Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:22:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3311 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
But do you see how that’s an unsatisfactory answer? If Larry’s life turns
non-peachy, then you would claim that your point is proven. But if Larry’s
life does not turn non-peachy, then you would claim that your point is not
disproven. Your stance is not persuasive, except to those who alrady share
it.
|
It’s unsatisfactory to a logical mind. Logic is a tool, but not the end
all of inquiry. It has its limitations. Heck, I can use logic to prove that
movement is impossible (ask).
|
You can, but your logic would be faulty. Present your argument for review, if
you’d like.
| |
Applying logic to God is like trying to measure the volume of an ocean with
a ladder. A ladder is a useful thing, but not in this case.
|
This is that wordplay I cautioned against!
| |
Let me ask you: is the concept of God “logical”?
|
Which God? The Christian God? You’ll likely disagree, but I find God to be
logically impossible on the basis that he contains logically contradictory
properties.
And if we accept your “logic is irrelevant” argument, then you have no basis for
rejecting any assertion I care to make about God. For instance, I could declare
that God is 100% evil, and you would be unable to claim that I am incorrect.
You can’t even rely on scripture to bolster your argument, because the inclusion
of bibilical passages would be equivalent to allowing evidence that requires a
logical of validity.
| |
What I meant is that God doesn’t rely upon logic a
lot. God chose a small band of nomads to reveal itself to mankind. God came
to earth not to rule humans but to be killed by them. Jesus taught that to
keep your life, you must loose it, that the last shall be first, the poor
shall be rich, etc, etc. None of that is “logical”. Logic is irrelevant.
|
This, too, is the same wordplay.
| |
| |
all the more so if the god in question is the one who designed my brain to
favor logic over faith.
|
What makes you assert that?
|
If God tells me “you must make the ultimate incomprensible decision based on
incomplete information and using only the inadequate three-dimensional brain
that I gave you,” then God is directly responsible for any error I make as a
result.
| |
I don’t doubt God could do that in a second, but I do doubt that your mind
would be able to comprehend it, in the same way that your 3D mind cannot
comprehend a 4D hypercube
|
If God is as omnipotent as people say, he should have no problem enabling me to
comprehend it. If he can’t enable me, then he’s hardly omnipotent.
| |
God is uncomprehensible. We have no hope to ever understand God with our
finite minds. Merely because we cannot grasp the infinite doesn’t
necessarily mean that it doesn’t exist. That would be illogical;-)
|
In the end, that’s a formulation of the classic (and falacious) ontological
argument: God is incomprehensible==>therefore our finite minds can’t prove
that he doesn’t exist==>therefore he exists.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) Infinity may exist. Finite minds can grasp theories and ideas regarding infinite, but cannot encompass what infinite really is due to the very nature of finite minds If finite minds cannot encompass infinite, infinite cannot exist? That's the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) It is a variant of the one Dave K mentioned earlier. Before moving any distance X, the distance 1/2X must be covered. Before moving distance 1/2X, 1/4X distance must be moved, etc. Since there will always be a distance smaller than the one to (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) It's unsatisfactory to a logical mind. Logic is a tool, but not the end all of inquiry. It has its limitations. Heck, I can use logic to prove that movement is impossible (ask). Applying logic to God is like trying to measure the volume of an (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
