Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:23:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3305 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 be traveled, motion will never happen.
| |
| |
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!
|
Ah, so that’s what that meant. How convenient, but it is an apt analogy.
| |
| |
Let me ask you: is the concept of God “logical”?
|
Which God? The Christian God?
|
(cough.. wordplay...cough) Actually, a God.
| |
You’ll likely disagree, but I find God to be
logically impossible on the basis that he contains logically contradictory
properties.
|
That is precisely my point. The concept of God is illogical. Any why is
that? Because God is infinite, and infinity is beyond the bounds of logic.
| |
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.
|
I at least have the Bible, which has historical claims of Revelation from God.
The Bible could be “made up”, but the ideas presented in it are too powerful to
be fiction IMO. I of course acknowledge that that is a faith statement and not
compelling to a logical mind, but again, I assert that the use of logic is
irrelevant and inadequate.
| |
| |
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.
|
You keep using that....;-) Now I must ask you to defend your admonition against
it.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
If you mean that God will forgive you for failing when you did the best you
could, then I’d agree. The fact is that God loves you no matter what you do.
| |
| |
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.
|
That is precisely why God came to earth in the form of a human Jesus. If God
gives you free will and you reject God, are you asserting that God should be
able to make you comprehend, all the while you refuse? How logical is
that?
| |
| |
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.
|
Not that ==>He exists, but that He could exist. You assert that He logically
can’t exist. You scorn faith-based beliefs, but you yourself have faith that
He doesn’t exist, or positively: you have faith in something else, whatever that
is.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) Like I said, Zeno's Paradox. But 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32... equals 1. Additionally, your formulation demands that space be infinitely divisible, which it is not. (...) "Apt" is yet to be determined, but I admit that it's clever! (...) (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) I dunno, baseballs seem to have no problem moving in differential calculus using dv's and dt's... but of course that is continuum mechanics. Some Lugnet physics guru is going to have to speak up about quantum mechanics with the Planck scales (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) You can, but your logic would be faulty. Present your argument for review, if you'd like. (...) This is that wordplay I cautioned against! (...) Which God? The Christian God? You'll likely disagree, but I find God to be logically impossible on (...) (20 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
