Frotiw

The existence of God can(principally) be doubted while the validity of logic can not be doubted not even principally. The stance that God exist will always be far more difficult to uphold. The only argument that might have a little force is the onthological argument. It is refutable though and fundamentally different from the defence of logic argument. Also as jpbrooks said(if I understand correctly) the argument of god express something about the world and what exist in it. This is not the case for argument for logic. This argument does not support any onthological stance it just says that what ever exist(without saying anything about it) it will uphold the laws of logic. As said earlier the laws of logic goes before any theoriesing about the actual containment of the world including God.

Cheers

jpbrooks

Yes. That is what I meant. I wasn't arguing for the truth or falsity of the statement "God exists".

jpbrooks

This is admittedly off-topic, but the existence of an omniscient and omnipresent Solipsist would pose interesting problems, one of which would be how we would account for our experiences of not being omniscient and omnipresent beings.

John Page

Why, we would be a part of god.

jpbrooks

If only one "center of consciousness" exists (irrespective of its attributes), yours (or mine) would be ihat "center of consciousness". The only way for that not to be the case is for there to exist a "center of consciousness" that is distinct from yours (or mine), which could not be the case if Solipsism were true.

John Phillip Brooks

Primal

Only if you think that something to be evident must be verified extrinsically or by sequential reasoning.

If however you accept that some beliefs can be self-evident or evident yet not inffrred then no.

What's the difference then? The difference is qualitative. Self-evident axioms are qualitatively different from irrational faith.

If they disagree ask them to prove to you that faith and self-evident axioms are the same. You will only get circular reasoning.

Also these people are adhering to a non sequitur i.e. belief in logic is okay so belief in God is ok. By that line of reasoning I can say "belief in logic is okay so belief in faries is ok."

Notice also there are two definitions of faith: 1) Any belief held at all. In which case belief in logic and objectivism are matters of faith...but not irrational.

and 2) Spiritual conviction held without logic or reason, in which case logic and reason obviously cannot be this.


Lastly if they ask where logic comes from, say it reflects intrinsic properties of the natural world. You'll stop em dead in their tracks.

Primal

Oh yes then point to how logic and reason are at odds with your friend's beliefs.

Ensign Steve

This is great, you are absolutely right. The term "faith" is ambiguous. Let's see where my argument leads when I try to get my friend to nail down a definition we can agree upon.

Thanks!

Jen

John Page

Hmmmm, maybe god is multi-brained, whereas we only have two halves.

Cheers, John

jpbrooks

Hi John,
sorry it took so long to get back

A multi-brained entity, that is the aggregate of all of our "centers of consciousness" (which some may wish to call a "god") certainly seems possible on the surface.
But if so, then that "god's" consciousness would not be distinct from ours, which leads to the same problem I alluded to in my last post.
On the other hand, if the "god's" consciousness were distinct from ours, how can it have "emerged" from our consciousness?