Show of HandsShow of Hands

HayleyS February 3rd, 2014 4:11am

Inspired by a The Five w/ Jive episode with Drooski: Do logic and theism conflict?

32 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

jalapeno verdadero
02/06/14 12:45 am

Unless god is limited by physics, yes. Or by laws which he/she/it/they would have made.

Skarface Banned
02/03/14 10:41 pm

Every theistic religion has large parts that conflict heavily with logic.

Reply
Think Lovin Life
02/03/14 11:16 pm

Athe discrepancies are caused by our interpretation or understanding.

Fascinatingly, this is exactly the same reasons for the disconnects between science and logic.

Net ... the frailties of man get in our way.

Think Lovin Life
02/03/14 11:18 pm

It is silly (and frankly lazy) to point to discrepancies in either science or theology and suggest that they discredit either.

Our understanding continues to evolve on both topics. As we draw closer to God and science, we learn more about both!

trav Instagram, travisdover
02/03/14 11:35 pm

Think, we don't learn more about God. He is unknowable. We can only learn more about science.

Think Lovin Life
02/04/14 4:16 am

Trav ... that's simply not true. How ridiculous would it be of I said that science is unknowable? How do your learn about science? How Michael time have you invested? What about experiments, have conducted any scientific experiments?

trav Instagram, travisdover
02/04/14 6:36 am

I don't know what Michael time is.

Can I change the topic?

I want to know why you don't support welfare. Christian principles teach us to give to the needy. Yet Christian Republicans like yourself don't believe in welfare. Can you explain that?

trav Instagram, travisdover
02/03/14 9:02 pm

At this point, the lacking evidence needed to explain God is greater than the evidence to prove He exists.
i.e. Where did God come from?

Therefore, I would say theism is illogical.

Think Lovin Life
02/03/14 11:21 pm

Trav ... You are entitled to believe what you will, however that belief does not change the absolute truth.

There was a time when you could have thought that the sun revolved around the earth, but that is completely independent from the fact.

trav Instagram, travisdover
02/03/14 11:31 pm

Right Think, no one can see the absolute truth. We can only see the evidence that suggests different truths.

And yes, what we think we know changes.

For example, it would have been logical to believe in God 200 years ago.

Think Lovin Life
02/03/14 11:35 pm

Trav ... yep, and logical to believe in God today as well.

trav Instagram, travisdover
02/03/14 11:43 pm

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Science can now explain how life began and how this replicating protein evolved into humans. How would God further explain phenomena?

He isn't needed anymore. He's an extra variable that no longer fits.

Think Lovin Life
02/03/14 11:51 pm

Trav ... it appears that you've fallen into the Flat Earth Society's trap!

They thought they knew everything there was to know on the subject. We now look back and smile at their short-sighted reliance on the evolution of their knowledge.

Think Lovin Life
02/03/14 11:54 pm

Trav ... what we now know about the beginning of life is FAR from definitive.

Our current view inspires FAR more questions than it answers, proving that now, more than ever, there is need to believe and seek knowledge, the source of which is God.

trav Instagram, travisdover
02/04/14 12:04 am

Think, I haven't fallen into any trap. I'm sure I know more about the beginning of life than you. I studied it in college.

Like I agreed with you before, we don't know everything. I hope your belief in God provides you with solace.

Think Lovin Life
02/04/14 4:03 am

Trav ... glad to hear! Please don't presume you know more just because you took a few classes. I'm sure you'll agree that there are lots of folks who mistake learning for wisdom.

As we have compared curricula or experiences, beware of assumptions!

trav Instagram, travisdover
02/04/14 6:22 am

Actually we haven't compared curricula or experiences. How do you know what you know about the origin of life?

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 2:39 pm

Not remotely. (Unless you are using "theism" in the specific form, by which you refer to a belief in a god who exists, but does nothing else.)

Rocker saved by grace
02/03/14 11:33 am

I don't think so. Much of the Bible is very logical.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 12:18 pm

Which bible?

Rocker saved by grace
02/03/14 1:33 pm

The only Bible. The Holy Bible. Authored by the almighty.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:58 pm

Whose holy bible? Whose almighty? There are more than one.

