Sabine Grant

Hello Shadowy Man... " that if an electron is infinitly small, to which the evidence seems to point"... the " if" makes your statement a theorization not an absolute. The concept of the infinitely small by itself percludes the idea of being limited to a particular structure. That is why it is "infinitely" .Same with the big.

Take another concept... the " after death" you or I can only theorize what is to happen after death. Is there a state of consciousness or none whatsoever? there is no human experience that can validate what happens after death. There are theories but no direct experience to affirm one or the other as absolute truth.

Yes math can explore the representation of the infinitely small or big by attributing a symbol escorted by minus and plus. However it cannot accuratly describe the physical evidence of those two opposites. It theorizes in the abstract how they can be symbolized.

My point is that men have attempted thru the course of history to represent an image of God based on what their mind can percieve or what they can relate to. From the old bearded man of Michael Angelo to the Christ of Dali, the mind always relied on what can be percieved thru senses and is used as a platform to the realm of imagination and fantasy. The representation of God as a source of cosmic energy is way beyong what any artist could pertain to represent. The representation of a spirit ( as God is defined in the NT) is limited to some vague figure surrounded by some bright light.

Who is to affirm in the absolute that God's physical existance can be described according to what the human mind can concieve? What if it cannot? We certainly cannot claim to have discovered and experienced all that the universe harbors... can we? we can imagine all we need to but we have to use what is percievable to us as a platform to imagination. If I describe anything on my imaginary trip with the color " smubble"... how would anyone relate to what I am describing? If " smubble" was only percieved by me and not anyone else, I doubt anyone can relate to what I am describing.

Again I present : claiming that the belief in God is illogical because we cannot prove his existence percludes the fact that we define physical proof of existence ONLY thru what we know from the reality we know. I do not know what realities await science in the discovery of the Universe.... do you?

Jobar

Sabine Grant: Again I present : claiming that the belief in God is illogical because we cannot prove his existence percludes the fact that we define physical proof of existence ONLY thru what we know from the reality we know. I do not know what realities await science in the discovery of the Universe.... do you?

Sabine, you are using the word "God" as if there was actually a commonly accepted definition of it. We unbelievers do indeed say that some definitions of God (the Christian one, among others)are illogical because they are self-contradictory; however, few atheists will say that a deistic God is illogical. (In fact, for a deistic god, most atheists are agnostic.)

Yes, we do define what is real from what we presently know. And yes, it *is* possible that we may have to re-examine our paradigm for reality- our 'model'- as we discover new things. It's happened before, and will quite possibly happen again. But this does not mean that circular squares will suddenly become possible!

Sabine Grant

Hi Jobar !
Thanks for your reply. My purpose in my posts was to engender some degree of moderation when it comes to anyone claiming that they detain the absolute truth in terms of the existence of God. Whether the claim is " He cannot exist because it is illogical and not supported by reason"or " He exists I can prove it".
Good analogy the square and the circle... but who is to say that we will not discover new geometrical figures never percieved before? or a new measure of time...new elements....new forms of matter....

Biff the unclean

Sabine when we are talking about God we are talking about a character in a series of stories. This character "God" has attributes (he's magic, etc.) that only belong to fictional characters. He also has limitations (no one has ever been able to see him, etc.) that only apply to fictional characters. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

I realize that you would prefer that he be non-fiction and try to represent his status as in some doubt. Those attributes and limitations that would show him to be real being of equal weight as those that only the fictional posses. However the only thing to suggest that "God" is non-fiction is his fans insistence that he is. As emotional, and heartfelt, as this outcry might be it is simply not possible to vote a being into reality.
Were all of Harry Potter's fans to start insisting that Harry existed, if they gave their lives in the belief that he was real, it would not change his status one iota.

The moderation that you so liberally propose is a compromise between truth and a lie. Truth is a very fragile thing. There can be unlimited lies about a subject but only one truth. To take a middle ground between a truth and a lie leaves you with a half-truth. And that, I'm afraid, is every bit as good as a lie. So unless you can actually produce a god, or Harry Potter, I suggest for honesty's sake that you let the subject drop.

Sabine Grant

Biff... letting the subject drop would mean that I believe that there is only one absolute truth and all there is to support it has already been discover and percieved. I have no problem admitting that my faith is not based on logic or reason as we know them today.

I believe in moderation and that is the reason why I avoid involvement with any fundamentalist groups. Or any group religious or non religious which pertains to detain the absolute truth. Truth IMO evolves as we access knowledge thru our awareness of what surrounds us. I have no way to assert what mankind will percieve or be aware of 200 years from now.

IMO moderation is justified by the constant discovery of what we call truth.

Koyaanisqatsi

luvluv

Split it with me and we'll coordinate my next emergence .

I guess I should rename myself "semi, kinda', sometimes retired," or better, "Koyaanisqatsi...when I'm bored senseless at night," but I've noticed that ability is no longer.

No offense to you personally, but what is it with theists who keep throwing around the, "only one absolute truth" fallacy when the central tenet of any religion is precisely that fact; that there actually only is one absolute truth, i.e., God?

If you accept that there is no such thing as "one absolute truth," (i.e., God) then what good is your "faith?"

What does that mean, "as we know them today?" Will logic or reason change into the illogical and unreasonable some time soon?

"Moderation" in what? One's faith? If you believe a God exists, then don't you also ipso facto believe that there is in fact only one absolute truth?

