Split from: DV Christians Unite! (Christian Only Thread)

[Noogah]

Noogah, I don't see your answer in those links. Perhaps the answer you are looking for is not in those links, but the answer to your actual question IS in those links. Your actual question: Why do you assume those things [morality, logic, uniformity of nature] have to come from God? My abbreviated answer: 1. These things can come from God 2. They can come from nowhere else 3. Therefore, they can come only from God I obviously did not expect that you would AGREE with these answers. You may not even think that they are good, or valid answers. But I did, in fact, procure them. I am certain that you think these are not at all adequate answers to the question, so let's move into specifics. To keep on insisting that I did not provide any semblance of an answer will take this discussion nowhere. In which case, we may as well go our separate ways - I didn't come here to bicker with you, I came here so we could talk about truth. Tell me, precisely, on which points you contest me. Things don't have to be physical to exist In philosophy,[materialism is] the view that the world is entirely composed of matter.[link] Which is precisely why I was correct when I told you “in a materialistic perspective, these three things are meaningless, and certainly do not exist”. You have therefore concurred with me that logic makes materialism impossible, and so you are therefore not a materialist. There is, and has necessarily got to be, more to reality than the universe as we observe it. Wait, so... what you're saying is that in an atheist world view there can't possibly be logic I don’t think there can be. compared to a theist world view, where you simply have no idea whether logic exists or not? I have said before, and I will now say again: you and I are both quite positive that logic exists. If we were not, we could safely be put in the loony bin, since the only way to say that logic does not exist is to get there by means of logic. And this amounts to what C.S Lewis called “a proof that there are no such things as proofs” which, as he concurred, “is nonsense”. 'showing that my world view allows for logic’ still suffers from exactly the same logical flaw that I mentioned. It presumes the conclusion and thus is a fallacy. No, they are not the same things at all. What you criticized was the attempt to prove the existence of logic, which can only be done by assuming that it does, in fact, exist. This is not the same as using logic (without doubting its existence) to deduce whether or not a particular worldview would actually permit laws of logic to exist, and to furthermore discover whether in that world our thinking could represent real insight. And if you discovered that it did not, you would have to abandon that worldview, since you would thereby derive that it couldn’t represent reality, in which you and I both agree, there is such a thing as logic.

[Xei]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. You can prove that a claim is impossible - you do so by showing a contradiction, and thus that it is false. But to prove that a claim is "possible" without showing that it is true; what does that even mean? It must mean that you're showing that the claim is either true or false. But that's a completely empty statement!

[JoannaB]

But contradictions are possible! A contradiction does not prove impossibility. We live in a world full of contradictions. Our minds are full of contradictions. Well, at least my mind is, and I suspect other people's as well. Just because something is contradictory does not mean there is necessarily any problem with it in the real world. That's one of the problems I have with logic and philosophy: they often start with the assumptions that everything makes sense, that there are no contradictions, that a clean proof is possible and desirable. In a philosophical debate that is true, but in real life, it often does not reflect reality and is not even desirable. I am a contradictory person, and I do not necessarily want to resolve all my contradictions.

[Xei]

Well, you should direct that comment at Noogah, not myself. Although I presume I agree with him that contradictions are not possible. I was using the word 'contradiction' in the sense that it refers to states of affairs. Can you give an example of a contradiction which is the case? That is, can you give a state of affairs where that state of affairs is true, but the opposite state of affairs is also true? For example, "London is England, and also, London is not in England"? Of course, this isn't a legitimate example, because the second claim is false.

[JoannaB]

I am a rational human being, but I am also an irrational human being. Oh, and part of my problem is that I both suffer from low self esteem issues and I am pretty full of myself as well.

[Xei]

Fun fact: if you know of a contradiction, you can logically prove absolutely anything, including false statements like "yesterday it rained jam in Paris". Principle of explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sageous]

I was using the word 'contradiction' in the sense that it refers to states of affairs. Can you give an example of a contradiction which is the case? That is, can you give a state of affairs where that state of affairs is true, but the opposite state of affairs is also true? Schrodinger's cat? Being awake while being asleep (aka Lucid Dreaming)? "Everything I say is a lie; I am telling the truth."?

[Universal Mind]

My abbreviated answer: 1. These things can come from God 2. They can come from nowhere else 3. Therefore, they can come only from God I know the premise assertions. You have yet to give your bases for them. This is getting boring. Also, I am not a materialist.

[Xei]

Schrodinger's cat?

[JoannaB]

Schrodinger's cat? Being awake while being asleep (aka Lucid Dreaming)? "Everything I say is a lie; I am telling the truth."? I read a slightly different version of the last dilemma: "The next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true."