Rocker saved by grace
02/03/14 2:01 pm

There is only one or else He wouldn't be "almighty." The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You know me too well to think that I may be talking about something else.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 2:03 pm

There are at least two different bibles about the god of Isaac and Jacob, and three about the god of Abraham.

I'm pointing out that asserting your beliefs as presumptively correct is an ending point, not a starting point, for discussion.

Rocker saved by grace
02/03/14 2:06 pm

I guess there are two, the real one (the Holy Bible with 66 books), then the adulterated Roman Catholic version. There are definitely different translations, but the same meaning.

Rocker saved by grace
02/03/14 2:08 pm

The question asked if my faith is logical, it is. It is not an opinion. That's like asking if 2+2=4. Although I'm sure some will disagree, it doesn't change whether or not it is true.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 2:10 pm

The question asked if logic and theism conflict. It didn't say anything about your specific religion.

You're also ignoring the Tanakh.

Rocker saved by grace
02/03/14 2:14 pm

Okay, thanks for the reminder, I don't have the feature that allows for me to see the question as I type my comments, yet. Yes, it would depend on the "religion." Some don't make any sense, but as far as Christianity goes, it seems logical to me.

DavesNotHere where am I
02/03/14 8:51 am

To me they do. Too much contradiction and inaccuracies and plagiarism.

kscott516 Show Time
02/03/14 7:35 am

The same crowd that says belief in God is illogical are the same ones that will argue that there are multiverses with every possible outcome playing out and say its true with a straight face.

Joshua77 Jesus is Lord
02/03/14 5:53 am

No, they are complementary.

Reply
skinner Wisconsin
02/03/14 4:18 am

No, they are by no means mutually exclusive

Reply
TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
02/03/14 3:16 am

Do song and dance conflict? Depends on the song. Depends on the dance. Depends on the perception of those watching.

Reply
Think Lovin Life
02/02/14 11:14 pm

Theism is the perfect explanation for the logically/scientifically unexplainable. They only deviation between science/logic and Theism is where the understanding of science/logic has not evolved to match what we know Theologically.

Reply
kermie gaytopia
02/02/14 10:28 pm

I think so, based on my own experience. I guess I can't speak for everyone because logic and theism both have very broad interpretations for people.

Reply
talbotfarwell Appalachia
02/02/14 9:57 pm

No: See St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and look up Christian Neoplatonism. The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of logic-based theology and apologetics. The Eastern Orthodox Church is more spiritual, but is still rooted in Neoplatonism.

Reply
Praetorianus Fair enough.
02/02/14 10:30 pm

You can use logic to conclude if the premises are all true, but the axiom of theism is "God exists", and if this should not be true, all conclusions are invalid.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
02/02/14 9:46 pm

I think yes, faith and logic are contradictory since logic is based on facts, not faith. I don't need to "believe" that if A implies B, and A is true, so is B. This doesn't go for DEISM, since it doesn't really require faith, let alone worship.

Reply
EngrNate CA Conservative
02/02/14 9:53 pm

The most synonemous word for "faith" is "trust." Trust, like faith, is only as good as reasons we have for exercising it. Likewise, belief without reason is misplaced.

TrogdorORL n dimensional
02/04/14 6:53 pm

This might be a tad nit picky, but logic is not based on facts. It's based on axioms we hold to be true. Nuanced difference
That's why some people's logic is terrible and others more grounded

EngrNate CA Conservative
02/04/14 8:56 pm

Good point, Trogdor. You're absolutely colorectal that one can argue with flawless logic, but if the suppositions are wrong, logic won't get you to the right answer.

EngrNate CA Conservative
02/04/14 9:01 pm

That said, you are correct that the point is nitpicky. Outside of dedicated philosophers and logicians, what most people mean by "logical" is reasoning properly from truths or facts. Not exactly a textbook definition, but generally accepted.

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:39 pm

Dang it Hadley, I'm trying to study for a test here :c

HayleyS looking up.
02/02/14 9:40 pm

Not my problem sorry broski



:)

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 9:41 pm

You should've studied for it earlier ya big dummy.

