free will properly, that way god can save him all the pain of having to roast for eternity. obviously, god could do this, outside the rules of logic if he wanted to. to say that it is impossible is to curtail god's omnipotence. (its not impossible btw; its a matter of defining what we call free will. god gave us free will, and it has its physical limits, he could just limit it further.)to say that he doesn't want to save the man is to prove that god has the capability of preventing pain, but wont act, that means hes a malicious, not omnibenevolent, SOB.

But we already know that any ominpotent God must be a sadistic little prick, right? Consider Tay-Sachs disease.

Some Xtians will claim that "that is because of origional sin". Excuse me? God tortures innocent children because, 6000 years ago, two people disobeyed him?

What in the fuck?

one final implication: if logic cannot control our omnipotent god, then that means he does not follow it. perhaps hes an irrational god. thats pretty f*cking scary.

Well, look at Yahweh. Eeeeeek!

Good posts. However, I take issue with this:

Thus our logic, because (in the case of proving) MUST reach a certain result, it is already constrained by our expectations from the get-go! and logic, of course, cannot function under constraints: it must discover, not prove.

In math, we prove things using a sort of logic, but we know beforehand what we want to prove. For instance,

Fermat's last theorem. All of the people who tried to prove this theorem specifically set out to prove it.

Eventually, Taylor, Wiles and Falting proved the theorem.

Edit to fix url.

 

[ubermich]

to raithere,

as with firefly, i think your arguments are misunderstandings.

you assume x because you want to believe its conclusion, y. (keep in mind this DOES NOT apply to logic in general, but rather using logic to find a preestablished truth.

a few points:

1) X cannot be assumed, it must explicitly be true or false otherwise the premise is unfounded and the equation is incomplete.

2) In the equation X therefore Y, Y must logically follow X

3) In logic there is no such thing as a preestablished truth, if the truth of a premise or conclusion is in question is must be demonstrated.

all of these points apply to a strict definition of logic, which as i agreed in my original post, there is a distinction between strict logical discovery and affected logical proofs. there is an extra "emotional" assumption in believing you must prove x, that does not exist when you dont know what the end result will be.

Entirely inaccurate. What you have expressed here is not logic at all. Logic operates under extremely demanding constraints. Do a web-search for Logical Fallacies if you disagree.

I understand what you're getting at though and it's dead-end reasoning. Yes, our perception and understanding are inherently limited and conditioned by our nature and the nature of the Universe. There is, however, no point in asserting the alternative, because there is no means by which you can eliminate this influence. To operate under an alternative presumtion is simply irrational... one might as well query lunatics.

first paragraph: again, semantics and misinterpretation of my original post.

second paragraph: i never tried to assert an alternative. that entire post was negation theory. like i said in the post, logic DOES WORK on this limited plane we call "earth," therefore we dont need an alternative if we want to go out and logically build a bridge or something. but it doesnt for the metaphysical. my alternative to that? dont try to prove the metaphysical.

You refute logic and even comprehension of the metaphysical, whence comes your assertion of truth then? Why even bother?

very, very good, my friend. i was wondering if someone would point that out. but like i said before, there's an escape hatch for me on this one in that logic, albeit a distorted manifestation of it, in our three dimensional world. therefore, i can prove logic will not work outside of it.

analogy:
if you have a construction worker, (pretty hefty guy, but not body-building material,) working for you for several years, you as an employer know his limitations. if you get a job from a contractor, about which you know nothing except its extreme physical and mental demands, you can judge this construction worker to be inadequate just by your experience with him, and the simple fact that you know this extra job is only for the cream of the crop. . you know his limitations, as you know logics limitations. im only proving logic, within the confines of accepted logic, cannot prove the metaphysical.

 

[ubermich]

ah, xev.

thanks for posting. as always, i enjoy laughing (with you) after refuting misinterpretations of logic.

what in the fuck?

and thank you, i didnt know you could say fuck here. it being sciforums and all. but, as it is, i will now curse profusely, even gratuitously, in my posts because of my newfound right. fuckety, fuckety, fuck fuck fuck.

as for the disagreement:

In math, we prove things using a sort of logic, but we know beforehand what we want to prove. For instance, Fermat's last theorem. All of the people who tried to prove this theorem specifically set out to prove it.

i believe maths an excellent example of logic's successes on this world. . limitations on logic dont become an issue in math, because as i said in my original post, math is built around our cognitive/perceptual distortions of the ontology of our environment. we wouldnt know it was flawed (ontologically) because we're already flawed. but the metaphysical is outside of this world, and as mathematical logic is based on our perceptions of our environment (which are all pre-agreed upon by mathematicians around the world) and the metaphysical, by defintion, cannot be known through our senses, therefore we cant use mathematical-type logic to prove god. math logic is based on our sensory experience, god logic cannot be, so we shouldnt try to equate the two when they are fundamentally different epistemologically.

 

[Amp]

G'day Xev,

But we already know that any ominpotent God must be a sadistic little prick, right? Consider Tay-Sachs disease.

Your an atheist? Right, so I guess you must know. I posted smth a while ago and I believe it applies here its posted above but here -

.... Just because all things are possible for 'God' that doesn't mean it must do everthing, or that it has to do what we want. As you said, 'God' is the master.

I don't mean to seem heartless or cruel, but we want free will, we don't want to be robots, Tay-Sachs is a genetic disorder, some disorders not all could be caused by mankinds disregard for the enviornment, ie, dumping toxins into ground water, the experimental tests done with nuclear materials even above ground many years in the past.

Its probably no consolation for the families, but 'God' does love children, and so does its son Jesus. Those children probably have eternal life now and thats more than we have at present. We still have to struggle and strive. We have to live through this life and do our best hoping its enough.

 

[Firefly]

Originally posted by ubermich
im trying to prove that god can neither be proven nor disproven.

Heh, the title seemed to indicate you were talking about the nature of God. I agree with you, however, God doesn't need to br proven, it's a belief, the minute you go looking for evidence you're going beyond that and looking for knowledge.

descartes sat back and said, "what do i know about the world," and he came up with the only thing he can know is his consciousness.

I think you'll find Descartes also thought he'd proved the existance of God, plus the external world.

as for hume: he just proves my point. all of hume's causal relationship arguments are circular.

What about constant conjuncton? I think that works.

logic works in this world and therefore should work on the metaphysical. [/B]

How so? the metaphysical isn't of this world. Niether is God.