[Universal Mind]

I read a slightly different version of the last dilemma: "The next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true." There is also the really short version: This statement is false. I think that paradox really calls into question the Law of the Excluded Middle, which is that a proposition is either true or not true and cannot be both.

[JoannaB]

So, if this statement is false, can we prove logically that both Christians and atheists are correct? This statement is false. (And this is true) Therefore false can equal true. Therefore God can both exist and not exist?

[Universal Mind]

So, if this statement is false, can we prove logically that both Christians and atheists are correct? This statement is false. (And this is true) Therefore false can equal true. Therefore God can both exist and not exist? "I do not exist, but neither do I not exist." - Siva, Hindu god I think the Law of the Excluded Middle does always apply except in a paradoxical metaphysical region where truth and falsehood meet. I have researched the false statement paradox a lot, and I have yet to find a resolution to it other than that it is both true and false. It does call into question the idea that contradictions are proof of falsehood, but I think contradictions are proof of falsehood outside of the paradox where the real and unreal both originate. That is just my current stance. I have been both urked and fascinated by the paradox for a long time, and I am still searching for a resolution to it that does not support logical contradiction. If anything makes me question reality, it's that paradox.

[JoannaB]

So now that we have shown that logic may be flawed, could we agree that it is not necessarily wrong to use other tools in addition to logic to consider the existence or non existence of God, that logic may not suffice to prove or disprove God's existence?

[Xei]

I've always given observation primacy over logic, making me an empiricist rather than a rationalist. This mainly comes from an understanding of our place in nature; in particular that thought is not some kind of ethereal substance with a magical insight into and authority over physical reality, as was thought by Descartes and his contemporaries, but rather can be clearly shown to arise from the brain, an organ evolved for survival, with only a very limited domain of observation to hone it. Such a view has been repeatedly vindicated by the history of human thought. Logic is just a codification of patterns in observations of certain domains of reality. The same goes for science. Inferences of logic and hypotheses of science are demonstrated by observation, but this never proves their ubiquity (something we learned several times in 20th century science). Logical arguments don't have much to do with the crux of my atheism, which is just that I have no observations of God. If I observed God, I'd change my mind. Logic only comes into play when refuting the attempted logic of others. I have researched the false statement paradox a lot, and I have yet to find a resolution to it other than that it is both true and false. It does call into question the idea that contradictions are proof of falsehood, but I think contradictions are proof of falsehood outside of the paradox where the real and unreal both originate. That is just my current stance. I have been both urked and fascinated by the paradox for a long time, and I am still searching for a resolution to it that does not support logical contradiction. I think I'd call it irksome, but not troubling... the same attitude I have towards a persistent bluebottle, or two dissonant musical notes. I've tended to view it as a problem that will probably dissolve if you do some serious investigation of its philosophical basis... a misuse of language which does not actually refer to anything, a bit like "the King of France is bald". So, if this statement is false, can we prove logically that both Christians and atheists are correct? This statement is false. (And this is true) Therefore false can equal true. Therefore God can both exist and not exist? That doesn't really make sense. You can't conclude from "some statements are true and false" that a given statement is true and false. To conclude that, you would need to have "all statements are true and false".

[Spenner]

I've always given observation primacy over logic, making me an empiricist rather than a rationalist. This mainly comes from an understanding of our place in nature; in particular that thought is not some kind of ethereal substance with a magical insight into and authority over physical reality, as was thought by Descartes and his contemporaries, but rather can be clearly shown to arise from the brain, an organ evolved for survival, with only a very limited domain of observation to hone it. Such a view has been repeatedly vindicated by the history of human thought. Logic is just a codification of patterns in observations of certain domains of reality. The same goes for science. Inferences of logic and hypotheses of science are demonstrated by observation, but this never proves their ubiquity (something we learned several times in 20th century science). Logical arguments don't have much to do with the crux of my atheism, which is just that I have no observations of God. If I observed God, I'd change my mind. Logic only comes into play when refuting the attempted logic of others. I find that this is where I'm at aswell, though, without such a defined grasp on the mechanics behind the scenes to push me totally to one end or the other (rather I guess I'm suspended in an opinion with some edges quite a bit blurrier than maybe yours, and others). There are moments where, I feel there "could" be something beyond the physical that is suspending us, that isn't a particle of incredibly small size, or of opposing spin, but that's only because I don't yet know that there isn't. I suppose that puts me at agnostic, but I think that because I don't immediately associate this unknown with a God, at least not in any sort of biblical sense at ALL, perhaps at the very most condensed a pandeistic god. Observation over logic is what allows me to at least grasp the "geometry" of the statements such as "this statement is false". In a way I think MC Escher's "Drawing Hands" give a metaphor that's perfectly reasonable for these variables that are just floating in mystery (although had the hands been REAL hands actually drawing each other, that is where it makes more sense. In the same way, the statement is in a way creating itself a loop). Perhaps those are the hands of God aswell OoOoOOooOOoO (though really they do allude slightly to what I'd imagine is happening with the hands of Pandeism, albeit much simpler)