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:49 pm

E, wtf are you doing? We sound nothing alike right now with your stupid comments on this thread.

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 9:54 pm

Ed, you're always way too moderate and pragmatic. Stop confusing people!

HayleyS looking up.
02/02/14 9:55 pm

You don't scare me anymore ^.^

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:57 pm

Hah, as scary as a puppy dog.

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 10:02 pm

Are we one or are we two? Are we many or are we few? Do we exist or are we figments of your imagination? You'll never know Hadley, never...

HayleyS looking up.
02/02/14 10:03 pm

I don't think you guys are the same person, but that's just me lol

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 10:04 pm

E, what the heck, I told you, idiot...

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 10:05 pm

Why don't you believe us Hadley? :(

HayleyS looking up.
02/02/14 10:07 pm

Lol unless you're freaking good at creating two entirely different personas, you are just too different.

But hey, maybe you have multiple personalities or something haha

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 10:08 pm

I've been told I'm good at many things...

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 10:10 pm

I was talking about accounting you freaking pervert

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 10:12 pm

I like to think that MrEdhwin represents stupidity, pragmatism, and acceptance of the status quo while I represent the rejection of all those things.

HayleyS looking up.
02/02/14 10:13 pm

Represents stupidity? Hahaha

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 10:13 pm

Don't worry Ed. I get enough for the both of us ;)

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 10:16 pm

Screw you too jerk

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 10:19 pm

Don't forget that Ed uses his app to be social. I think that's pointless. I use this app to facilitate thought.

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 10:21 pm

Alright, I'm going to give it a rest. I have to go study for a big test...

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 10:24 pm

I used to debate more on this app, then I got tired of having the same arguments

MJSeals Legal Eagle soon
02/02/14 9:33 pm

Faith is illogical?

Cole12 ...
02/02/14 10:01 pm

Believing something wholeheartedly without any real evidence whatsoever is definitely illogical. I wish I could say this in a nicer way, but I can't...haha.

osouless Whats Next
02/02/14 9:27 pm

Extremely. A vulcan would take one look at a religion and be unable to utter any other syllables other than "Illogical".

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/02/14 9:27 pm

Logic and Christianity certainly conflict just because of the built-in inconsistencies. Logic doesn't like inconsistencies. Logic isn't big on a thing with no beginning and no end either. Can the all-powerful make a rock so big he can't lift it?

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/02/14 9:28 pm

And logically still be all-powerful if he fails at either? Logic hates conundrums.

EngrNate CA Conservative
02/02/14 9:58 pm

You mistake the nature of omnipotence.

curly
02/02/14 10:16 pm

What seems illogical to me, is the assertion that an infinite and all-powerful being is in fact limited because of its inability to limit itself. That's circular logic - a logical fallacy - at its worst.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/02/14 10:27 pm

Can the mystery being create a thing it itself cannot create? Bottom line is the answer to this question. It isn't a matter of understanding, it's that the concept of "all powerful" fails, logically. I can do anything, uhh, but not that. Fail.

EngrNate CA Conservative
02/02/14 10:28 pm

You ckearly don't understand the Christsin doctrine of omnipotence, and thus, you are arguing against a false view of God.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/02/14 10:31 pm

And curly nobody said it couldn't limit itself. The question is can it do both at the same time, logically? The illogical playground answer to the logical question is: "Of course I could, but I don't want to." Fail.

curly
02/02/14 10:36 pm

That makes no sense. To be all-powerful would to mean to have the power to do all things, correct? So you're saying the lack of creating an impossible task makes the being not all-powerful? If anything, that is further proof of omnipotence.

curly
02/02/14 10:38 pm

If it can limit itself then it isn't limitless. If it is limitless, than it cannot be limited. To say that it cannot limit itself is not itself a limitation, it is itself the defining characteristic of being limitless.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/02/14 10:49 pm

Most of what you just said supports my assertion that logic fails. As you said, it does not make sense. That isn't a bad thing and doesn't change the faith people have, my point is only that it cannot be resolved logically.

curly
02/02/14 10:53 pm

Haha, Zod I was saying that your proof makes no sense. Let's talk in non ambiguous terms. So I say God is omnipotent - nothing is impossible for God. You say, "God can't make an impossible task" or, "he can't make a riddle even he can't solve." Well

Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/02/14 10:54 pm

Most faiths give up at trying to explain the beginning. Many have something like Genesis, a creation story, that asserts God always existed and always will. Without beginning and without end. So could this all-powerful God change that?

curly
02/02/14 10:56 pm

of course he can't! Because nothing is impossible. The lack of the ability to limit your own power is NOT a proof that you are in fact not all-powerful. On the contrary, It is a requisite of being all-powerful.

