the illogical god

[Xev]

ubermich:

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

Thank you. I agree with Nietzsche:
"Not with wrath, but by laughter does one kill"

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.

Technically, we are not supposed to. Fuck that, I don't think anyone minds.

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.

Yeah, you're right. I suppose that it would be foolish to assume that somthing that is illogical by definition can be logically explained.

Of course, since God is outside of the sensory realm, why the fuck should we bother with him?

I still maintain that belief in God(s) is illogical.

im trying to prove that god can neither be proven nor disproven.

I agree. That's what led to my becoming an athiest.

I was basically agnostic with athiestic leanings (didn't believe in an afterlife or soul, rejected religion, etc) ever since I began thinking about such things. But I rather looked down on athiesm, thinking that saying "God dosen't exist" was as much of a logical leap as saying "God does exist".

Then I started an online debate on agnosticism, geometric axioms and religious faith (long story). Eventually I came to the conclusion that, while we may never be sure that God does or doesen't exist, we can be sure that belief in God is illogical.

Thus my athiesm.

Elkimlaw:

.... 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.

So you think it is right, ethical and logical to worship such a, er, "master"?

Your dear "master" allows innocent children to die incredibly horrible deaths.

Methinks you ought to learn to take care of yourself rather than relying on such an evil "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.

Umm, Elkimlaw, I'd advise you to study the disorder a little before pronouncing it man-made.

It is not. It is a randomly occuring harmful mutation.

Its probably no consolation for the families, but 'God' does love children, and so does its son Jesus.

God loves children so much he allows them to die in the most painfull manner before they reach the age of two?

Huh?

What about famine? What about the children who died during the Holocaust? What about the children who were slaughtered by the Crusaders?

A loving, omnipotent God allows this?

 

[Tyler]

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

For the love of god (no pun intended) how is this arguement stil lbelieved? This one should have died out about 4000 years ago.

You say there is not one thing in existence that can come from nothing. Therefore, any 10 year old can logically conclude that God (which is a thing) must have come from something. And that something must have come from something......

Do you see the major fucking problem in your logic? And if you say God is infinite, well, why do you need god? Why can't the Universe just be infinite?


Uber: Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to write this all down, it's been very interesting to read.


Amp;

"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."

Pointless. You can't say God did a good thing because the child is in heaven. The child may be amazingly happy but the big man is putting every member of his/her family through hell. One for like 10+ does not seem like a good trade, if you ask me.



Xev;

"Thank you. I agree with Nietzsche:
"Not with wrath, but by laughter does one kill" "

Um, hun......
I tihnk you're falling love with Freddy!




On the nature of God being loving....
God is not loving. Picture yourself sitting with your kid in a park. A large man in a trenchcoat comes up to your child and you hear him ask your child to get in his car. Your child, being the ignorant and uneducated little kid that he is becomes curious and begins to enter the car. A parent even remotly loving to the child would jump up and do everything possible to prevent the child from entering the car. A cold, disgusting, pathetic and heartless parent could easily sit back and say 'eh, it's his life, let him live it, let him make his own mistakes'.

Theists will often refute that God wishes to give us free will and therefore will not interfeer. First of all, the idea of a being which is omnipotent (and all the other omni's) obviously eliminates free will as it means the future is destined to happen in a certain way. But, that's not important. The idea that a loving god would choose to see humans make their own mistakes and kill hundreds of millions of their own in horrible, horrible ways over interfeering for a minute and saving some lives definetly shows how 'loving' your god is. Finally, I find it interesting that your god was more than happy to interfeer in many, many things (some of which are amazingly small compared to more recent tragedies) during Biblical times; but since people have become a little more intelligent and started to see what nonsense the idea of god is he hasn't had the guts to show his face.



By the way, I do note that I refered to god as a 'he' in my statements and use it only out of habit. In no way am I insinuating that in the off chance god is real it would be a male.