[JoannaB]

That doesn't really make sense. You can't conclude from "some statements are true and false" that a given statement is true and false. To conclude that, you would need to have "all statements are true and false". You are of course correct about that. Sorry about my faulty logic there. As for observation over reasoning, I would argue that I have observed God - I had an experience during which I felt a presence that I believe to have been God. The trouble is of course that (1) I did not perceive this presence with one of my five senses as far as I could tell, but with a sixth sense. That is no problem for me because I do believe we have more than the five senses officially recognized by mainstream science, but I do realize it is a problem for others. (2) Even if one could observe God with the officially recognized five senses, five senses can mislead us. (3) there have been many accounts of people testifying that they have observed God somehow, the problem is that if you do not believe their testimony, do you need to observe God for yourself? Or does God have to be measured with scientific equipment in a lab environment carefully accounting for any chance of observer error? Or does God need to be peer reviewed in scientific journals? What would it take?

[Spenner]

As for observation over reasoning, I would argue that I have observed God - I had an experience during which I felt a presence that I believe to have been God. The trouble is of course that (1) I did not perceive this presence with one of my five senses as far as I could tell, but with a sixth sense. That is no problem for me because I do believe we have more than the five senses officially recognized by mainstream science, but I do realize it is a problem for others. (2) Even if one could observe God with the officially recognized five senses, five senses can mislead us. (3) there have been many accounts of people testifying that they have observed God somehow, the problem is that if you do not believe their testimony, do you need to observe God for yourself? Or does God have to be measured with scientific equipment in a lab environment carefully accounting for any chance of observer error? Or does God need to be peer reviewed in scientific journals? What would it take? What would lead you to be convinced that this entity contact was God itself? I think before going about proving it to someone else you would first need to be able to prove it to yourself; what things did this God's presence do to make it accountable of an actual deity? Would a deity not have some sort of overwhelmingly powerful message to share, and why do you experience it inconsistently if it is always there? Ultimately though I think that even if I were to see God for myself, I would ideally want some sort of demonstration, in case I am sinfully indulged in a false God which is trying to persuade me. Also I don't think it would be wise to try to measure something scientifically that is above the means of scientific measurement. I think that if everyone were to simultaneously experience God then that could be something. But if God is really an experience of the 6th sensory, might it not be just a different way of saying the same thing, such as for buddhists, enlightenment? Anticipation of the beings of light in that state are generally what leads them to being noticed, when in one of the deepest states of meditation, which is definitely something that FEELS above sensory, by far (as well as all senses to some extent). Might there be some trouble trying to label such an experience, whereas for one person it's enlightenment, and for another it's simply experiencing God? Again for some psychonaut that's gone too far on a DMT blastoff, the "oneness of the universe"? Just curious, do you think that someone who has experienced God once before, if he or she were to experience any other one of these divine states, would they experience God there aswell? Pardon my rambling, just something that's come to mind.

[TimeDragon97]

You are of course correct about that. Sorry about my faulty logic there. As for observation over reasoning, I would argue that I have observed God - I had an experience during which I felt a presence that I believe to have been God. The trouble is of course that (1) I did not perceive this presence with one of my five senses as far as I could tell, but with a sixth sense. That is no problem for me because I do believe we have more than the five senses officially recognized by mainstream science, but I do realize it is a problem for others. (2) Even if one could observe God with the officially recognized five senses, five senses can mislead us. (3) there have been many accounts of people testifying that they have observed God somehow, the problem is that if you do not believe their testimony, do you need to observe God for yourself? Or does God have to be measured with scientific equipment in a lab environment carefully accounting for any chance of observer error? Or does God need to be peer reviewed in scientific journals? What would it take? First of all, we already know we have more than five senses -- the senses of balance and time, for example. Secondly, a few mere testimonials don't really count for much, especially when dealing with God, and even if someone is telling the truth, they could have easily been hallucinating. Now, if several people had the same experience at the same time, that might be different. BTW, I actually know of someone who has had a religious experience and is now an atheist -- the YouTuber MrRepzion. I encourage you to check him out. I think the video where he talks about the experience is titled "Why I am a Christian" (he started out as a Christian making Christian videos). I warn you: it's long and emotional (he also talks about when he was molested). Just food for thought.