EngrNate CA Conservative
02/02/14 10:58 pm

Sorry, both of you, but the Christian doctrine of omnipotence is NOT that God can do anything.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/02/14 11:03 pm

It may be requisite for being all powerful, but it is also proof that being all powerful cannot be supported by logic. You can get to "pretty powerful" but you can't get to powerful enough to be two opposite things simultaneously.

curly
02/02/14 11:06 pm

Well I would love to talk to you about that sometime, Nate. However I'm more trying to show the inconsistency with this thinking more than anything. "Can God create a rock even he can't lift?" There are many deviations, but they're all illogical.

curly
02/02/14 11:10 pm

Who is arguing for two opposite things simultaneously?

Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/02/14 11:23 pm

The simple definition of "omnipotent" creates a contradiction where logic fails. Aquinas solves the contradiction by taking the "omni" out of "omnipotent". That isn't a logical solution, it's a semantic solution. Logic remains unimpressed.

EngrNate CA Conservative
02/02/14 11:33 pm

I understand what you're doing, Curly, just not why your doing it. Since no one, not Christians, not atheists, not anyone in between, believes in the doctrine of omnipotence as defined by Zod, what's the point?

Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/02/14 11:35 pm

I am, only to point out that any claim to a truly omnipotent God fails logically.

EngrNate CA Conservative
02/02/14 11:41 pm

You're confusing power with ability. Most people do when trying to discuss this issue.

I wish I had more time to talk tonight, I saw this one too late, unfortunately, but I have to rise very early tomorrow. I'm sure I'll see you around the forums.

curly
02/02/14 11:55 pm

The reasoning of your view still escapes me, Zod. From my perspective, it is you who is arguing semantics, with contradictory definitions. I like C.S. Lewis' view on the subject: the Q makes as little sense as asking, "Can God draw a square circle?"

curly
02/02/14 11:59 pm

Nate, I understand your point - at this point this is just a en exercise in logic, not theology. What I believe personally is that God is limited by His nature, that is, being perfectly holy, just, benevolent etc. love to hear your view sometime tho.

MJSeals Legal Eagle soon
02/02/14 9:18 pm

It is illogical to say defensively either way on the existence of God because you cannot prove it either way

Reply
Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:19 pm

Same with the fact/idea of a teapot orbiting a planet deep out in space

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:20 pm

That's possible

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:20 pm

Or that my computer isn't the one true god
You usually throw out insane claims that have nothing backing them up other than word of mouth

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:21 pm

We acknowledge that it's possible, yes, but we don't go around changing lives and dictating laws based on that crazy possibility, like sharia law

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:22 pm

I think Statek is just generalizing everyone into one category.

Shut up E, you're dumb.

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:25 pm

Generalizing everybody who believes in a god into the category of believing in a god? Well yeah..

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:27 pm

No, you're generalizing that everyone who believes in God tries to dictate how everyone lives.

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:28 pm

No, I'm giving an example of how it's screwing up the world
Does it matter that it's not the vast majority? No, but how many terrorist attacks and genocides are you gonna let past you before you start getting pissed?

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:34 pm

You're going all over the place here.

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:35 pm

Kinda, but it's all consistent

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:38 pm

Not kinda, you are. You're just making claim after claim that everyone who believes in God is going to try to tell you how to live and commit genocides, which is obviously not true. A few bad apples ruin the bunch of suppose.

