Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Paulina
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 01:55pm PT
|
Hanna maintains the existence of God cannot be proven, but is "apprehended," by everyone (reminding me of Ed Hartouni's "born with the idea of God," observation), but that our fallen human nautures cause us to suppress that truth.
This is a pretty bold, and potentially verifiable/falsifiable hypothesis. Let's take some babies and compare the way they pay attention to something regarding some god vs. no god. Like the way they study how babies pay more attention to their mothers' voices. I doubt very much that the results will be conclusive.
Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating. In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God. This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted.
This is silly, whether you came up with it or not. At worst, atheism is as logically untenable as any sort of theism. Since you cannot affirm "with certainty" either that God does or doesn't exist, by your own argument (since doing so would imply exhaustive knowledge), therefore taking either the position of atheism or theism is exactly equivalent in terms of logic.
Of course, actually, in terms of the way close-to-logical inquiry works, again by Occam's razor, atheism fares slightly better than theism, since it doesn't posit any extra entities (that is, a deity).
So no, you cannot refute atheism logically. At least not if you haven't already started with some axiom about the existence of a god (and that would be very circular logic in that case).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:00pm PT
|
Therefore God cannot be understood, approached or dispelled simply by logical arguments.
What comes after logic?
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:03pm PT
|
Werner wrote: Therefore God cannot be understood, approached or dispelled simply by logical arguments.
What comes after logic?
Voodoo...mysticism! Am I close???
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:06pm PT
|
LOL Bob
Logically the route won't go.
Bridwell said: Yeah logically, but I have faith we can do it.
|
|
TradIsGood
Recently unshackled climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:12pm PT
|
As long as we are talking about "proofs", there is that inconvenient little theorem that Kurt Gödel proved.
|
|
Paulina
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:24pm PT
|
Oh no, someone mentioned Godel's theorem! Everybody run!
Listen children and repeat after me: Godel's theorem applies only to formal mathematical systems expressive enough to include arithmetic. I shall not invoke Godel's theorem in vain.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:25pm PT
|
Yes the sneaky Gödel heh heh
Truth means to be led outside the logical box.
Truth leads us from logic to meta logic to meta meta logic.
Ultimately Truth is transcendental.
In a nut shell; Godel's essence
A conscious person with awakened intelligence can appreciate that Truth is different from all logical systems.
|
|
TradIsGood
Recently unshackled climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:30pm PT
|
Ha. Ha.
That is because Kurt only did what was easy.
He left the hard work as an exercise.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:31pm PT
|
Well
All logical systems sooner or later end up chasing their own tails.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:45pm PT
|
"Well, hmmm. It would appear we now have two learned apologeticists onboard - one Christian, one Vedic. Both mount ardent defenses of the veracity of the respective tracts underlying their religious beliefs and perceptions of God. Which is correct? Or, is one simply describing the tail of God while the other his trunk?"
Round two...
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:59pm PT
|
The last refuge of the religious apologists, fuzzy language that means little or nothing. I know, I know, we are all blind to the ultimate, awesome, really cool "Truth". If only we could see.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 03:03pm PT
|
Werner wrote: Bridwell said: Yeah logically, but I have faith we can do it.
Which is really the foundation of your thinking...faith. I respect that and hope all is well you Werner. It has been a good discussion.
Later, Bob
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:00pm PT
|
Tweet! We must stop the game momentarily to mop up some blood on the court. Hello again Thinkers. That was a cute reference to an event in Poway which happened to Greg (ee-onk-ee) on the basketball court in high school. Seems a very large scab on his elbow earned from Mt. Woodson OW's was knocked away during a game.
May I please back up just a little...honestly I sometimes wonder when some posters get any work done--I can't keep up. I feel rude though if I don't respond to some comments.
But first I want to say, "BIG GROUP HUG!" Where is Crimpie when we need her? Neebee?
Greg: Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe," a clear theistic statement. Along those lines, I'll mention Oppenheimer's spiritual leanings are better documented.
"Atheism is logically untenable."
I'm staying with that despite the murmurings. There is no such thing as a second tier kind of math logic. God's existance cannot be proved OR DISPROVED formally by a syllogism of logic because such arguments are self annihilating. I think Dirt tripped on the word I used, "exhaustive (knowledge)," a synonym of omniscience. Omniscience would be required to catagorically prove with CERTAINTY the existence or non-existence of God.
You just muddy the water and set up equivocations by suggesting the terms "humanism," or "deism" instead of atheism and theism. I consider myself a Christian Humanist, a Christian who affirms the arts and sciences.
Dirt: The very first word of your post "Poor (Bruce)," could be an Ad Hominem attack, for it connotates a word picture of unkempt wantoness. The aggessive tone and discounting statements seem confirming as to the overly personal afront. When I encounter conversations which resist reciprocities of respect, I wonder if the motives lie somewhere besides an honest inquirey of truth, in the realm of private emotions and harsh experiences such as are common to all of us.
In any case, once again, my point is precisely the limitations of logic alone for leading us to truth. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or even ourselves with certitude, without a recourse to further empirical evidence and a step of attendant faith. We cannot prove with certainty the existence of a chair (it might be an hullucination), yet. further empirical evidence and a step of faith leads us to sit... and possibly watch those Sanford and Son reruns.
In that sense, I'm in agreement with Bob, who's not very interested in proving God's existence.
Ed: I hope I was not responsible for the side-tracking of your concept of a kind of dualism, matter and the idea of God. I think that echos some of the tenets of Gnosticism. We can see gnostic systems in modern movements such as Theosophy, Christian Science, and Unity School of Christianity.
