I think the fact that we can't prove god exists is a given at this point.
But, "Ya gotta have faith", you say.
Why?
saying it much better than I could ever!
I suppose if you have faith, it's OK for YOU. But, please understand that your faith does not, in any way, make the object of your faith any more real.
Understand that having faith and, indeed, even prayer may get resutls for you. But, just as likely, so will meditation to yourself.
It is the human mind, in my opinion, that causes the faith and prayer to work, not some distant cosmic power.
Let's give ourselves credit. We are the gods!
94 comments:
I agree.....BUT...what gave you your God start?
Mostly my parents sexual appetite ;-)
I'm not sure my idea of god has a start, T4T. I am not sure any version of god has a demonstrable start?
You are entitled to your opinion, that means I'm a goddess?
Secretia
You certainly are a goddess Secretia ;-)
I thought that the video was well thought out and well presented. It argues for a valid and respectful mode of communication from those who operate from a base of faith. I consider that a reasonable position to hold.
Unfortunately, it will not have much impact on the more aggressive and militant people attempting to press their mode of thinking on others.
On the whole, very nicely done.
Mike
This is a subject I keep wrestling with, believe it or not. Faith, yes. God, yes. Religion, hell no!
Ironically enough mac, you and I agree on a good many things, so I tell you this from the bottom of my poverty of experience in philosophy that this video is fallacious, except for his first and most important assertion. That is irrefutably logically spot on.
The problem with evangelical atheists, which is the category this guy unfortunately falls into, is the same problem that evangelical anythings have...the need to convince.
Even though I'm a deist, I take a Hitchen's approach to this (well, he probably got it from somewhere). Once you get to utter speculation for any belief or non-belief. Like primary cause etc. And I'm talkin utter speculation, it's face value.
Nobody knows squat!
I encourage your atheism mac. Like I've said before you and 'the others' have been nothing but a good thing for this former Christian, but watch yourself, there's wascally wabbits everywhere.
Theist: "I know truth!"
Atheist: "I know truth!"
A cat: "Meow!"
I'm going to go with the cat on this one.
It seems to me, oneblood, that the video is merely arguing that we cannot possibly KNOW anything about deities.
I'm not sure I see the evangelical angle you're mentioning. Help a fella out?
Ily, I can surely respect your view. Most religions stray way to far from the god they claim to follow.
Mike, thanks. I see it pretty much as you do.
I'm going to go with the cat on this one(Oneblood)
Now there's a damn fine person. Follow the pussy. ;)
The problem with the term God is it comes pre loaded with too much shit. To profess a faith in a first cause ultimately brings you back to that term and then you lose credibility. I still believe that it is perfectly rational and logical to think that intelligence is behind the origin of the Universe that I see. And yes I did inhale.
Fair enough, and you're right, up to a point. He's arguing for more than that, and that's where I part company with him.
Picture it as two 'fanboys' debating.
He accepted the premise that Superman could get energy from the sun, but of course he couldn't bend steel because that wouldn't be reasonable.
What?
It really brings to bear what Hitchens has in mind, when he calls these sorts of things 'non-arguments.' Of course Hitchens agrees that the evangelist is wack in his reasoning, but he also understands the epistemic limits to even an open mind.
Yes it is rational to believe that 'something' may have created the universe as we know it.
Perhaps that something is intelligent. BUT, I have yet to find a rational explanation of what that something may be.
And...
If there be a creator, what created the creator?
That, in a nutshell, is my problem accepting a creator idea.
And not to be overly mushy about it, but I would like to affirm why you posted it.
I agree.
There, that wasn't mushy.
Group Hug for mac!
That's a bit mushy.
Oatmeal!
Now that's pretty mushy.
I mean, If we accept that Godidit (whatever we consider God to be), what created the God?
Creationists often point out that life cannot come from nothing. But, if a creator made it all, isn't that exactly what they are saying?
From where does the creator get the material to make everything?
Are you my husband???? ;)
"Creationists often point out that life cannot come from nothing. But, if a creator made it all, isn't that exactly what they are saying? From where does the creator get the material to make everything?"
Exactly so mac. When we think about this subject it ends up in infinite regress. An example of which is your completely legitimate question, 'Who made God?' And on and on it goes.
In fact one of my very arguments against a strict atheism is that 'nothing is not,' in terms of their something from nothing proposition. Which to be fair, can be misleading, a really open scientist would say, 'I have no idea.'
Yet your point has veracity against mine. I am negating an atheist proposition. But then my beliefs/reasoning take me to an unsupportable position. And if we stop there, your reasoning is as sound as...um...granite? Pathetic metaphor, still a compliment.
If we go beyond there, like the guy in the video did, then we both end up snipe hunting.
He must surely be a great man, Candice ;-)
I don't know either, oneblood.
Honestly, none of us KNOW!
I don't see where the commentator is being a militant atheist either.
Oneblood, how would you define a militant atheist?
Of course we can never know, we can only in the end choose to believe either way, but you can be in that state where you believe without making a choice. For example, children, indoctrinated into a religion, aren't making a choice to believe. They don't know any better. Someone in authority calls something the truth or the word of God & they believe it.
Or to use the cube example, tell them what is in the cube with enough authority & they can imagine it there. Then one day logic dawns & they realize nobody knows what's in the cube.
Of course it's all a lot more complicated then that, but ultimately it comes down to a making choice. The problem with militant religionists is... they don't really want anyone to have the option of choice. ( I suppose that is how I'd define a militant atheist, too.)
Knowing that I do not know, I call my self an atheist anyway, because I make the choice to live my life as if there is no God. I live as if, for all extent & purposes God does not exist.
I don't live in a void though. I agree with Mac.
As a secular humanist, I would go even further & say, we are the gods we seek to worship.
So what is faith? Faith is making the choice without evidence. But, it's more then that. It would be like betting your life, that when the cube is opened what you believed would actually be in there.
Pascals wager, anyone?
A belief in intelligence behind the origin of life on earth doesnt necessarily mean an omnipotent god. For all I know we could be a science experiment for a infant alien class. Im just supposing that its rational and logical to believe it likely that there is some intelligence at our start. I also believe it somewhat irrational and illogical to suppose that it was just a fluke. Now back to my inhaling.
I think it no more illogical than the idea of a deity.
I think there's merit to the idea that life here may have evolved from life elsewhere. We may have come from bacteria carried in on a meteor, for all we know (think disease?).
Basucally, we have no way of knowing what, if anything, started it all.
"...they don't really want anyone to have the option of choice. (I suppose that is how I'd define a militant atheist, too)."
I think that pretty much nails it rita.
My views on atheism are mostly positive. From mac, to let's say you, and the other atheists I blog with, it's been a pleasure to say the least.