 

[Amp]

Xev, I posted that not Elkimlaw,

I won't debate, there are many horrible deaths. Yes, its a genetic disorder. Being atheistic I'm sure your an expert on morality and ethics. So, I cannot debate that with you either. I cannot presume to know 'Gods' thoughts or reasons, but yes people even children die untimely which is tragic. When did athe medical community start keeping stats on the deaths caused by Tay-Sachs? I won't go into the native americans that suffered untimely deaths, or their children(refering to your reference to the holocaust). Mans inhumanity to man is well documented. The point Xev is just as humans will say the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few(which isn't how it actually is) 'God' allows humans to do things our way, the only way I think 'God' will or would step in is if we were about to obliterate our entire species. I will ask 'God' in prayer why? But I think I know the answer.

 

[Avatar]

Um, hun......
I tihnk you're falling love with Freddy!

we both are I'm rereading "Thus spoke Zarathustra" now.

 

[Xev]

Tyler:

Um, hun......
I tihnk you're falling love with Freddy!

NOOOOO!

Besides, he's dead.

Amp: Sorry about the name.

The point Xev is just as humans will say the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few(which isn't how it actually is) 'God' allows humans to do things our way, the only way I think 'God' will or would step in is if we were about to obliterate our entire species. I will ask 'God' in prayer why? But I think I know the answer.

Does not seem very "loving" to me.

Avatar:

we both are I'm rereading "Thus spoke Zarathustra" now.

Geneology of Morals here!

 

[Amp]

Tyler, a thing which just is infinite.

'God' always was, is and continues to be. Time was not and 'God' was. None of that is relavant to you methinks. And you guys can pronounce moral judgements on 'God' if you want to, I know 'God' does care about children. Why should I tell you how you would not believe me either way or you would give an alternative explanation which fits your belief system. Ripley.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by ubermich
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.

I don't see that you've proven your assumptions. One may decide to try and prove X without any emotional bias what-so-ever. I've done so myself on numerous occasions to find if a hypothesis is logically valid or not without any emotional bias other than, perhaps, curiosity. And, as I mentioned, assumptions are not allowed.

Now you may argue a pervasive bias due to the nature of the Universe but, as I mentioned, I fail to see the point to this. One may posit and prove literally anything given the premise of an alternate reality. I can posit the existence of a Universe where matter is comprised entirely of gumdrops and you have no means with which to refute me. Fantasy at best, pointless drivel to debate upon.

but it doesnt for the metaphysical. my alternative to that? dont try to prove the metaphysical.

Then why bother even mentioning it? Where comes the assertion of truth?

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.

Okay then, prove that logic does not work outside the Universe.

you know his limitations, as you know logics limitations. im only proving logic, within the confines of accepted logic, cannot prove the metaphysical.

Your analogy assumes knowledge of the task in question. Likewise you assume that metaphysical phenomena is inherently illogical, which wraps your argument up in a nice little improvable and contains the unproven assumption that the incompatibility of logic and metaphysics is a failure of logic to prove the truth of metaphysics rather than the simple possibility that metaphysical phenomena do not exist except as imaginary concepts.

Again, I fail to see the point in asserting an unprovable concept as truth. Further, defining God by this concept places him outside reality with no ability to interact with our reality. Any interaction would necessitate that God become part of "our three dimensional world" at least for the purpose of that interaction. A concept which you are refuting.

~Raithere

 

[Amp]

Raithere,

There is a fragment of 'God' in all of us. So, in a sense 'God' has become part of our 3-D, as we are part of its n-D or what ever spirit is. Funny thing though a fragment of infinite which is finite or is the fragment infinite too?

 

[Tyler]

"'God' always was, is and continues to be. Time was not and 'God' was. None of that is relavant to you methinks. And you guys can pronounce moral judgements on 'God' if you want to, I know 'God' does care about children. Why should I tell you how you would not believe me either way or you would give an alternative explanation which fits your belief system. Ripley."

Again I say, god is pointless in the equation. What you conclude is that there can be a supernatural being exist infinitely but not matter without a supernatural being. Your logic is flawed. It's like saying X + Y = 14 and Y can be 10 but X can't be. To put it in simlpistic terms.

 

[Amp]

Really? Hows that?

To say 'God' always was, isn't provable by humans nor is it disprovable. 'God' created time along with space, same prob.
'God' is spirit, you can't prove or disprove. Spirit is the template on which reality is based, well?

