Logic against the Existence of God? YEAH RIGHT!

[MXJSPH]

Iraqi, consider this for a moment, you said:

My point still stands. I will not say all swans are white because I saw one thousands white swans. I believe them to be white because there is a biologically scientific explanation for it. You cannot rationalize God on the basis of perception and empiricism.

Now, this biologically scientific explanation is again, acquired through an inductive process. When they examine the genes of the swan, and keep on finding one in particular that is resident to the swan, they can classify it in terms of its purpose (i.e. colouration, eyesight etc) Scientific knowledge is acquired through inductive reasoning. You also said, you cannot rationalise God on the basis of perception and empiricism, but the fact remains, you cannot rationalise God, at all. Some people will go as far as to claim God is irrational.

On perception and appearence, its fitting you mention Nietzsche, for he also said that there is no 'the' truth. There is only 'my' truth, and 'your' truth. Now, if this statement is correct, what can possibly seperate my truth from your truth? Simply put, perception and sensuality, since our senses and what they interact with in this world are unique to us individually.

Furthermore:

I am simply saying if you are to rationalize the existence of God on the basis of cause and effect

I'm not seeking to do anything of the such because while Christians often consider God the uncaused cause, a cause is naked without an effect, and the effect of God could be all that we know and see around us. If this is the case, we cannot induce, or deduce, any form of valid argument because a universal truth would manifest and we cannot argue against that. Can we attain metaphysical truths? Maybe, not yet though.

On this matter:

Now with your example, the reason I know the picture is above the floor is because I can measure it and make a numerical conclusion, instead of relativizing it to the position of the desk. We know for a fact that picture is above the floor because we have scientific tools that allow us to make such a conclusion.

These scientific tools that you mentioned only came about due to the combination of both experience and perception of humanity, so they were invented. For example, we knew fire was hot, through experience. You cannot look at a fire and feel its warmth (well not physically anyway ) Man touched it, and recoiled. As time wore on, we began to measure its heat level, we accorded it with what is called temperature, we made mechanisms for these purposes. All because we experienced a certain set of properties attached to fire, and explored them with reason and efficiency.

Finally, I agree to some extent that defending logic with logic is questionable (just like defending induction with induction), but as John pointed out, you said 'but only relevant to the way we percieve it'. If this is the case, relevance is a term often used with relativism.. and you refuted that: 'I can measure it and make a numerical conclusion, instead of relativizing it to the position of the desk.' Stop the contradiction! lol..

Regards.

 

[Iraqi_Irani_Al-Farabi]

Now, this biologically scientific explanation is again, acquired through an inductive process. When they examine the genes of the swan, and keep on finding one in particular that is resident to the swan, they can classify it in terms of its purpose (i.e. colouration, eyesight etc) Scientific knowledge is acquired through inductive reasoning. You also said, you cannot rationalise God on the basis of perception and empiricism, but the fact remains, you cannot rationalise God, at all. Some people will go as far as to claim God is irrational.

On perception and appearence, its fitting you mention Nietzsche, for he also said that there is no 'the' truth. There is only 'my' truth, and 'your' truth. Now, if this statement is correct, what can possibly seperate my truth from your truth? Simply put, perception and sensuality, since our senses and what they interact with in this world are unique to us individually.

What you say is true to an extent. Let me restate what I said, in better terms and I apologize for not doing so before. First, in science, we never claim any knowledge which unleashes one phenomenon or another, is not subject to change. For example, up until this century everyone believed lightening only stikes down from the sky and not vice versa. However, recently this belief has been negated. They found that, based on certain testimonies and observations, that there is a phenomenon called 'reverse lightning'. What happens is instead of electrons shooting down from the cloud, they can actually shoot from the ground up. So this has forced scientists to rectify some very fundamental theories about lightning. So if you accept any theory in science, including evolution, as absolute just because a few observations have supported it, this is wrong. I dont think I ever claimed this. Now what you can say with the scenario of the swans is based upon all the examination of the genes and pigment, we therefore have a selected species of swans which exhibit such traits. But this does not allow us to say every single swan on earth, and even if they exist on other planets and celestial bodies, is white. I am not judging the credibility of inductive reasoning by itself. I am criticizing the way it is used and applied in certain domains of reasoning.

With the argument of God, you are justifying it by saying 'since some intelligent engineer built my fancy mercedes with all these complex mechanisms, therefore some intelligent designer created this very complex universe'. With the swans, we saw 1000 white swans. All science has done is, through using inductive reasoning and certain laws of nature, showed and proven to us that these 1000 swans are white for these specific scientific reasons only. They're not white because the first two were white. Science uses inductive reasoning as a tool, but to claim those 1000 swans are white explicitly on the basis of inductive reasoning, without scientific merit, is wrong. Our scientific tools are used only to explain this intricate complexity, which our brain cannot comprehend. These tools have no place, without further knowledge, to tell us that every single swan in this universe is white. That would be a gross error. Similarly, it would be a gross error to say there is an infinite being which created this universe just because a finite being created your fancy car. So let me restate my claim:

1). These 1000 swans, or swans that exhibit the same characteristics as the 1000, are white because of a certain biological explanation. This biological explanation does not tell us if all swans in the universe are white, it on explains it for that specific species.