As for the biggies like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and Hitchens, the only one I would call militant, believe it or not, (no pun intended) is Dawkins.
He is a bad philosopher and an evangelical.
Psychologically there seems to be a huge difference in telling someone that religion is nonsense and God is a false idea, and telling them to believe in atheism.
As "militant" as Harris, Dennet, and Hitchens can be I haven't seem them cross that line yet, but Dawkins does...all the time...and poorly so.
---
The only thing I tend to disagree with most atheists on is the validity of religion. I think it has always held a purpose outside of the fictions. Harris, oddly enough, agrees with my position up to a point.
Others seem to rip it out of context, or commit the fallacy of composition.
Per me, like I've bored mac with previously ;-) I'm a deist but only after agnostic confession. I don't think it would be fair or decent to lay claim to positive evidence for a god even though I believe in one.
And though I defend it, I'm very very very happy to be free from religion...ecstatic almost.
I admit to being an amystic so the issue of deistic faith holds no real interest to me. I have to go back to where I often find the answers - math. In math, if a factor has negligible effects we generally ignore it. If one accepts the notion that a personal god (one with any interest in my particular fate) is a fallacy then the god factor become negligible and becomes an essentially irrelevant topic. An apathetic god creator doesn't change my fate. That's how my mind works but I don't really care if someone else chooses to find some comfort in some faith - as long as it doesn't skew society and laws for example. For many of us that is the real issue - have all the faith you want in your own heart but keep the laws secular.
"Basucally, we have no way of knowing what, if anything, started it all."
And, as Pliny noted in a later post, what difference does it make?
Even if we assume that the Universe as we know it was a drop of sweat that fell from the creator's nose during its labors of creation, there is no logical reason to assume that it has any more awareness or caring for our existance than for that "drop of sweat". It created it, but that is where that relationship ended. One only "needs" to create a deity, (religion, faith, belief) let alone one with whom Humans have any ongoing relationship, if one wants to at least hope for some measure of control over one's current existance in an often frightening and baffling reality.
When the only affirmation that one's beliefs are correct must come from the agreement of others, it is readily apparent why some "believers" seek to imp;ose their beliefs on everyone else.
"We Also Amuse a Immense Generic...On account of Your Meals!"
I do think Anonymous has a point which needs to be addressed.
Anyone?
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.
Religion/God is such a touchy subject.
I believe in God, and I've had my faith tested a few times. No one can tell me that God does not exist. On the other hand, I don't push my beliefs on others.
I am not really a fan of religion, though.
If any of the "believers" here are willing to view some research, they are similarly quite doubtful, but these doubts are suppressed by certain parts of the brain. I can point you in the direction of the papers, if you'd like.
I have often been called a "militant" atheist; sitting in my corner of the deep, dark regions of the blogosphere. Contrary to the notion that I do not wish for people to "have the option of choice," I simply insist that they contemplate that choice. I only want people to THINK about what they believe. I don't care what he or she believes, indeed, I am just as likely to argue with an atheist (such as DuWayne on Greg Laden's Blog recently) as I am a religious individual that makes a claim I see as outlandish.
I guess I really just want people to be curious about the world around us. All the religious education in the world won't explain the role of specific histone deacetylases and methylases in gene expression or how the parthenogenic species of skinks reproduce or how quasars form or...you get the idea.
So Pliny if you had metaphysical makeup it would be called Math Factor?
Mac, this guy is just as bad as the hardcore religious fanatics. If you assume you know the truth and there is no wiggle room you are not better than "the other side."
Frankly, the video seems arrogant, self righteous and ridiculous.
Take his list of things that cannot possibly exist in another realm. It is clear what he is getting at and it is arrogant. He is claiming that he can logically prove there is no god which is a fallacy - he cannot. No one can.
Just as I cannot prove God exists, I cannot prove that there is no god. There simply is no standard, acceptable evidence either way.
This is just another example of trying to live a life based solely on logic as we currently understand it. As I said on Uruk's site - this isn't the right way to live because you end up living in the past. Logic changes as human intelligence changes.
And Jared, why would you assume faith negates scientific curiosity?
Like I told oneblood, Lion, I don't see the arogance in the video. I see it as suggesting that one question things.
Yes, the suggestion uses logic and reason. But, those are the tools we have?
While you may not see it, it is there. Honestly, look at what he says we CAN say is not in another realm. How can we say that? We know that for a fact? No, we don't.
Questioning things is fine. But he is not questioning them - he is stating as a fact that no god exists. That is no better than stating as a fact that god does exist.
Don't worry though, I am willing to forgive you for not seeing the arrogance :)
But,
If such a creator existed and it created us, why then, did it create us without the ability to quantify it ?
I mean, sure it's possible that we were created by some intelligent force. It is, however, not probable.
It is the fact that god is not at all quantifiable that leads me to seriously doubt his existence.
But Mac, there are millions of things that exist that we cannot now, or could not 200 years ago, quantify. We now know that there is oxygen all around us. We know this to be a fact. 200 years ago we just knew that we breathed and lived. It was practically magic!
Good, Lord! Up until quite recently it was believed that giving birth to a girl meant the woman somehow damaged the "man" seed during gestation since clearly the men did not determine the sex of the child! I think we all know now that this false.
Do you see my point? What we know now is pointless because we (humans) have shown time and time again that our "facts" are flawed and often changing. Just because we cannot now show definitively whether or not there is a god does not mean we will not be able to do so in a few hundred years (given we survive that long as a species).
Asking why we would be created without the ability to quantify God is neglecting a key component to Christian history. Christians believe that we CAN experience God. Hell, our history tells us that He used to walk among us. That his "son" lived among us. That we are all apart of Him.
I cannot see Saturn, but I believe it is there. Currently I cannot see the sun, but I have faith it will come rise again. Most people stop living their life under the "what I cannot see does not exist" theory around the age of 2.
I think you just listen to his voice and assume he is arrogant, ergo what he is saying is arrogant.
He even went over how it is not logical to say that something(God, for example) can't be defined as being immaterial or not physical(as a lot of theists DO).
He is saying that it is not logical to suggest that you 'knowing' that there is a God holds any more water than me 'knowing' that there ISN'T a God.
Basically you are using all the logical fallacies that he mentions to paint him as arrogant.
And it ISN'T logical or reasonable to imagine that some mysterious intelligence 'created' the universe, because, for example, what did the intelligence make the universe out of?
Don't know? Well is it logical or reasonable to appeal to magic?
Is it logical or reasonable to THINK something is logical and reasonable and need to appeal to magic or, "I don't know, but YOU don't know either! Nya-nya-nya!", right 'out of the gate' so to speak?
I don't think so.
Pboy, hon, stop right there. Your first sentence was your first mistake. To assume I am incapable of listening to words shows your arrogance. His voice? Are you kidding me? Have you read anything that I wrote?