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:40 pm

And now you're making up stuff that I never said :P

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:42 pm

And yeah, a few bad apples ruin the bunch, so why let the apples go bad? Take away the instructions/bacteria-etc (religious text) that tells them to go bad and the bunch is a lot better off

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:46 pm

Lol, removing religious texts would do nothing in making the world a better place, bad people will still be bad.

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:52 pm

Eh, areas of lesser religious affiliations have lower crime rates and higher test scores, compared to your higher areas like in the Middle East..

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:59 pm

Yeah, I can make stats say whatever I want too.

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:17 pm

Guess my comment didn't post?
No, they don't. They can, if you use religion as a crutch. But that's far from them being incapable of compatibility.

Reply
HayleyS looking up.
02/02/14 9:18 pm

I closed the other one due to a grammatical error. I apologize :)

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:20 pm

Oh okay! I thought my phone messed up.

MJSeals Legal Eagle soon
02/02/14 9:33 pm

Hayley it's too late for arguments...and on Super Bowl Sunday!!

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:15 pm

No. Logic is basically like math. It's just a set of rules for evaluating propositions. The quality of the output is determined by the quality of the input. So something can be perfectly logical but still untrue.

Reply
DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:14 pm

Yes, logically you wouldn't believe in something without evidence.

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:16 pm

Technically, someone reporting meeting a god (so pick your favorite religious text) is evidence. It isn't conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.

MJSeals Legal Eagle soon
02/02/14 9:19 pm

Yes you can. It's called Faith.

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 9:20 pm

Faith is illogical.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:21 pm

How are you defining "faith," MisterE?

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:23 pm

How exactly is it illogical?

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 9:24 pm

Trust or belief without legitimate evidence.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:24 pm

Faith is believing something despite there being no evidence for it. Faith is essentially the suspension of logic.

MJSeals Legal Eagle soon
02/02/14 9:25 pm

But you have faith there is no God because their is no evidence that he does not exist

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:25 pm

But then you're making judgments in the definition of the word. What makes evidence "legitimate"? I'm not trying to be difficult; I just think that it is too easy to say that theism is inherently illogical just bc so many uses of it are unjustified.

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:26 pm

There is also no evidence that I am not a god in disguise
Why don't you have faith in me?

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:27 pm

Again, it's incorrect to say there is "no" evidence, Deus. It sounds like MisterE is saying that the evidence there is is illegitimate, so I am trying to draw out how we determine evidentiary legitimacy.

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:28 pm

E- you not considering it legitimate doesn't make it illogical.
Deus- how exactly is it the suspension of logic? (which isn't inherently illogical, by the way)

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:29 pm

I have the same amount of faith that no god exists that I do unicorns, leprechauns, and middle earth don't exist. No faith is required for atheism since it is a default position.

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:30 pm

Why do you claim it's default? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back up that claim? Or do you simply assume?

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:31 pm

The evidence for a person believing they interacted with a deity is completely subjective with no way to verify this.

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:32 pm

Let me give another example that you should be able to understand
What is your stance on this, "My dog is a god"?
Obviously your default stance is not believing it, or else you would go around believing everything you heard

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 9:32 pm

The only evidence is testimonial. Just because someone said it happened doesn't mean it actually happened.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:33 pm

Atheism is default because if no one came up with the idea of a deity than everyone would be a theist. Do you believe in the snuffleuplous? you've never heard of it? that makes you an asnuffleuplous.

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:33 pm

You can go ahead and believe your dog is a God, I won't judge you.

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 9:34 pm

Exactly. The burden of proof is placed on the one who is making the claim.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:37 pm

Who's to say your dog isn't a god? How do you define "god"? How do you define "theism," for that matter?

I understand the point about making a claim and having the burden of defending it, but in the realm of philosophy it's a bit more complicated

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:37 pm

I'd be highly skeptical, and not knowing of something is very different from familiarity with the concept then rejecting it.
And there are certainly instances where belief had no apparent origins... any proof of your theory?

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:38 pm

than that. For instance, how do you "prove" that something is good or evil? How do you "prove" that consciousness, experience, your senses aren't all an illusion?

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:41 pm

Also, if atheism is default, how did faith even originate?