It is true that physical objects in this world, have a designer. But just as we cant conclude all swans in the universe are white, we cannot say this universe necessarily came from a cosmic designer, just based on that specific premise by and in itself.

Finally, I agree to some extent that defending logic with logic is questionable (just like defending induction with induction), but as John pointed out, you said 'but only relevant to the way we percieve it'. If this is the case, relevance is a term often used with relativism.. and you refuted that: 'I can measure it and make a numerical conclusion, instead of relativizing it to the position of the desk.' Stop the contradiction! lol..

Your right on what Nietzsche said and it still goes along accordingly with what I said. In saying truth is relevant to the way we perceive it, I am not saying that is the absolute truth. I am simply implying that our 'truth' rests on how we perceive it. Dont mix this with the example of the desk. I am still refuting relativism, but by saying truth is relative I am only pointing out the weakness within human thinking, I am not agreeing with it. To sum it up, humans are stupid because they think their truth, which is only relative to them, is 'the truth, because they conceive it in their mind to be such and that is stupid.

 

[Atour]

No one can possibly understand the nature of God, hence the existence of God. We, with our limited thinking, cannot perceive what is beyond our understanding. Certainly, no one can claim the absence of the creator. Evolution is inherently flawed. Thus, many schools are also teaching what is being known as ?intelligent design?. In the same token, no one can prove the existence of God. The key concept that people tend to forget about is FAITH. That is the essence of religious belief. Faith is the corner stone. Without faith, like an autumn leaf, you can be swayed in whichever direction the wind blows. Philosophers and logicians can manipulate words, numbers, etc to prove and disprove anything. Your FAITH should lead you, not words uttered by the so-called ?thinkers?.

 

[Narcissus]

YES YES YES!

don't contradict yourselves, if god is the creator of everything, then, did it create itself too?

some things (be it gods) most likely exists for unknown reason yet to be discovered.


oh yeah, does religious faith still exist? i though it died long long time ago along with cavalry.

I think humans would be better of dropping this whole idea of religion and gods. Looking back in time, i do not see any accomplishments made by these fields other than misery.

 

[Sheik Abdul Bin Fallafel]

I think you can equate Science = God....... Basically everyone believes in science to some degree, some thinking God created science, others believing science exists and just needs to ber studied, etc.

For example, many people BELIEVE that science can do or explains EVERYTHING if we understood science well enough. They believe you can ressurect human beings from death, that you can travel back in time, that you can create solar systems, in short... you can do anything God can do --- if you UNDERSTOOD the science behind it. To some people, Science is God.

Can God create a stone that he can not lift?

Let's rephrase this into other similar question:

Can Science create life that science can not explain?

If Yes, that means that means science can not explain everything in life and there are limitations to science, meaning there has to be a God.

If No, that means science can not create unexplainable life and there has to be a God.

Anyhow, logical arguments like this can be manipulated. Why? You can't apply the rules of logic to something you don't understand. God and Science remain mysteries, We don't know them and we have a lot to learn about both of them.

If you want to use the above arguement using logic that God does not exist (and therefor we should just believe in science), then you can use the other argument to prove that science does not exist and that you should believe in God.

 

[JujU]

well i understand the question, but it just seems so rhetorical ... cuz you can manipulate words to make them come out the way you want them to....

the best example i can come up with now is the one we used to use as kids ..... you'd ask someone "does your mom know you're gay" .... if they say "NO" ... then you can reply saying "ooh she doesn't know" implying that the person is still gay,regardless... if they reply saying "YES" ... then the question is answered straight ....

its just the wording of the question that tricks the reader into seeing it differently ...


the way i see it .... to the question you asked.. if i answer "NO" then im believing that he cant create it.... who created it then?
if we are to believe that GOD is all powerful and created everything, then the stone was already created by him...



the question that always used to get me was .....
did God create man, or did man create God?

Alchemist, I am writing my essay about Freud's idea of the nature of God. Freud's theory is based on 'essence precedes existence'. He believes that religion is an illusion and he proposed the Father-complex...

He believes that civilization creates religious ideas which would also explain why he thinks that religion is an illusion. Freud introduces the Father-complex idea in his book The Future of an Illusion. The Father-complex describes a love bond between the mother and child through a physical connection (i.e. breast feeding). Although the mother acts as a protection figure for the child, the father withdraws the son from the mother, which ruins their relationship, and becomes the new powerful figure for the rest of his childhood. As a result of the father?s actions, the child develops mixed feelings towards this superior figure; he admires his father as much as he fears him. When the child grows up to become an adult, he no longer sees his father as the superior figure in his life; as a result, his father is viewed as a weakness which he no longer fears him. The stage of a man?s adulthood creates a void in his life; therefore, he forms an imaginary father (God) for whom he develops an intimate relationship for protection, someone to seek forgiveness, as well as a superior figure to fear.

I am comparing Freud to Sartre and Sartre believes in 'existence precedes essence'.

"...when God creates He knows exactly what He is creating. Thus, the concept of man in the mind of God is comparable to the concept of paper-cutter in the mind of the manufacturer, and, following certain techniques and a conception, God produces man, just as the artisan, following a definition and a techinque, makes a paper-cutter. Thus, the individual man is the realization of a certain concept in the divine intelligence."

Freud's theory seems somewhat logical but I don't know.