You cannot rely on logic alone in this world because logic is constantly changing. If you don't understand that, you are lost to this world.
As for what a Creator made the universe out of...all evidence suggests it is made up of atoms and all matter of tiny particles. Were you unaware?
And it ISN'T logical or reasonable to imagine that some mysterious intelligence 'created' the universe, because, for example, what did the intelligence make the universe out of?(pbfloyd)
The same could be asked of the Big Bang. Both are incredulous. The problem comes when someone says they "know" it is this or that. It is perfectly rational and logical to suppose intelligence at the roots of the universe that we experience.
I guess if a person doesn't like the slant of someones argument, they can always blame it on arrogance or something like that.
Being arrogant really isn't the issue. The issue is, did he make a good case for his argument?
Lion
To even imply that logic isn't a reliable foundation to base ones life on, just doesn't make sense to me.
One of my major problems with the Bible & Christianity & monotheistic religion in general is the insistence on denying logic & the insistence on the truth of their outmoded illogical claims of, yes, what can only be called "magic."
Unfortunately for humankind, these powerful religions as a whole, appear to be stuck in a dangerous, destructive, militant & primitive mindset, that threatens the well being of all of us.
One of the claims us non-theists make is that moderate Christians, Jews,& Muslims don't seem to be doing much about it.
SO...speaking for myself, A little arrogant atheism is a welcome balance. Even if it is of the militant kind. Does it not make sense that the current rise in atheism is a direct result of the inability of religion to see the light, so to speak?
Rita, I never said you should not use logic. I simply said you cannot use it alone as logic is changing.
Rita, it is a shame that you honestly seem to never have learned that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the minority (yes, the MINORITY) of theists are arrogant and militant and claim to "know" they are right does not mean it is acceptable for non theists to stake that same claim. It is just as arrogant and just as ridiculous. And it is hypocritical.
The only honest stance is to say "I believe this to be true but I have no real evidence either way." Any other stance is just as arrogant as each other.
And rita, no he didn't make a good case for his argument because he used the same fallacies and ridiculous notions that militant theists use and that he, himself, was criticizing. But it is awful hard to see that when you blindly agree with him, isn't it?
To be fair, I agree with a few of his statements, but they were still made poorly and arrogantly.
I've read the Christian sites where they explain that the tu quoque argument(which is a fallacy) is valid.
This, "You guys are in the same boat as us.", is ridiculous.
Sure we ARE in the same boat if the gist of his argument is, "You can't prove there is a God therefore you're wrong." You can turn tables on that. But that's not what he is doing.
.................................
"Im just supposing that its rational and logical to believe it likely that there is some intelligence at our start."
Well, no, no it's not. There is no evidence of this, as the cartoon explains. As the cartoon sets out to explain and, in fact, explains.
"Take his list of things that cannot possibly exist in another realm. It is clear what he is getting at and it is arrogant. He is claiming that he can logically prove there is no god which is a fallacy - he cannot. No one can."
But you're putting words in his mouth, where does he mention 'another realm' or 'proof there is no god'. You're accusing a strawman of arrogance!
No, he IS logically proving that God, as defined by some theists, CANNOT exist.
In the cube example, "a bed made of sleep"., is silly. A god, who is everywhere and nowhere or not physical, is not rational or logical either, as he is EXPLAINING, if you had taken the trouble to listen to him.
Plus, accusing the man of arrogance is basically complaining about his style, which is neither here nor there, it's an ad hominem attack.
And this smug piece...
"As for what a Creator made the universe out of...all evidence suggests it is made up of atoms and all matter of tiny particles. Were you unaware?"
.. and God borrowed those from Satan, or another God?
No, what is God supposed to have made the physical bits of the universe from? THAT was the question. You're using a play on words here, to avoid trying to answer the unanswerable.
"What did God make the Universe out of?"...(well, atoms duh!).. nono.. what did God make the ATOMS out of? (suggestion.. God can do anything = MAGIC)
How is saying, "We don't know how the universe was made, but we know in our hearts that GOD made it!", any BETTER than just, "We don't know how the Universe was made."
All you did was ADD God.
Now you keep insisting that logic and reason are 'changing' and that's just NOT TRUE. Any logical and/or reasonable conclusion that has been discovered to be WRONG on account of lack of evidence in the past, just wasn't as logical and/or reasonable as the proponents imagined them to be.
Logic and reason themselves, remain the same.
pbfloyd
Before we could fly in space it was perfectly rational and logical to "SUPPOSE" that it was possible. Even though there was NO evidence of this supposition. To SUPPOSE intelligence behind the origin of our universe is perfectly reasonable and logical even without evidence. If we had evidence it would no longer be a SUPPOSITION. Whether or not you believe that is irrelevant. By the way, you are correct with this statement.
"No, he IS logically proving that God, as defined by some theists, CANNOT exist."
Logic and reason?
I will, reluctantly, admit to demonstrating a great lack of either in many instances throughout my life. Oh, and poor jusdgement, too.
None of that means I cannot use any of those tools - I just don't, sometimes.
I do, however, havea pretty good BS detector. It rings loudly whenever gods are mentioned
"Before we could fly in space it was perfectly rational and logical to "SUPPOSE" that it was possible. Even though there was NO evidence of this supposition."
Sure there was evidence. Before it was discovered that there is an atmosphere we could see birds flying, we could see clouds floating above us. After the discovery of outer space we could see shooting stars, find meteorites, see comets, etc.
It certainly was impossible to 'suppose' that 'we' could 'fly' in space when the World was 'supposedly' flat and covered by a firmament which the stars were fixed to or when the planets were 'supposed' to be on crystal spheres.
Giordano Bruno was put to death by the Church for daring to 'suppose' that the Universe was mostly vast empty space in which one 'could' ''supposedly'' 'fly', some four hundred years ago.(that's not very long ago really)
I'm not 'getting' the drift of your 'supposing' thing here, or why you would imagine that just imagining something would have any logic or reason to it. Just because you and I know that space travel is possible, because it has been done, then having us imagine how someone might 'logically and reasonably' "suppose" that it might be the case here.
You are just changing the discussion here, from what it is that that guy is saying, what you had to say about THAT and my defense of him, to this 'supposing' thing.
I love you Mac, but you are hardly unbiased.
As for what God made the atoms out of? Well...I don't know. I imagine whatever atoms are made up of. How did the Big Bang happen?
Logic is always changing. Science is always changing. What is perfectly logical and reasonable today was unfathomable yesterday and ridiculous tomorrow.
I know, it is hard to think of this. It is scary and seems unnatural. But it is the way of things. Take a look at the history of humans. We are no different, no more intelligent, no more "special" than our ancestors.