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:41 pm

A person who has never heard of a deity is an atheist. A person who has heard of a deity and rejects the idea is an atheist. Atheism is the default position. I don't believe I created a theory, so I don't understand the second part of your comment.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:44 pm

To say that anything is a "default position" is actually to make a lot of philosophical and psychological assumptions. How do you know that theists aren't born with a wholly different set of senses? You'd never have a way to compare.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:45 pm

I have no clue how faith originated, that would be something that one would consult their local anthropologist on.

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:47 pm

You keep making a claim but not backing it up. Repeating yourself without proving anything doesn't make it any truer.
And it's a simple question, really. If people won't come up with the concept of(a) god(s) on their own, how did the concept begin?

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:48 pm

But if you have no clue how it originated, then how can you implicitly claim that its origins lie in the development of belief be people who were previously atheists?

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:48 pm

The default position is to not believe in a qaugzar, no one has heard of a quagzar because I made it up. Thus the default position is to not believe in it because no one has heard of it in order to believe in it. A deity is the same, if no one had

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:49 pm

had ever heard of it than everyone would be an atheist. Thus atheism is the default position.

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:50 pm

Now your postulating on specific belief systems, not faith overall...

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:51 pm

Does something have to have a word or name attached to it on order to be believed? You seem to be suggesting that it does. Is that a claim that language is a prerequisite for belief, then?

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:55 pm

Faith has absolutely nothing to with my argument and is a red herring. Faith is illogical because by definition it suspends judgement and trusts emotion. And yes, I would suppose that language would be a prerequisite to theism since ideas can only be

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 9:55 pm

spread via language and writing and language predates writing.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:57 pm

But then forming any belief-state at all would require language. So the "default" state for human existence is ... Nothing - but this doesn't seem to square with what we know about human psychology. How do you create something out of nothing?

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 9:58 pm

And why do you say that faith is based on emotion? For that matter, why do you (implicitly) argue that emotion is inherently illogical? How does emotion have anything to so with logic at all? You can be emotional and logical at the same time.

MisterE Conservistan
02/02/14 9:58 pm

Bethany, stop using your lawyer skills. It's making my head hurt :)

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 10:00 pm

Very easily, from nothingness the only thing that can possibly happen is something.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 10:01 pm

Hahaha sorry MisterE - these are combined with my philosophy skills too, so I'm doubly annoying on this topic ;)

Deus, only in the technical literal sense that for anything to "happen" it must be something (i.e., "nothing" does not "happen").

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 10:03 pm

Bethany why am I even bothering to comment? ;)
I'll add, to have faith in nothing is ridiculous. Faith to some degree is integral to functioning. Faith there's no arsenic in your eggs, that you won't be fired when buying a car....

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 10:03 pm

Faith by definition is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Arguments from emotion are not logical because a logical argument does not base it's merits on what a person feels it bases its merits on observations and data.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 10:04 pm

What I'm asking is how "nothing" can result in "something." If the "default" state of human psychological is non-belief in anything, does belief then result from external imposition of "something" or from spontaneous creation of "something"?

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 10:05 pm

Observations and data are based on the five human senses, are they not? Those are "feelings" same as emotions.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 10:05 pm

Btw I appreciate the discussion. Making me think of things in some new ways. I'm enjoying it :)

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 10:08 pm

No, they are not the same. An emotion is different. I feel happy about a movie when you feel sad about it emotions are subjective while data is objective. Ideas do spontaneously occur in peoples minds, the brain is a hell of an organ.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 10:11 pm

So what I'm saying is that it's possible and possibly likely that a person was walking around thinking a couple thousand years ago when all of a sudden it happened! The reason the sun rises in the morning is because a god pulls it up! the Homo Sapien

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 10:12 pm

than promulgated this idea and that was the rise of the first theists.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 10:16 pm

And you're right Rosebud, faith in nothing is ridiculous! Have faith in your fellow human beings! but faith isn't logical despite it being a part of every day functioning.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 10:22 pm

Data aren't objective as soon as they are perceived by a human brain. Your brain is not objective. Your consciousness is not objective. As soon as you read the data, you've brought it into the realm of senses, which are subjective.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 10:34 pm