[JoannaB]

I do believe that Buddhist enlightenment and Christian experience of God are related phenomena with the same root cause, which I believe to be the devine, but I understand that Buddhists would disagree - it may be a difference in human interpretation of the same supernatural phenomenon. Why do I not experience it always? Perhaps for a similar reason as to why I am not lucid always when asleep? Why did I experience it once? Perhaps for a similar reason of why children sometimes naturally become lucid? It has to do with awareness though I believe, and that our awareness in most circumstances is insufficient. I was in danger of dying at that time, and perhaps that increased my awareness, at least that is my belief. Did I get a special message? I felt not alone like there was a presence with me even though there was no human there. I felt cherished and safe. I should have died that day. I came out of the experience with barely a scratch. Not something I can use to prove God's existence to anyone but myself, but I believe it to have been a genuine experience. Could I be wrong? I am human. Of course, I could be wrong. What would lead you to be convinced that this entity contact was God itself? I think before going about proving it to someone else you would first need to be able to prove it to yourself; what things did this God's presence do to make it accountable of an actual deity? Would a deity not have some sort of overwhelmingly powerful message to share, and why do you experience it inconsistently if it is always there? Ultimately though I think that even if I were to see God for myself, I would ideally want some sort of demonstration, in case I am sinfully indulged in a false God which is trying to persuade me. Also I don't think it would be wise to try to measure something scientifically that is above the means of scientific measurement. I think that if everyone were to simultaneously experience God then that could be something. But if God is really an experience of the 6th sensory, might it not be just a different way of saying the same thing, such as for buddhists, enlightenment? Anticipation of the beings of light in that state are generally what leads them to being noticed, when in one of the deepest states of meditation, which is definitely something that FEELS above sensory, by far (as well as all senses to some extent). Might there be some trouble trying to label such an experience, whereas for one person it's enlightenment, and for another it's simply experiencing God? Again for some psychonaut that's gone too far on a DMT blastoff, the "oneness of the universe"? Just curious, do you think that someone who has experienced God once before, if he or she were to experience any other one of these divine states, would they experience God there aswell? Pardon my rambling, just something that's come to mind.

[Samick]

I do believe that Buddhist enlightenment and Christian experience of God are related phenomena with the same root cause, which I believe to be the devine, but I understand that Buddhists would disagree - it may be a difference in human interpretation of the same supernatural phenomenon. I would say the opposite. Christians would disagree Anyway, some sources tell, that Jesus was Buddha's follower. Because the bible and Buddhism have many things in common. The only difference is that Buddhists experience God through meditation and purification of the mind and Chirstians experience it through fate. These are two ways. I think it would be best if we would combine knowledge of these two religions and take what we think is the best from each one of it. And in my opinion, meditation is one of the most important things in people's lifes. It doesn't matter if you are a christian or a buddhist. It's just a mental exercise that will help you to see the truth. Sorry. I am not christian nor buddhist. Just wanted to say a few words here.

[JoannaB]

Ok, you are right, some Christians would disagree. However, I am Christian, and I know my beliefs are not unique among Christians. Christians come in different flavors, and the kind of debates that occur on DV between Christians and atheists are not usually representative of all of Christianity because most Christians who believe like I do would rather not participate in such debates - they tend to usually attract a certain type of Christian I think who believe in a very different version of Christianity than I do. I could not agree more about combining Christianity and Buddhism and learning from both. I have been reading Buddhist writings, and I strongly believe that many of Buddhist tenants are compatible with Christianity, and one can learn more from a combination of both. Meditation is not unknown to Christianity. Many Christians throughout the ages have practiced meditation. I have tried it thus far unsuccessfully alas, but I plan to try again. I would say the opposite. Christians would disagree Anyway, some sources tell, that Jesus was Buddha's follower. Because the bible and Buddhism have many things in common. The only difference is that Buddhists experience God through meditation and purification of the mind and Chirstians experience it through fate. These are two ways. I think it would be best if we would combine knowledge of these two religions and take what we think is the best from each one of it. And in my opinion, meditation is one of the most important things in people's lifes. It doesn't matter if you are a christian or a buddhist. It's just a mental exercise that will help you to see the truth. Sorry. I am not christian nor buddhist. Just wanted to say a few words here.