I do, however, havea pretty good BS detector. It rings loudly whenever gods are mentioned(Mac)
Maybe youre biased because of the religious wingnuts in your country. Supposing a creator doesnt mean religion, does it?
Lion I Don't blindly agree with anyone. I don't even know why you'd say that? I don't have the Faith for that sort of thing. :)
"As for what God made the atoms out of? Well...I don't know. I imagine whatever atoms are made up of."
Well, you can imagine God and God making the universe out of atoms and God making atoms out of the stuff that atoms are made from and God making the stuff that the stuff from atoms are made from all you want to.
You might EVEN imagine that it is logical and reasonable to imagine this scenario.
Let's imagine some equivalent thing(in miniature) happening. A furniture maker thinks about making a chair and perhaps imagines that it's going to be a wooden chair and "poof" some wood appears for him to fashion into a chair. No, wait, that's not what happens, is it? He or she, has to get some wood and use some tools to make the pieces for the chair, right?
This is not what God, or a god does though. No matter how far you regress back from created things like a moon or a planet to the created parts of whichever one God(or a god) would need to *poof* stuff into existence OR there would already BE stuff there that somehow doesn't NEED God as an explanation.
Are you telling me that you can't see how you're just leading us back on this infinite(?) regress with no logical or reasonable purpose at all?
Leading the discussion down side-trails like that isn't clarifying anything really, do you think?
All you seem to be saying is, "God can do anything!", and you're willing to drag it out over several comments.
"Logic is always changing. Science is always changing. What is perfectly logical and reasonable today was unfathomable yesterday and ridiculous tomorrow."
No, logic is NOT changing.
No, science is NOT changing.
And what is perfectly logical and reasonable today will ALWAYS be perfectly logical and reasonable or it is NOT, by definition, perfectly logical and reasonable.
Example. If I show you a coin in one hand and close my hand over it, then open my hand to reveal you that there is no coin in that hand, it is not reasonable to believe that the coin disappeared out of existence.
It may SEEM perfectly reasonable and logical that you saw me grasp the coin in my hand, and since, when I opened my hand, it was gone, that the coin must have disappeared out of existence, but it ISN'T.
Similarly, when it comes to universes, or at least one universe
popping into existence, you start from the question, "Where did it come from?", surmise that an intelligent consciousness made it, call THAT consciousness God, then attribute that God the power of making a universe.
Now I'm not going to go down that other side-trail of trying to explain the current scientific theory on this, because I don't think you care.
Scientists collect evidence and form theories based on factual evidence which can be observed by anyone. Now human beings make mistakes and you are quite welcome to go to college, learn the facts and determine what those facts mean. You knew that, right?
Now I'm quite sure that no matter how many new facts you uncover about any field of science you wish to pursue, logic and reason will NOT change over time.
I'm also quite sure that science, using facts to build a model of reality, will not change either.
Our models of reality may change to a greater or lesser degree, but the method of constructing these models can't change, or it wouldn't be science.
Is that clear?
If we go back and think God must have mae us from atoms and "scrap" laying around the universe, we are still faced with the question of God's origin.
Who made God?
From where did he come?
An uncreated creator? Stuff like that is what sets off by BS detector.
Tit for Tat, preciously. Mac's crazy neighbors (all around him) would bias anyone against religion. But god doesn't have to mean religion - only faith. And regardless of what anyone says, those two are not the same thing.
Rita, don't assume I meant you, specifically. That is awful vain :)
Pboyfloyd, you didn't really use that old argument did you? Don't be a child. A HUMAN furniture maker is not the same thing as a god. Supposing a god exists, He would have to be far more intelligent on all levels than any human that ever existed. Part of my faith is my ability to say I don't understand it all. All we are told is from Creation on. We are not told what there was or might have been before.
If I suppose there truly was nothing then perhaps God merely exists outside our universe and there are many things there that we don't know of. It is not illogical to suppose there is some life beyond our borders. Perhaps like your furniture maker, God merely brought supplies from another store?
Take the Big Bang. What caused that to happen? If there truly was nothing - what caused that tiny, immense explosion? Where did the matter come from? Where did it all come from before that?
Do you see how science and faith face the same questions? The key difference is that faith says it is ok that we don't know (not that we should not attempt to learn, just ok if we don't know right now) because it is not essential to life.
You don't think science is changing? So we still think leeches are great medicine, don't need to wash before surgery, and the Earth is still flat? Logic doesn't change? So it is still logical to believe there is nothing beyond your village? Science has changed. Logic has changed. Evidence came about and they both changed as a result.
I am not talking of magic. I am talking about what is logical and reasonable based on the evidence at hand. When there is no evidence of something it is illogical to believe it true. However, as evidence is discovered that logic changes and it now becomes illogical to disregard it in the face of evidence.
Now listen, boy. You are going to want to back off. You have taken this from a nice discussion to insulting my intelligence and education? I am free to go to college? Why thank you! That is awful kind of you. I already have! Your childish remarks show that you are getting a bit upset over this. You don't know me or what I believe and yet you assume I am some militant religious fanatic with not grasp of science? Let me give you some background:
I am not fanatic. I am not religious - I am faithful. Given my good buddy the human geneticist, I probably know more about science than most people in my position could ever (EVER!) want to. Also about microscopic worms and their lady parts, but that is a whole other issue.
If you cannot continue this without childish insults, we can end this here. I love a good debate but you have taken it down a very unproductive road which is a shame as you started out so well.
Mac, when I was a kid I used to think about that all the time. I even asked a pastor once and got some very odd looks. They said God just always existed. Now, that doesn't make much sense to me. In human experience nothing can just "always" exist - everything comes from something.
I read awhile ago that there is a theory (used lightly, of course) that suggests that any god is merely a super evolved being that exists in another universe. Similar to how we can create Sims, he created us. Where did he come from? He evolved. That was their answer. I don't know if I buy into that. My biggest reason for not agreeing is, honestly, the contradiction in my faith. I can see how it makes sense, but it does not ring true on some levels. But maybe it is.
Or maybe we created God. And by that I don't mean we made Him up. But more that He exists because we need him to exist. Not all of us, clearly, but a great many.
By the way, this inspired me. Look for a coming post on how, exactly, logic is fallible.
I am not talking of magic. I am talking about what is logical and reasonable based on the evidence at hand. When there is no evidence of something it is illogical to believe it true. However, as evidence is discovered that logic changes and it now becomes illogical to disregard it in the face of evidence.
Perhaps, logic & reason is getting mixed up with perception & assumption or even inquiry?
I'm not a scientist but in my rudimentary understanding, scientific experiment & it's conclusions are based on mathematical logic, chemical formulas, rigorous experiment, controlled conditions, etc...scientists work with the knowledge & tools at hand & the knowledge that theory is not conclusion. This is logical. If science did not work this way it wouldn't be of much use.