 

[Tyler]

You did not address my post in any way. All you did was say God is God therefore God is God.

"To say 'God' always was, isn't provable by humans nor is it disprovable"
God itself is not provable.


"'God' created time along with space, same prob."
First of all, you erase the definition of time by saying this. By definition of the word 'time' any action takes up 'time' to happen.



Again I maintain that the 'nothing from nothing' arguement proves exactly nothing except that the debater is a brainless idiot.

 

[Avatar]

and I say tht you are a death angel created aeons ago, to be the doomsday judge of humankind. the bloodthirsty killer of heavens. and don't tell me tht I' m wrong. you can't disprove me. you see , we have to use our logic. If you go hiking you don't take your sink with you. If you wan't to understand universe, god is not necessary. it/he/she would only slow you down, just like the sink

Xev---
"About the pale criminal" here (trnsl frm Latvian)

 

[ubermich]

ah, as with all interesting threads this one has split up into several different arguments.

to raithere,

I don't see that you've proven your assumptions. One may decide to try and prove X without any emotional bias what-so-ever. I've done so myself on numerous occasions to find if a hypothesis is logically valid or not without any emotional bias other than, perhaps, curiosity. And, as I mentioned, assumptions are not allowed.

yes, and on those numerous occassions you were being curious, you were "discovering," as i mentioned earlier. you've said nothing to refute my distinction between pure, discovery-logic (of which every example you've given belongs to) and need-based/emotional logic.

Now you may argue a pervasive bias due to the nature of the Universe but, as I mentioned, I fail to see the point to this. One may posit and prove literally anything given the premise of an alternate reality. I can posit the existence of a Universe where matter is comprised entirely of gumdrops and you have no means with which to refute me. Fantasy at best, pointless drivel to debate upon.

what foo'? where in my original posts did you interpret me assuming god existed. the only thing i assumed (and ill admit it) is that people can focus from emotional/need assumptions, and no right-minded, "sane" person can refute that. you do it all the time, like xev pointed out, in mathematical proofs. im trying to prove that such a "universe made entirely of gumdrops" or such a "god" cant be proven using A to B to C logic.

but it doesnt for the metaphysical. my alternative to that? dont try to prove the metaphysical.

Then why bother even mentioning it? Where comes the assertion of truth?

??? ??? i dont know if you're missing my point: but you just said it: shut up ya religious freaks, cuz god can't be known.

Okay then, prove that logic does not work outside the Universe.

like you said, does it matter? and if you noticed, my original post straight-up challenged the conventional, reflexive response of "but logic works on this world, so why shouldn't it work outside this world?" if you're trying to make me prove that it DOES work outside this world, that has nothing to do with god, and we wouldn't care anyway. even if it were true, that still wouldn't prove the existence of god or his knowability. but for the sake of argument, lets say logic is a platonic form that we've just bastardized. can you refute that? no.

Your analogy assumes knowledge of the task in question. Likewise you assume that metaphysical phenomena is inherently illogical, which wraps your argument up in a nice little improvable and contains the unproven assumption that the incompatibility of logic and metaphysics is a failure of logic to prove the truth of metaphysics rather than the simple possibility that metaphysical phenomena do not exist except as imaginary concepts.

yes, my analogy does assume knowledge of the task in question. my "task" im addressing is analogous to "logic." if you want to say we cant know logic even as it exists in our plane of existence, then i dont think you should be here either. and i do not assume the metaphysical to be illogical, only god to be. and if you followed from my original argument, that stems from the conclusion that god, were he logical, would not be unlimited and omnipotent. and for my "nice little package" assumption, theres one major flaw in your positing "the simple possibility that metaphysical phenomena do not exist as imaginary concepts." what are you saying? god does not exist? or he's made of matter? if you're saying he doesn't exist then you're just as assumptive as the religious fanatics and myself. who said nonexistence is more simple than existence? occaM? how did he come up with that? through experience. and is his experience representative of the metaphysical? um . . . NO! and if you're saying god is made of matter . . . (*shakes head and trails off. )

Again, I fail to see the point in asserting an unprovable concept as truth. Further, defining God by this concept places him outside reality with no ability to interact with our reality. Any interaction would necessitate that God become part of "our three dimensional world" at least for the purpose of that interaction. A concept which you are refuting.