Data itself is objective, it's raw and unaltered. The way it's interoperated is subjective however.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 10:57 pm

"Data" are an expression of human observation, which is again observed in order to mean anything. "The particles traveled at x velocity" is datum, but even that recorded datum relies on human observation. Again, observation is inherently subjective.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/02/14 11:17 pm

I think we use subjective differently, the way that I'm using it means to be based upon personal feelings rather than facts. Data while observed is not based on my opinion or feelings.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 11:30 pm

I understand how you're using it. I'm just explaining that your understanding of objectivity is based on the incorrect assumption that it's possible to draw a clear line between things we perceive and things we "feel." They're all in our heads.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/02/14 11:32 pm

Things you "observe" filter through the same imperfect instrument that creates the personal feelings you find inferior to data. Even if facts exist in an objective form "out there," you can't access them any other way. See what I'm saying?

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 12:17 am

Yes I understand where you're coming from, but the fact that the earth is spherical, bacteria exist, and some birds fly are all objective truths that are data.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 12:23 am

As far as we know, yes. But the sentence you just wrote expressing those facts is not objective; your brain had to create it first. So even if the facts are objective, their expression isn't and can't be.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 12:36 am

This is where our differing definitions of the word objective and subjective differ. Because in my definition it can and is objective. I am subjective, but the facts I stated are objective despite me, a subjective being having typed them.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 12:48 am

My point is that you cannot state those facts objectively. When you state them, they are not objective because in order to be stated, they have had to be processed by your mind. It introduces the possibility of error. Whatever the objective fact "is"

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 12:48 am

out there in the world, you individually can never exactly know it objectively, because the act of "knowing" it or engaging the fact in any manner involves exercising your subjective consciousness.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 12:53 am

Lol, now this is just where we disagree. The sentence and the way I conveyed those facts was objective because it took no bias and had no opinion to it. This is where it would just make sense to agree to disagree because there's nothing left to

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 12:54 am

really argue or discuss. I honestly don't know how we managed to get to this from whether or not theism is logical.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:02 am

Objective/subjective isn't about "opinion" or "bias." It's a philosophical description of situated ness (or lack thereof). It's a key principle in epistemology, which is the relevant field when we're talking about justified beliefs. You brought us

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:04 am

into justificatory territory with your invocation of "evidence" as being connected to logic (technically, it isn't; logic is just math applied to language. To say something is logical is not to say it is true, but that it follows from its premises).

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 1:12 am

My understanding, the understanding that my anthropology teacher used/uses (assuming they're not dead.) and the definition found in the dictionaries that I have looked at of objective/subjective relate to directly to opinion, this I believe is the

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 1:15 am

same definition as most people use. Logic I don't believe to be the math of words, logic is using reasoning and critical thinking to determine what's true and what's not.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 1:16 am

So we're essentially arguing using two different languages.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:48 am

You're speaking in colloquial terms. I can't get behind using colloquial definitions of logic in service of making derogatory accusations against others, personally - which is in essence what we're doing if we say "theism" is "illogical."

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:49 am

I have a lot of respect for logic and critical thinking both, and neither is well served by being manipulated to prove oneself more "logical" than another, as though an important tool should be belittled to the point of serving as a badge of honor.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 1:54 am

I don't care whether or not one is more logical. But by definition one isn't logical, not being logical is not a bad thing necessarily, emotions aren't logical but someone who doesn't have them is a sociopath.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:58 am

I suppose better phrasing would have been that I object to the notion that a person is or is not "logical." Logic is a tool, not a personal characteristic. I dislike the colloquial bastardization of the word. Perhaps I should blame Roddenberry.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 2:02 am

Well I wouldn't pin logical or illogical as characteristics to a person, but I would pin it to certain beliefs. And you should write them about it :P

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 8:48 am

Yeah, but even beliefs aren't inherently logical or illogical. If you arrived at your conclusion in a logical manner from bad premises, there's no failure of logic. It's a failure of informational input.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 11:52 am

We can certainly drink to that. At one point theism was the best way to explain the world. Now however we can answer many different and new questions that have arisen. Now I'm somewhat conflicted, since faith is inherently illogical but the idea of a

