This is old news, but, as to logic. Logic exposes rules about how we may speak about the world, and not about how the world (Universe) operates. I don’t know why this is so difficult. The Universe does not operate “logically”. It is simply a gross misuse of the concept of logic to say so.
“God cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift” is not taken to be an empirical fact by anyone who actually understands the purpose of logic. Logic is strictly concerned with how we speak about rocks, and has nothing to do with rocks themselves. I could die a happy man if I could get even one person to understand this.
Logic is not about what God does or can do. It’s about how we speak. Logic is about language. Logic is not about God. Someone please help me, here. God, are you listening? How about if you explain it? Maybe they’ll listen to you. Logic never once has been used to discover a fact, but only to expose an already-known one.
If I judged my own atheism by the “arguments” here presented, I’d be in church tomorrow.
I understand what you’re saying faust. But there are some logical arguments with our words from things we understand that are logical arguments as of now, I’m not saying there absolutely true, I’m just saying for the most part many arguments that Christians use without faith, are logical ones. As far as some stuff I’ve said earlier, I was pertaining to Logic as far as Relative Truths, but from an overall standpoint for me to Judge one side or another as being more logical, well I may be changing my mind from what I’ve said earlier, but I really have no place to do that since we haven’t ‘seen’ all the arguments that may come to pass.
Seems like however, no matter what it boils down to, no matter how much evidence one side has or another at this moment. You still have to have faith to believe or disbelieve, this is why I’m starting to render this site useless if it’s just going to be a bunch of nagging on each others beliefs. I think I could do much better just reading all cases for and against I can get my hands on and leave it at that, because with people like Dan on here who don’t even care to listen to an argument for Christianity, it seems like a big fat waste of time. As you said before Faust, A philosopher is just a guy with alot of time on his hands, and quite frankly I’m not sure if I have all that time to dedicate answering questions people don’t want answered in the first place.
I mean if it’s so hard to keep a case against something that you must spend hours upon hours arguing it… your belief must not be as monolithic as you think. Furthermore, why you would want to stop someone from believing would be beyond me, maybe it’s political reasons, maybe we should get down to the core about what peoples ‘real’ intentions on here are. I’m not missiong out on anything, so why you would want to conform me I’m not sure…, I can only think you need to confirm yourself of your shaky disbelief.
Club - my point is that sentences such as “God can/cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift” have no place in serious discussion. They are a misunderstanding of logic, and a comical perversion of the “angels on the head of a pin” question. Logical arguments can be made about God. There is no point to them, however, if they contain stupidies to begin with.
Yes, we must use premises that we understand, and are capable of being understood, to make these arguments. I agree.
You already did, and it is appreciated. symbols arranged, more symbols to create understandable usage, applied to object as descriptor, falls to being logic. Really it is simple.
Empiricism is a means of using more complex language to create processes and methods to test the effectiveness of labels.
Universe, language, human stupidity … errr … logic.
Oh I agree faust, to say that would be a faith based matter. But that doesn’t mean the possibilities are ruled out, that’s just reasons for God, not reasons to prove God, which I’m sure you know. But yes I agree with what you’re saying.
One of the best and worst arguments against Christianity is if God why evil, but as I’m sure you know faust, this causes many problems for an anti-theist.
I however do like hearing what you have to say, more than often Faust it seems you just comment on peoples mistakes or ignorance in here, but I do like to hear what you have to say, as I wish you would post more, but I don’t blame you if you don’t, this site does ‘feel’ like a waste most of the time.
No, Club. To say that would be literal nonsense. Faith has got nothing to do with it. Religious faith does not require literal nonsense. That statement is analytically false (that means it’s got no shot at the outset), which has got nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the existence of God, for instance. I am commenting on a linguistic error. This error has nothing to do with the existence of God. It’s nonsensical on its face, God or no.
I do not search for truth. I attempt to speak coherently. No argument against God succeeds if it is incoherent. This is not a theological matter. I am trying to help atheists to argue coherently, and to help theists recognise bogus, specious arguments - arguments that do not need any refutation.
I am talking technique. As my sig suggests, I am not critical of everything that I see here.
I am curious as to how an immanent and transcendent God is thought of as “lifting” rocks through physical strength - that is, just what physical strength means as a function of an immanent and transcendent God.
Did he swoosh a gigantic arm down to part the Red Sea?
Yes, than any argument trying to disprove God because of some unknown cause would also be literal nonsense.
Did he swoosh his gigantic arm to part the Red Sea?
Not sure, many biblical interpretations are testimonies from what that writer saw, and explained it the best he could. We can’t be Sure How God parted the red sea, i’m not sure what his process was is really relevant is it? Why do you ask this question?
My point is that this is a nonsensical question. It is also, by the way, not attributable to Aquinas, so far as I know. The point is that angels are nonphysical - they are metaphysical. There is no answer, because it’s a stupid question. Some questions are just stupid.
Actually, I thought it was St Anselm, but not really sure to
be honest. It is a nonsensical question, but I just like
the sound of “going medieval on his ass”.
Sorry, got carried away.
Exactly… so is that your point? I agree, I don’t see how this pertains to Christians, just been used in dumb atheistic arguments that have been over-used on this site. You might wanna get ahold of Peter then Faust, because he disagrees.
I’ll keep that, now Peter agrees with you.
Do you see what I now put up with Faust? You and just a small others are the only ones who look at questions unbiased and answer them according to what you see as accurate, not because of what side your on, that’s elementary.
Club - I take that as a large compliment. What happens on this board, often, is politics. In the worst sense of that word. Any argument seems good enough, as long as it is an aggressive attack on a position that is disagreed with. My view of philosophy, which is what I do in my spare time, and what this site primarily exists for, is different. But strict philosophy aside, my view of argumentation is different. Before it’s an argument, you have to try, at least, to make some sense. If you don’t at least try, it’s just shouting across a chasm.
Yeah, Club, I see what you put up with.
It gives honest, hardworking, mom- and apple pie-loving atheists a bad name.
Exactly… so is that your point? I agree, I don’t see how this pertains to Christians, just been used in dumb atheistic arguments that have been over-used on this site. You might wanna get ahold of Peter then Faust, because he disagrees.
I’ll keep that, now Peter agrees with you.
Do you see what I now put up with Faust? You and just a small others are the only ones who look at questions unbiased and answer them according to what you see as accurate, not because of what side your on, that’s elementary."
K: ummmm, I think I have been insulted. let me check, yep.
Now what? ummmmmmm. I am going to …
I got nothing.
By the way, Peter, I think it was nobody. Although Anselm and Aquinas both asked some similar questions. Perhaps this can be Googled. I may still have a book on the Doctors. Maybe in Massachusetts. Now I’m curious.