WHATS WRONG WITH THAT? the only potentially disastrous logical implication youre criticizing is that im saying god cannot affect us. prove that he does.

 

[ubermich]

to firefly,

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

youre right, he did try to prove god. and philosophy has since torn that shit up, and thats why we only remember him for his third meditation cogito ergo sum, because its a watertight conclusion based on logical discovery.

What about constant conjuncton? I think that works.

sorry, dude. but im not familiar with humean terms. i just read some cursory material on him and decided he was crap. i think it was the jejune belief/memory/conception distinctions he made that turned me off. but if this constant conjunction refers to what i think it means (it sounds like it refers to time/experience relation to causation) then thats still not logical, in the purest sense of the term. hume's causation, from my rudimentary knowledge of it, was very a posteriori experiential with a few dabs of logic thrown in for fun. and in any case, regardless of whether that experientially based logic is tenable, it has nothing to do with a proof about god. like i said in my original post, logic CAN work in our limited earth dimension, but we cant prove it works on the metaphysical scale. metaphysical knowledge stems from kant's synthetic a priori, vastly different from the humean causation (this world type) knowledge you're referring to.

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.

how so? logic isn't of this world and neither is god

when i said "qualifying," i mean "qualifying" in a negative sense. negation. so i mean the opposite of the statement i was qualifying. i do believe that logic can work (partly) in this world, but cannot work on god FROM WITHIN THIS WORLD because he is not of it.

 

[ubermich]

now for the non-refutive posts:

tyler:

Uber: Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to write this all down, it's been very interesting to read.

*bows. i hope youll share youre revelations with me when youre nodding off in church too.

Do you see the major fucking problem in your logic? And if you say God is infinite, well, why do you need god? Why can't the Universe just be infinite?

true, true, true. another assumption that philosophers like aquinas and berkeley fall into. thats exactly what i was talking about. you know these guys are great philosophers, theyre fucking classics. but when it comes to god, they want to believe, theres that burning "faith" inside of them that's looking for a logical reason to believe. so they make little leaps in their arguments, paper mache them over, and hope no one notices. like all those crap cosmological/teleological arguments talking about "there has to be a first cause." what?? why?

I find it interesting that your god was more than happy to interfeer in many, many things (some of which are amazingly small compared to more recent tragedies) during Biblical times; but since people have become a little more intelligent and started to see what nonsense the idea of god is he hasn't had the guts to show his face.

*rofl with you.
thats so fucking eloquent, like bill hicks during an x downer. where's god for his chosen people now? eating popcorn in front of the bigscreen, watching poor little palestinian suicide bombers pickin' 'em off, one by one, that's where.
to amp:

the only way I think 'God' will or would step in is if we were about to obliterate our entire species. I will ask 'God' in prayer why? But I think I know the answer.

yeah, because god would be like, "shit, my patented 'pay-per-death' entertainment systems about to self-destruct. yo seth (archangel dude,) go take out those suckers about to nuke NY, we cant have no world war III or else what the fuck am i supposed to do for the next millenium, have sex with you sexless angels? shit!"

There is a fragment of 'God' in all of us. So, in a sense 'God' has become part of our 3-D, as we are part of its n-D or what ever spirit is.

*rolls eyes. no offense amp, i think youre a good guy and all, but this kinda stuff from religious people just irks the shit out of me. how do you know god exists in all of us? because some catechism book told you? or because some pastor/fanatic wanted to create a way for god to be part of our lives, so we wouldn't get pissed that he left us on this rock to die? in any case, its propaganda.