IMO, These same rigorous tests should apply to religion, also. But, apparently faith & belief trump logic here. When it comes to logic, the difference between science & religion is like holding onto a rock or a handful of air.
As far as perceiving someone as arrogant. I have to say, I used to get that feeling in church a lot while listening to certain Christians. When other parishioners were nodding their heads & smiling, I was thinking how arrogant & presumptive this person is. Does that mean the person was really so arrogant or that I just didn't like what I heard?
So,the reason that I don't get that impression with this video might have a lot to do with the fact that I have come to some of the same conclusions as the speaker. It does not have anything to do with blind obedience.
On the other hand, sometimes independence is perceived as arrogance. Try leaving an organized religion that you've been entrenched in, & see what you are called. :)
Perhaps this should evolve into another thread, but I have seen some state that logic is a changing thing, and others state that it is a constant thing.
What are we talking about? Logic as an ordered way of thinking has not always been around, has it? And to which system of logic are we referring?
What, then, is this "logic", and why is it offered up as opposed to religious or god centered ways of thinking?
Mike
"Pboyfloyd, you didn't really use that old argument did you?"
Pointing out the difference between creating something from other materials and creating material itself, because you don't seem to be grasping that.
"Don't be a child."
You seem to be trying to chide me here, not sure why.
" A HUMAN furniture maker is not the same thing as a god."
Are you saying that you don't understand my analogy here?
" Supposing a god exists, He would have to be far more intelligent on all levels than any human that ever existed."
How do you deduce this?
" Part of my faith is my ability to say I don't understand it all."
Gee, faith, belief without evidence, requires you to be able to say that you don't understand?
Who woulda thunk?
" All we are told is from Creation on. We are not told what there was or might have been before."
I thought that the booklets that 'tell' us about Creation also told us about War in Heaven which presumably happened in time for Satan to be present at the 'Beginning'.
"If I suppose there truly was nothing then perhaps God merely exists outside our universe and there are many things there that we don't know of."
Another deduction?
" It is not illogical to suppose there is some life beyond our borders."
Have you defined 'life' then?
" Perhaps like your furniture maker, God merely brought supplies from another store?"
Yes, it certainly wouldn't be childish of us to imagine God completing his Universe assembling kit from the 'space store', the 'time store' and the 'basic material' store', would it?
"Take the Big Bang. What caused that to happen?"
This is just tu quoque, or "Hey YOU don't know any better than I know.", but this is exactly what the guy with the english accent addresses
"If there truly was nothing - what caused that tiny, immense explosion? Where did the matter come from? Where did it all come from before that?"
And of course the ultimate question if you accept that God had a hand in all that, "Where did God come from?"
"Do you see how science and faith face the same questions?"
No.
" The key difference is that faith says it is ok that we don't know (not that we should not attempt to learn, just ok if we don't know right now) because it is not essential to life."
Drivel. I went to the trouble of explaining that science is a body of facts and theories deduced from facts and now you try to tell me that believing without evidence, using zero relevant facts is even comparable?
"You don't think science is changing?"
I think that due to superstition human beings are only very slowly being allowed to gather the information necessary to build a decent model of reality and that technology reflects our advance in knowledge.
Science itself is unchanging.
" So we still think leeches are great medicine, don't need to wash before surgery, and the Earth is still flat? "
I thought it was me that was supposed to be childish? You seriously want be to go down little side-trails for your edification here, or are you just creating side-trails to divert our attention?
"Logic doesn't change? So it is still logical to believe there is nothing beyond your village?"
It never was.
" Science has changed. Logic has changed."
Not true.
" Evidence came about and they both changed as a result."
Evidence, facts are uncovered and new models are created which incorporate only factual evidence.
"I am not talking of magic. I am talking about what is logical and reasonable based on the evidence at hand. When there is no evidence of something it is illogical to believe it true. However, as evidence is discovered that logic changes and it now becomes illogical to disregard it in the face of evidence."
Drivel. I shot down all your points so this conclusion is meaningless now, right?
"Now listen, boy. You are going to want to back off."
Feeling the pinch? Watch the cartoon again and pay attention to what he is saying then.
" You have taken this from a nice discussion to insulting my intelligence and education?"
I think you're doing a fine job of that yourself. This reaction of yours is even explained in the cartoon.
" I am free to go to college? Why thank you! That is awful kind of you. I already have!"
You seem to be trying to tell me that your faith and 'science' are simply opinions and that your opinion is as valid as anyone's.
Seems to me that the college that you attended didn't teach you that facts are facts, logic is logic, reason is reason and science is science. Presumable you didn't study EVERYTHING while you were in college and I suggested that you COULD study some scientific subject to gain insight into WHY I'm telling you that science not only does not, but CANNOT change. If it does, then it becomes just some guys' opinions, right?
" Your childish remarks show that you are getting a bit upset over this."
Don't you ever get fed up of being wrong?
" You don't know me or what I believe and yet you assume I am some militant religious fanatic with not grasp of science?"
I know what you are telling me, or are you just expressing yourself very badly?
"If you cannot continue this without childish insults, we can end this here."
But I'm saying that it's not my opinion that logic, reason, facts and science don't change and you seem to be insisting that it IS!
Now you're using this, "You're insulting me!", tactic.
"I love a good debate but you have taken it down a very unproductive road which is a shame as you started out so well."
Conversely, you started out very badly and I'm trying to show you where you are going wrong. If you actually LISTEN to the voice-over, to what he is actually saying, and don't just react to what you imagine 'the gist' of what he's saying is 'arrogant', you could quote him and point out where you think he is wrong.
Otherwise you've just built a strawman and burned that down to satisfy yourself!
Evidence, facts are uncovered and new models are created which incorporate only factual evidence(pbfloyd)
So are you implying that there is no function for faith(belief without evidence)? It seems there are some studies out there that show that faith may be an integral part of our evolutionary process. Whats your take on that?
"So are you implying that there is no function for faith(belief without evidence)? It seems there are some studies out there that show that faith may be an integral part of our evolutionary process. Whats your take on that?"
Well, how diversionary is THIS? Not going to bother trying to back up your claim that that guy is just arrogantly poo-pooing God or believers then?
Lots of people get by, by 'going on hunches' or 'wishing things will work out to their satisfaction'.
I know that if I pray every night for the Sun to rise tomorrow, it will rise. I also know that if I don't pray, the Sun will still rise.
Either way, no harm done, right?
Well, MAYBE, maybe not, depends on what ELSE the believer deduces from fulfilled Sun-rising prayers, doesn't it?
But you want me to tell you what I think of evolutionary psychology, is that right?