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 12:13 pm

I agree that faith is unjustified only in the sense that you've written lack of justification into the definition. Belief isn't inherently justified or unjustified, though. The really interesting discussion IMO is on the question of what we even mean

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 12:15 pm

when we talk about "deity." In a very broad sense, if "deity" means nothing more than whatever is required to fill in the gaps in our current understanding, then we all believe in a "deity," automatically. Attributing features or characteristics to

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 12:16 pm

that deity - including personification; "deity" could simply mean, say, the "god" particle, or some other natural process that necessarily MUST exist because WE exist and we don't know why/how - is where we get into the evidentiary weight of any

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 12:19 pm

If we consider a deity to be in whatever we don't understand than it simply becomes god of the gaps which doesn't work. When I say deity I intend to mean a superior being with supernatural capabilities. I think that covers all of the gods from Greek

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 12:20 pm

to Hindu, to the Monotheistic religions. It is a somewhat vague definition however.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 12:22 pm

The definition that I just used is false, however and I just realized this because it would include demons, djiins, and dragons etc. so it's too vague.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
02/03/14 12:29 pm

I would add "at the top of the food chain" to my previous definition. But the Greeks had titans which were equal to if not more powerful than the gods so that doesn't include them properly...

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:20 pm

Hahaha, see, THIS is what I'm getting at. Obviously there is SOMETHING we don't understand, because, tautologically, we don't understand everything. But I find the line between "theism" and "atheism" to be treated as artificially clear. As you note,

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:21 pm

it's really tricky to pin down a clear and comprehensive definition of "deity" that is broad enough to encompass all possible theories without also capturing what we would probably consider to be atheist theories. This is why I consider myself

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:23 pm

ignostic. The entire conversation is really about a handful of RELIGIONS, not the overarching questions of how we got here, what "here" is, why we're here, if there's even a "why," etc. Rather than use labels that tend to divide, I prefer to have a

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/03/14 1:23 pm

discussion without getting derailed by the notion that "atheism" and "theism" are binary concepts. It's a spectrum at least, and even that doesn't quite capture it because it isn't a linear spectrum.

rlands
02/02/14 9:13 pm

No. We don't have any information right now, to my knowledge, that renders theism illogical.

Reply
Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:33 pm

We also don't have any evidence that there isn't a narwhal flying through space

rlands
02/02/14 9:39 pm

Sure. So you can't say the possibility of a narwhal is flying around space is illogical.

It may be unlikely (we've seen enough of space to be generalizable, and never seen a narwhal floating in it), but it doesn't go against logic.

Rosebud Ohio
02/02/14 9:40 pm

And we have no evidence you aren't a highly intelligent dog, statek. Not having irrefutable conclusive proof everyone accepts doesn't always mean much...

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:44 pm

Exactly, it means nothing
It's just an idea, a possibility without any reason to believe or reject it aside from the illogical chance of it being true

Statek Im from the Internet
02/02/14 9:45 pm

Day 174, they may be beginning to suspect the truth of my true canine form

rlands
02/02/14 9:45 pm

But it's not illogical. That's the thing. I think you're confusing unlikely with illogical.

MrLucchese If curious, ask.
02/02/14 9:12 pm

This should be fun to observe.

Ready... Fight!

HayleyS looking up.
02/02/14 9:14 pm

Is it supposed to be "do logic and theism conflict?" Or "does logic and theism conflict?"??

droo Santa Barbara
02/02/14 9:16 pm

do is correct

HayleyS looking up.
02/02/14 9:17 pm

Okay I thought so. It just sounds weird to me

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:18 pm

C'mon English major

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:19 pm

Your face is funny

HayleyS looking up.
02/02/14 9:20 pm

Well at least I can make people laugh somehow.

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:21 pm

It makes perfect sense Kyle, Hadley makes people laugh

MrLucchese If curious, ask.
02/02/14 9:27 pm

She may make people laugh, but it's not because of her face. Well, maybe some of her expressions.

MrEdwin Mystery
02/02/14 9:35 pm

Do her face makes people laugh, I'm right