Gnosticism, along with Judaistic legalism were the primary subjects of conflict within the early Church and both are dealt with at length by the Apostle Paul. Some people might tbe surprised to consider that Paul of Tarsus has been called the most powerful and influential intellectual of the first century. Gnosticism has always had great appeal to intellectuals, because of it's systemic tidiness, as you have observed. His "Epistle to the Colossians," in particular, addresses Gnosticism. In it he belabors the legitimacy of the material world by referencing it to the Spiritual Realm: For example, his radical statement,
"In Christ (transliteration of the Hebrew term, Messiah), dwells the fulllness of God bodily." echoing the the claims of Jesus Himself, when He said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM."
But fellow seekers, I too feel neglected since introducing the subject of the Scriptures and their attestation of truth, and particularly the uniqueness of Christ. Isn't it a cheap shot to toss the star witness out of the courtroom? Jesus is indeed a "thorny" problem, eh?
I have so much work to do to get on track following the Holidays so I probably can't respond until the weekend, if then. But I want to thank and applaud every single person who is interested enough to post or thoughfully read everybody's posts and to treat their persons and arguments humbly, reserving time for contemplation. It is a difficult challenge and a worthy one.
Bruce
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:03pm PT
|
Healyje: okay one more comment before I go. You are alert and I'm always impressed by your thoughts and wit. And I've only read the "Gita," so am hesitant to get into particulars of Pantheism or Panentheism. I believe all the major World Religions should be respected however, and they all contain amazing challenges. But for this discussion I think it is enough to just consider the general idea of Theism alone. Did you notice my brief comment about Relativism?
Shake and Bake,
Bruce
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:22pm PT
|
I would very much disagree with your line of reasoning:
"Atheism is logically untenable."
I'm staying with that despite the murmurings. There is no such thing as a second tier kind of math logic. God's existance cannot be proved OR DISPROVED formally by a syllogism of logic because such arguments are self annihilating. I think Dirt tripped on the word I used, "exhaustive (knowledge)," a synonym of omniscience. Omniscience would be required to catagorically prove with CERTAINTY the existence or non-existence of God.
for instance, give an example of a "self annihilating" argument. If you say that one cannot disprove the existence of "god" because one cannot perform an exhaustive elimination of all of what that might be, well, I think it is a bit absurd.
It is certainly possible to conduct the investigation as one might for understanding the universe. The existence of "god" implies certain things, what are those things, let's go look for those things or measure those things. This line of argument is usually met with one of the following:
-"god" is not measurable
-"god" is not a part of the physical universe
-"god" is a subjective experience
-we can never understand "god"
all of which call into question the corporal existence of "god." The dilemma for a scientist, and for a believer of "god" is to construct some way which that might be true. The only thing I can come up with is that "god" is a thought. It satisfies everything. Now so far I would anticipate the objection to this argument as the believers in "god" would insist that that is not real enough. No one has objected in that way, which makes me think I have not explained myself, or perhaps I have and everyone agrees.
Everything we know about "god" come from our thinking about the subject, and creating a series of explanations based on thought alone. We have denied the possibility of any objective physical investigation. Some here would even argue that the ideas are beyond logic. The only thing that I know that can exist apart from the physical world is what is created through thinking.
That was my Nash simile, his "real world" was a product of his thought, and he was not able to distinguish what was real from what was not.
So we cannot disprove "god" given the way the definition of "god" has been constructed (by our thinking). Very convenient for those who would argue that "god" exists. However, the only way that can happen, is if "god" exists in thought alone.
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:40pm PT
|
Ed - I would like to spend more time and though on your comment. But still, precisely, such arguments are absurd on the basis of logic alone. Thanks for recognizing what "exhaustive knowledge," entails.
But once again, is there no comment on the reports of empirical evidence, the Scriptures? Are they simply speculations? They are subject to inquirey.
Thanks
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:41pm PT
|
Poor Bruce.
Poor Richard's Almanac.
YOU didn't read what I wrote (again) or you'd see that the last bit says you can't prove or disprove god with logic.
but I am surprised that you say so, because you used an argument that at least pretended to use logic in dealing with god. Implicit in that garbage you quoted in the need to prove that god exists. See, that's logic. Real logic, not the kind you and Werner like.
You, and Werner, just see what you want to see, and ignore the rest.
say that god is a matter of faith, and be done wiht it.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:47pm PT
|
the scriptures are written by people, no matter what the religion
they may have been "inspired" by "god" but that inspiration, as far as I know, took place through thought and meditation (and prayer)
one could assert that there was a higher authority which directed the scriptural writing, but all we know is that they are some person or persons product
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:58pm PT
|
Honest guys, I have to git. But I'm happy that I think Dirt and I might have agreed on something. But saying the evidence of Scripture is garbage (Dirt) seems quite absurd, unfair and unsubstantiated. Similarly, I wonder if an examination of the Scriptures might lead Ed to reconsider his gnostic leanings.
I really do have to go now friends, may I call you that?
In a friendly way,
Bruce
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:18pm PT
|
I thought I was done with this but the Type A in me just won't let it go.
I find it degrading, ignorant and rude to think as a believer in a mystical being that you have the goods...so to speak, to a better life/afterlife than someone else who doesn't believe in that same being. The God you speak of is no better than you if this is what he/she taught you to believe.
We are all on a journey and to me it what you do the from the day you are born to the day you die that defined who you are and what you did on this earth.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!