What could I possibly say about evolutionary psychology that would make one tiny bit of difference to the topic, which was whether that guy made any sense or not, right?
" It seems there are some studies out there that show that faith may be an integral part of our evolutionary process."
I like this. It is so vague and yet so 'sciencey' and yet so definite and specific(integral no less), and strangely 'trappy' or showing great lack of understanding.
Counter question.. Do YOU think that the way an individual thinks or perceives the world, COULD affect our 'evolutionary process'?
And how would you define our 'evolutionary process' regarding individual specimens of humanity, specifically regarding how much he/she relies on hunches, fuzzy feelings, beliefs lacking any evidence and such?
Here's another thought for you guys.
Imagine a photograph, taken from the front seat of a bus. An old woman is reaching for the railing at the bus door and she is looking up at the sign which shows the number of the bus. Her face is shining, like a diamond and she is smiling the smiliest smile ever.
Would it colour your opinion of the picture if it were named:-
a) "Even our smallest prayers are answered.."
b)"Finally, my bus is here.."
c)"Atheist woman gets to get on the bus, just the same as you..."
Related question. Don't you think that your opinion of the cartoon is unjustly coloured by your faith, by your need to defend your faith against a short cartoon which goes out of it's way to NOT say that your faith is a bad thing, it's just a bad thing if you try to impose it on others.
pbfloyd
Do you think it is rational and logical to suppose that there is other intelligent life forms in the Universe?
pbfloyd
I dont get offended too often. I would love to see C on the Bus.
Another diversion?
Okay, I'll play. Can you define 'life' for me?
I'll say that I think that there may well be other life 'out there' someplace.
But, could you give me YOUR definition of 'life' or 'life-forms'?
"I dont get offended too often. I would love to see C on the Bus."
I thought that that was simple and straightforward and impossible to misunderstand.
But your above answer, manages to not make any sense at all.
You'd love to see that photograph with the title 'c' on a bus?
pboyfloyd, You can either discuss this like an adult or not at all. Right now you are acting like a 12 year old with no debate skills. Personal insults and claiming to "win" have no place here.
Rita, please don't confuse faith and belief with religion. They are not the same thing. Religion incorporates faith but faith does not necessarily incorporate religion.
I agree that much of what is said by pastors is arrogant (and often incorrect). It is why I don't support religion. They are almost universally hypocritical and arrogant.
Mike, you bring up a good point. I merely state that was it logical to this generation was not logical to my Grandfather's generation. The science and logic that thought that cigarettes were not harmful and the female orgasm was hysteria is not the same science and logic that we have now. It just isn't.
I love it when people bring up the Heavenly Wars and they don't know what the hell they are talking about. These verses and chapters and stories do not exist in the original scripts. They were added many hundreds of years later when it became convenient. Blame the church. The scriptures include Creation forward. Nothing before.
"pboyfloyd, You can either discuss this like an adult or not at all. Right now you are acting like a 12 year old with no debate skills. Personal insults and claiming to "win" have no place here."
Well, here you have obviously found your 'groove', matters of opinion.
I think that Mike Lockeridge is trying to be 'kind' to you. Logically, if there ARE different 'systems' of logic, and this is common knowledge to you or Mike, then perhaps you would care to enlighten us? Or wouldn't they have, what's those things we use to differentiate one subject from another? Oh yes, NAMES!
Perhaps after the scolar who dreamed them up. Newtonian logic, perhaps? Ensteinian logic? To parallel physics there.
But no. Logic is logic.
Are you trying to tell us that the daftest, most ignorant fool on the entire planet can make a case, a logical case, which succeeds on account of his very ignorance of facts????
Are you trying to tell us that if 'some scientists' claim something, that thing is 'de facto' scientific just 'because'??
Perhaps schizophrenics have their OWN logic or 'system' of logic as well as, say, crickets?
No, this 'taking command by calling me childish' thing isn't going to wash. Y'see, it's not a matter of opinion or faith, it's a matter of facts.
And you don't have a single fact to stand on.
Are you suggesting the Bible is not reliable, Lion?
That is what I've been harping on these last few decades ;-)
pbfloyd
Your photo just reminded of some bus ads in our city a while back. I was just meaning that I would have loved to see one with the caption from your list C.
Thanks for the discourse, enjoy your faith free life.
Just go ahead and bring up the typos I made there Lion.
God ahead, make my day.
Scholar.. Einsteinian..
There's no way I could have known that, Tit for Tat. I just made up the photo and captions as I went along.
Sadly, no one is willing to admit an affinity for the 'answered prayers' version 'to us'.
It's my opinion that the Christians among us would gravitate towards that caption.
Mac, that is exactly what I claim. The Catholic Church bastardized the Bible and, in the current form, it is unreliable and woefully inaccurate. This is why I encourage folks to read the Book of Judas and the Sofia of Christ. And, if there is ever an opportunity, the Book of Adam and Eve. These three books, read together with the Canon Books, paint a whole other picture. One not too in line with the current "accepted" religion.
Pb, I tend not to point out grammar and typo mistakes. It is rather pointless. Most people realize their own mistakes, I think. Hell, I've been known to make a few. But it is telling that you think I would point them out.
Pboy, I would tend to like the last one actually. Mostly because it would really piss people off. And because it is pretty ironic.
That is refreshing, Lion.
A Christian that denounces the bible is a rare bird, indeed.
Take a few steps back there. I only denounce the current condition of the Bible and only because most people don't do the proper research and The Church screwed it in unspeakable ways. The basic story line is one I support.
OK. Only one form of logic. One set of rules, to which everyone submits. Where do I find this universal set of rules? Has it existed in this form for all time? No incremental discovery/development/evolution?
I cannot speak for crickets. I have not been able to communicate with them. I have dealt with mentally ill people. Many do have sets of rules, personal codes, to which they hold themselves but which tend to seem strange to others.
Does your logic apply even to those who do not choose to submit? Were they created by the god who cannot logically exist?
Mike
"OK."
Okay, Mike, you wanna play, that's fine. Try not to become Lionish, it's authoratitive yet not fair. We can ALL just call each other childish.
" Only one form of logic."
Gee Mike, either something is logical or it is not.
" One set of rules, to which everyone submits."
Is it a question of 'submitting'?
" Where do I find this universal set of rules?"
Either something IS, IS NOT or we don't know. Right?
"
Has it existed in this form for all time? "
Wha..?
"No incremental discovery/development/evolution?"
Wha..?
"I cannot speak for crickets."
Oh, let me. They d.o.n.'.t. k.n.o.w.
"
" I have not been able to communicate with them."
Isn't THAT special.
" I have dealt with mentally ill people."
I hear ya man, loud and clear.(Christians right? Whoa!)
" Many do have sets of rules, personal codes, to which they hold themselves but which tend to seem strange to others."