[Samick]

Ok, you are right, some Christians would disagree. However, I am Christian, and I know my beliefs are not unique among Christians. Christians come in different flavors, and the kind of debates that occur on DV between Christians and atheists are not usually representative of all of Christianity because most Christians who believe like I do would rather not participate in such debates - they tend to usually attract a certain type of Christian I think who believe in a very different version of Christianity than I do. I could not agree more about combining Christianity and Buddhism and learning from both. I have been reading Buddhist writings, and I strongly believe that many of Buddhist tenants are compatible with Christianity, and one can learn more from a combination of both. Meditation is not unknown to Christianity. Many Christians throughout the ages have practiced meditation. I have tried it thus far unsuccessfully alas, but I plan to try again. Well, in my country the generation of people who raised me up are very conservative. They stick to those old beliefs and cannot accept anything different. They just don't want to. That's a really bad thing. The reason I think about Christians that way is that most of those conservative poeple consider themselves to be Christians. They go to church, they pray but are incapable of developing new habits and accept new beliefs. But also I understand that there is a minority of Christians in my country that are dynamic and accept things which are a bit different than what their world is about. And I don't personaly know any Chirstians-meditators. And about meditation practice. There is no success nor failure. There's just experience you get during meditation. If you practice daily you get very profound results. I have read a book by Eckhart Tolle named "The New Earth". The author himself is not Christian. But he uses many quotes from the bible in that book. I would recommend for you to look at it if you agree about combining Christianity and Buddhism.

[Noogah]

But contradictions are possible!....I am Christian Certainly the Christian faith does not allow for contradictions. In that case, by saying that God cannot lie, I suppose you have no real assurance that this is, in fact, true. It might be absolutely true that God does not lie, and yet He does. It might be absolutely true that Jesus in fact died for our sins, and yet did nothing of the sort. At least in matters of faith, contradictions must not happen. And they must not happen in any other arena, because if you try to say “Contradictions can happen anywhere except for Christianity”, then how do I know that even this statement is not a contradiction? Furthermore, the whole thing is, to me, exactly what I have been discussing with Xei - the "proof that there are no proofs". You can't use logic to deduct that the universe is illogical, and that things can be true and false in the same way, at the same time. In that case, the very reason you used to reach this conclusion must be called into question. But to prove that a claim is "possible" without showing that it is true; what does that even mean? Why can't you do this? Let's say I know that I have a blue, 5'x11' vehicle in my garage. I can deduce some things about my garage: my garage is at least five feet high, and eleven feet long. Furthermore, my garage contains a blue object. I may not know the precise dimensions or qualities of my garage. However, if somebody tells me that they think my garage is two feet tall, or that it is a garage that doesn't contain blue objects, I can safely disregard these ideas about my garage. If somebody tells me that my garage is, in fact, ten feet high, and twenty feet long, and contains all the colors of the rainbow, this could possibly be my garage. I can similarly show that logic can possibly exist in my worldview, and that it cannot possibly exist in others. I know, for example, that logic is not material. And yet, there is logic. Therefore, reality must contain more than material things. I know the premise assertions. You have yet to give your bases for them. This is getting boring. I haven't asserted anything. I have answered all your questions, without assertions. You, on the other hand, have been asserting my failure to address your questions. While I have consistently risen to your challenges of how, exactly, I answered your questions, you have not at all in turn explained how I failed to do so. 1. If the God of the Bible exists, he provides a standard for morality, for logic, and for the uniformity of nature. It is hardly necessary to defend this statement, if we have a basic comprehension about the characteristics of the Biblical YHWH. HOWEVER, I actually did defend this statement, supporting it with Biblical scripture. Thus, I fail to understand how I have NOT managed to answer this question. Feel free to explain. 2. Other worldviews CANNOT provide a reasonable basis for morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature. Given that I have established the sufficiency of God for these three things, I move onto the claim that ONLY God can account for them. I begin by showing that materialism is utterly incapable of it. Since it is not thereafter possible for me to systematically debunk how every single other worldview can account for logic, morality, and the uniformity of nature, I have requested to hear your OWN views on the matter, so we can determine the truth of the second premise. And yet, you have consistently "asserted" that your own views on how these things can be are irrelevant, when they are nothing of the sort. They are probably the only things worth discussing at all, since the second premise depends on them, and the first premise really stands on its own. Given this, I think I have answered question 2, and simultaneously provided a sensible route for further discussion – namely, whether YOUR worldview CAN account for logic, etc. Also, I am not a materialist. Okay, so if you want to continue this discussion (I certainly do), why not share with me what you actually are, and what morality and logic are to you, and why you are sure that nature is uniform?

[TimeDragon97]

Certainly the Christian faith does not allow for contradictions. Err... have you read the Bible? It's chock-full of 'em.