 

[ubermich]

to xev

I was basically agnostic with athiestic leanings (didn't believe in an afterlife or soul, rejected religion, etc) ever since I began thinking about such things. But I rather looked down on athiesm, thinking that saying "God dosen't exist" was as much of a logical leap as saying "God does exist".
Then I started an online debate on agnosticism, geometric axioms and religious faith (long story). Eventually I came to the conclusion that, while we may never be sure that God does or doesen't exist, we can be sure that belief in God is illogical.
Thus my athiesm.

christ, i dont know if you realize the profound implications of what you're saying (and i guess im patronizing you to believe that you don't) but thats pretty fucking amazing. i could go on for hours about what you just described, not just in the context of god, but in the context of any god: religion as an organization, society, love, the self. what im talking about is that you realize atheism is just as assumptive as theism, yet you are still atheist. in a very condensed nutshell, that amounts to the glorification of the individual, his resolve, over logic. you know that you're living a lie yet you still embrace it. "lying to onself" if you prefer the negative connotation. you can disagree with me and recoil and deny it, but i think that if you agree you're ultimately on the way to becoming nietszche's ubermich. not that nietzsche was an enemy of logic, but i think he was a greater advocate of the the glorification of the soul, by hook or by crook, rather than any systematic, rational philosophy on ethics. (this, by the way, ties into sado-masochism like you said you wanted to know.)

 

[Tyler]

Being an atheist, ubermich, first of all does not necessarily mean you deny the chance of a god. Atheism to me means that I see no reason to believe in a god. Believing in god is not the natural state of believing. We are not born believing in Christ. We learn it. Take it like a court case. You are naturally believed to be innocent. Someone claims you are guilty, they must prove it.

I am not naturally theistic. Someone claims god exists (a specific one, even worse), they must prove it.

Logical conclusion. I don't believe there is no possibility of a god. I just don't concern myself with it because there's no proof of one.

 

[Xev]

Umm, thanks, I suppose it is a compliment to be told that one is crossing the bridge but.......

I do not think that I am being illogical in my athiesm. You see, I do not deny the possibility of a God(s).

However, let me put it this way:

Theism claims that a God exists.
Yet there is no evidence for this claim.
It is irrational to believe somthing for which there is no evidence.
Therfore, it is irrational to believe in God.

Now, you may be right. I am illogical when it comes to my ethical system - I know damned well that it is illogical and stupid to believe in honour as its own reward, in living ethically.....

Yet I do so anyways. Rather bloody stupid of me. It's nice to be compared to the ubermensh, but I'm more a rationalist-existentialist (don't ask) than a Nietzshean.

Thank you. Interesting post, especially the comparison of Nietzshe and sado-masochism. I suppose that it also ties in with the use and expression of power.....especially as our Christian posters seem much enchanted with the notion of Xev being, er, trapped in bondage to whatever demons of athiesm they believe in. The simularity of the language is odd.

But we know what Freddy thought of Christianity, eh? A perversion of the will to power. A glorification of weakness.

Now I am rambling. Much to think about. Thanks.

Edit to clarify babble.

 

[Cris]

Xev,

Now, you may be right. I am illogical when it comes to my ethical system - I know damned well that it is illogical and stupid to believe in honour as its own reward, in living ethically.....

Yet I do so anyways. Rather bloody stupid of me.

Xev, why do you doubt yourself in this way? Ethical and honorable conduct pay off big time in many varied ways. First it gives you peace of mind and a satisfaction of knowing you have done right. It might cost you financially short term but long-term personal health happiness is more important. But secondly if people know you have those traits then you are likely to have friends, companions and respect. All these results go towards supporting a healthy long life, and personal happiness. That is the best form of logic and justification of atheist morality that one could ever realize.

Does that make sense?
Cris

 

[Xev]

Cris:

Yes it IS!

"To first refrain from harming others without cause or consent.
To protect the weak, and to render what assistance you can to those who need or desire it, yet not revel in their weakness. To seek to improve oneself, and to keep an open mind to one's faults. To control oneself with the aforementioned reason, logic and skepticism. This is often the greatest battle. To fight against injustince, and not to cringe before the expression of power. One in fact will accumulate power in this way, but not a power of the regular sort.

For such a life no recompense is given, it must be desired simply for what it is. It is its own reward."

A tentative moral system. Actually, it is how I try to live.

I cannot justify it logically.

It gives me pleasure? Sure, why the fuck not? I'm moral because I'm egotistical.

But frankly, what logical reason is there for feeling pleasure from being moral?

I know I am not being logical. I've tried to put this on a logical footing many times, but it always falls apart.

Xev, why do you doubt yourself in this way?

Because I doubt everything, and first of all I doubt myself.