So, disparate mentally ill people have volunteered this and you have, in fact, summarized their delusional 'codes'? I'd like to see that.
"Does your logic apply even to those who do not choose to submit?"
My logic? Are you being 'smart'? Are you trying to be a smartass?
"Were they created by the god who cannot logically exist?"
Do you beat your wife up in the morning, or does she usually beat you up?
This has just gotten sad. Mac, you are a kinder person than I am. I would have shut this shit down when it became this unproductive.
I think the fact that people cannot discuss the issue respectfully is very telling of our society. It is like politics. Two people cannot seem to merely disagree - they must belittle each other and act like adolescents.
Oooo.
The Lion wants to be offended.
Given your point of view, I guess I'd rather be offended than try to defend it too.
Calling for some kind of 'shutdown' of comments because YOU and only you have repeatedly squealed that you're offended while you repeatedly call me childish, and this seems to be your 'answer', you're offended.
Well, la-di-da.
You see a 'page with marks on it', on your monitor?
I see the same thing, and I'm trying to tell you that it is an offence to reality to claim that science, logic and facts somehow change over time, to claim that just so's you can justify your fantasy.
Imagine nothing. No space, no time, no physical stuff.
NOW, imagine that God was sitting on his throne and Jesus was at his right hand and the streets were paved with gold and ...
Are you kidding me?
Are you SERIOUS?
Pboy, I don't defend myself. I am comfortable with my opinion and see no need to. We disagree and that is fine.
I certainly never suggested what Mac should do with his site but I certainly would never have allowed this to carry on. Such behavior takes away from the integrity of a conversation.
But I see you are again confused. God on His throne? Jesus by His side? Streets paved in gold? You seem to confuse me with a Catholic. I'll forgive you, though.
This conversation has been very entertaining & thought provoking.
One of the benefits of these types of online conversations for me is that it stimulates & exercises my critical thinking skills...I've suddenly got a yen to go read up on logic...
An observation...Often we unknowingly reject an argument based on something other then it's own logic. The error is supposing that the LOGIC is flawed or has problems from the observation that the logicians are superstitious, prejudicial, or arrogant. This seems obvious at first glance but I have a feeling it's more complicated then that. I guess this goes along with Phoboys bus photograph illustration. Not only does the prejudiced of the Logician have be taken into consideration but our own perceptions & prejudices as well...
Rita
I say Tomatoe you say Tomato. Or would that be Ketchup. ;)
Infatuation casinos? check this latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com]casino[/url] operation and in online casino games like slots, blackjack, roulette, baccarat and more at www.realcazinoz.com .
you can also backlash the pail our additional [url=http://freecasinogames2010.webs.com]casino[/url] clasp at http://freecasinogames2010.webs.com and effect bona fide folding readies !
another late-model [url=http://www.ttittancasino.com]casino spiele[/url] within an eyelash of is www.ttittancasino.com , recuperate of german gamblers, be repaid freed online casino bonus.
Okay Lion, you want respectful discourse?
Fine, all well and good and all that jazz.
I'm pretty sure that I didn't start the 'disrespect' thing rolling, it was another guy, I have evidence to back that up too.
I give you Exhibit 'A'.
"Frankly, the video seems arrogant, self righteous and ridiculous.
(How isn't this childish name-calling?)
Take his list of things that cannot possibly exist in another realm. It is clear what he is getting at and it is arrogant.
(Gee, drive home this name-calling)
He is claiming that he can logically prove there is no god which is a fallacy - he cannot. No one can."
(Here, to justify your name calling, you accuse him of making a ridiculous claim. And the claim IS ridiculous, true, don't let the fact that he DIDN'T MAKE THAT CLAIM get in the way of your painting him 'ridiculous' and 'arrogant'.)
Then this easily offended debater goes on to glibly point out that, "Of course, God made the universe from atoms."
I could go on, but it's clear to me that if you put 'ridiculous claims' into someone's mouth to disparage them as arrogant, it is you who is being arrogant and if you persist in dodging the issue by calling someone childish, then it is YOU who is being childish, isn't it?
Respectful discourse? Am I the only one trying to wrap my head around what you could possibly mean by this?
Now you tell us that after you get your cheap shots in, a rebuttal of those cheap shots would be grounds for 'shutting down the disrespectful discourse'.
Seems to me that you more WANT respect than wish to give any.
What we know now is pointless because we (humans) have shown time and time again that our "facts" are flawed and often changing.
------
Late to the party but I think this point needs to be addressed. What is defensible as factual has improved dramatically in the last 2000 years. Far fewer scientific constructs are likely to be overthrown today than in centuries past because we now require new knowledge to be logically consistent across a large range of disciplines. In other words we can't just make it up as we go along. Today's facts are facts because they were built upon an internally consistent framework over the years. Many new so called revelations turn out to be bogus once they are subjected to the litmus test of internal logical consistency and agreement across disciplines. This was not the case in centuries past. There remains much we don't know but what is apparent from a study of science is that what we currently know is doing a better and better job of predicting both what we need to learn and where to go look for it. That predictive capability makes us much more confident that we have finally reached a level with strong correlations to reality vs the past.
And that is one weakness of a lot of religious argument - it remains inextricably linked to concepts and cognitive constructs developed in an age before internally consistent logic and the scientific method were well regarded.
If the argument is that our facts change over time, why would one adhere to any belief structure grounded in centuries old thinking?
_____________
PS Mac - what happened to OneBlood? who seems to have fallen off the grid
As to being arrogant and forceful:
I beg of anyone to listen to the video again. Pay special attention around the 3:00 to 3:40 minute mark.
The Narrator is fairly clear that believing in God is fine. He says that one should accept that the arguments presented for god do not fit a logical model, but enter the realm of PERSONAL belief.
What is so darned arrogant about that?
I give respect to people that deserve it. He didn't deserve it as he took cheap shots at all people of faith. As a person of faith, I called the video out on it. You then attempted to take cheap shots at me and I informed you it was inappropriate for adult conversation.
Watched it again Mac. He is still arrogant. Pay attention to 1:38 and that list on the right side of the screen. That list sums up his arrogance just fine. It is one thing to say you don't believe in any higher power. It is another to claim you know one cannot exist.
He is stating what he sees as logical.
Perhaps, in the future, we may find his logic flawed. We may, indeed, find his logic to not be logic at all. But, he is merely stating that the existence of a deity defies logic as we understand it today.
But, many theists believe Gods are not measured by logic alone. It is believed we can't find God with logic.
On this principle, he has merely confirmed what is believed by the many theists that posit God to be unreachable through logic alone?
It was not my intention to offend or denigrate anyone by using this video. I am sorry if I have offended anyone.
But, I am no censor. Heck, I've even decided to keep the spammer's comments posted :-)
Mac, logic is not perceived. Logic is what logic is. And he cannot say definitively that there is no higher power outside our realm of existence. He just cannot. Just as I cannot say there is a god with any finality. It would have been fine had he stated he believed it and left logic off the table but by leaving it how it is he claims to know the truth and that is very arrogant.
Heck, you didn't offend me, Mac! I am not easily offended. And as for censorship, you ought to know my stance. Although I don't let the spammers take over (mostly because they seem to attack me in hoards!)
"And that is one weakness of a lot of religious argument - it remains inextricably linked to concepts and cognitive constructs developed in an age before internally consistent logic and the scientific method were well regarded."
Furthermore, it seems to me that Lion and Pboy are arguing about science and logic from different understandings of what is meant by those terms. The facts that underlie science and the mental mechanisms represented by logic are unchanging; The conclusions reached by fallible humans as a result of their understanding (or lack thereof)of scientific facts and what constitutes logical thinking certainly have changed, evolved, and, in some instances, been redefined in light of the point in history in which they have been expressed. Using the broad brush of the terms "Science" and "Logic" without further definition and agreement as to what these terms mean to all parties in the discussiion often leads to much "sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Wrong. Scientific facts are changing. A fact from the 1400s is not the same fact today. As new evidence is uncovered, the new concept becomes the "fact." Everything changes. Nothing is constant.
Wrong. Scientific facts are changing. A fact from the 1400s is not the same fact today. As new evidence is uncovered, the new concept becomes the "fact." Everything changes. Nothing is constant.
------------------------
I think that's a bit of a diversion however, if one is expecting the evolving knowledge of science to come around and eventually support the notions of antiquity, I wouldn't hold my breath.
As I said before, science is getting very good at being able to predict what is coming next. Crucial facts aren't changing so much as being added to. Adding detail to flesh out the broad frameworks of science isn't overturning everything we know from before.
A great thing about science of course is that it never claims to have all the answers - just a really good way to look for them.
Take Darwin for example. He was able to accurately predict the existence of certain species for example, that should exist if he were right about evolution. His problem was that he had no idea the mechanism of selection. If one were not found, well that would have been that. Genetics would come along in due time and the answer found. Though certain of Darwin's 'facts' were wrong in detail, the big ones have survived any reasoned assault for 150 years. I guess that's why have always preferred science - it never claims to have all the answers and never stops looking for answers.
Pliny,
Do I expect science to one day prove my faith is scientific fact? No. And for that I am actually glad. I think the idea of knowing all there is to know is a terrible one, indeed. Imagine if there was no more need to search for knowledge! The lust for the unknown is part of what makes us human. If we know all there is to know - are we even still human? Would it not take away an essential part of us?
As for science not claiming to have all the answers - this is true. But just as pure religion does not claim to have all the answers some people from both camps like to claim "their side" does.
I suppose that is to be expected, however.
"Just as I cannot say there is a god with any finality."
Here, it seems that you agree with him completely. I think that he is railing against those who expect others to knuckle under to their point of view, taking it for granted that everyone MUST believe that there IS a God.
He gives the example of the two ladies sitting at a table about to have a meal and one is expecting the other to say 'Grace'.
In that scenario, the one is demanding that the other show respect for her beliefs.
Now, I don't think that it is anyone elses business what we believe or don't believe until they start expecting us to go along with their rituals or customs regarding things that we, ourselves don't believe.
For example, if you and I were out with a Muslim friend and he announced that it is time to get down on a small mat and start kowtowing towards Mecca, it would be perfectly reasonable for us to explain that we don't follow that religion, so it's not necessary for us to to that.
It would seem unreasonable to us if he started to get offended by us not wishing to comply. Now that is the same thing as a non-believer not wishing to join in 'Grace' at the dinner-table.
Each type of believer could try to 'reason' with us that it is necessary for us to comply with their wishes, when in fact, like you said, it is just a difference of opinion where no offence is called for.
" It would have been fine had he stated he believed it and left logic off the table but by leaving it how it is he claims to know the truth and that is very arrogant."
As per the 'dinner table' scenario, you yourself are willing to admit that you really don't have a leg to stand on, and I'm sure that you wouldn't be one of those going around demanding that everyone say Grace simply to appease you, simply to avoid offending you, right?
Still, you take the trouble to misrepresent what he is saying to take offence.
Pboy, while it would be perfectly reasonable for us to state we don't observe his customs it would be perfectly unreasonable to then go on about how it is illogical for him to observe them. Which is what the video maker did - whether or not he meant to.
I don't say grace so I would not ask others to and would not be offended if they did not. However, if someone at my table does say grace, I will politely stay quiet and refrain from eating until they finish - that is just good manners. I would, however, be offended if I did say grace and the non-grace-sayer ranted about how illogical my God was.
It is no interpretation. He claims God (or god) is illogical and cannot exist. That is what he says (or rather shows) on the video. That is just as arrogant and ridiculous as it would be for me to say that God is perfectly logical and I know for a fact He exists.
"Pboy, while it would be perfectly reasonable for us to state we don't observe his customs it would be perfectly unreasonable to then go on about how it is illogical for him to observe them."
Presumabley unless he/she insisted that they had proof that their Deity exists, right?
You know I watched it again and he is saying that it does theists no good to try to say that they know God exists for logical, rational reasons, which a lot of them try to do.
You are misrepresenting this cartoon as him insisting that God is illogical when he is saying that theists have no logical reason to believe that there is one or many gods.
You even admit this yourself.
He is not suggesting that a non-believer rant at a Christian for no reason, but that if the Christian tries to make logical or rational claims why the atheist must believe then of course they are fair game.
There you are putting another twist on the 'dinner-table' duo, one insisting that both say grace because the theist believes she can give logical and rational reasons why God must exist, then you're couching it in terms of the atheist having no business ranting about the illogic of the theist when they were simply trying to say grace by him/herself.
He is talking about how theists who think they can prove God exists, and want to force their beliefs on others, are WRONG.
And you are trying to turn tables on this and accuse him of trying to force the poor theist to admit that God is illogical.
There may be another realm of existence disconnected from ours and inaccessible to us by normal means, where God abides, but it can't be an IMPOSSIBLE God and even a posslble God is beyond proof.
All he is saying is that theists who imagine that logical rational evidence that should convince everyone, and set out to do exactly that, are mistaken, and don't have any right to denigrate non-believer on account of THEIR mistaken belief that they have any logical or rational argument.
You agreed with this.
I agree that an atheist who seeked out(?) Christians to tell them that their God is illogical would be as bad as theists seeking out atheists to insist that have logical arguments FOR God.
Flip the coin over and see that we can't prove that God doesn't exist either...
Post a Comment