I don't mean to nitpick, but it seems like you're trying to eat your cake and have it too.

And what "surrounds" us is the absolute truth: God exists? That seems to be your presupposition, according to your terminology; that you begin with the propposition "God exists," which would be the "Truth" you speak of that "evolves" (i.e., is revealed, if I may) as we "access" this pre-existing absolute truth, yes?

In other words, you appear to be claiming that God exists and our ability to somehow recognize "him" (or "it") just hasn't reached us all yet; we don't have those tools in our toolkits, yet. Would that be a fair assessment of your position and if so, what do you think is missing?

So, again, if I may deconstruct, you are simply calling upon your own version of Pascal's wager in order to obfuscate your actual presupposition (that God exists).

May I ask why? What is it about the past five thousand years of recorded human history that leads you to the assertion that "logic" and "reasoning" are currently insufficient tools to assess the question of the factual existence of mythical creatures created by a handful of religious cult leaders over two thousand years ago?

And to what end? Why leave something "open" that is so obviously closed? As Jobar pointed out, what would be the point of remaining open (or in a state of "moderation" as you put it) to the question of whether or not Harry Potter factually exists?

Is it true that fictional creatures don't factually exist?

Is it true that to claim a fictional creature factually exists, one would be expected to provide compelling evidence to support such a claim?

Are those two elements of logic and reasoning entwined above somehow deficient to the task, and if so, how so?

Again, as others have pointed out, the fact that I don't know what will happen two hundred years from now, does not mean that Holden Caulfield is an actual human being walking the planet or that Mother Goose was an actual goose, does it? Nor does it mean that I can't fully utilize logic and reasoning as we currently "understand" them to the question of Mother Goose's (Geese's?) factual existence, right?

Again, it just seems as if you're simply trying to obfuscate the fact that you actually do believe there is "only one absolute truth" (which you label "God") and that humans are somehow incapable of discovering this truth (that surrounds us no less) through the same abilities that allow us to discuss and even conceive of the concept of a god.

In other words, you're simply mystifying a question mark and concluding that the mere existence of that erroneously self-applied mystery is evidence enough.

I would contend that you would never except such remarkably poor standards regarding any other aspect to your life, yet, for some bizarre reason, when it comes to arguably the most important element of your (and our) existence, you're perfectly willing to toss out just about every single thing that makes you human, just in case.

But, the obvious question then becomes, in case of what? That a God who created you human is going to be pleased that you forsook ninety nine point nine nine percent of that humanity in order to perceive his (its) existence? That this pleasure, presumably, is what drives and motivates this God in relation to his creation? He'll be so pleased that I threw away almost every single thing that separates us all from the herds, as it were--everything that he created in me to begin with?

And worse, that the reason this being did all that is simply beyond our comprehension so just accept it (in moderation)?

That's where it should completely disintegrate into the obvious human cult propaganda that it so clearly is; just accept something to be true, yet here's where your "moderation" kicks in, so I'm currious.

What does it mean to not just accept something is true if you, in the same breath, then dismiss all of the abilities you have for determining whether or not something is true?

Sabine Grant

I am not saying that anyone has to accept what I consider to be true for me... I am saying that we do not know everything and one way or the other, moderation rather than absolute statements should prevail. The theist has the duty to admit that faith cannot be justified by reason or logic on the other hand the non theist has the duty to aknowledge that logic and reason can be modified by the future discoveries of mankind.

We base our evaluation of what is reason on the reality which surrounds us, We draw physical laws based on the study of the reality which surrounds us. We could not for example establish or concieve the effects of the absence of gravity until we furthered our exploration of the Universe and discovered that such a state could exist. Why... because our physical reality is gravity.

I was not a theist my entire life. My course of thoughts was stimulated by the fact that it is possible that a supreme being energized life. From there I chose the christian God to be that being. That you question my choice of "which God" and challenge it is fair. But that you deny the possibility that a supreme entity may exist based on your conviction that reality as it is today is unchangeable is where I call for moderation.

Because that is what I understand from your discourse....there is no way a supreme being may exist. Reason and logic cannot be modified. Reality as we know it cannot evolve to the point where we discover new elements, new facts which could lead us to establish a new reason and logic.

Do you believe that reason and logic are influenced by the reality which surrounds us as we know it today? if that reality evolves with new discoveries, will your present course of reason and logic be affected? and have reason and logic already been affected by discoveries thru the course of human history?

Ivo

Hello Spazz,

Your brother believes in a God who cannot be experienced in any real sense of the word. This God's existence cannot be inferred from his meddlings in earthly goings-on, indeed, he cannot be perceived at all by humans.

Ask your brother this:

What is the difference between this God and no God at all?

Ivo

Infinity Lover

Hi Sabine,

To quickly answer those, up to some degree yes on all counts (though what you call reality is what I'd refer to as our perception of reality), but I think there are certain fundamentals of logic that have been established long ago, withstood the test of time since, and will remain to do so in the future.

Your post (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to lead to the conclusion, that a lack of reason shouldn't stop you from drawing certain conclusions, because there's no way of predicting that such a reason will never arise in the future.

Do you have a reason to believe in God? No, but I might someday, so I guess I should.

Is possible future reason a reason? Especially if the plausibility of such a future reason is so astronomicly small?

Don't get me wrong, if your outlook on life is the one your comfortable with, it's harmless to yourself or others, and your functioning as a human being profits from it, more power to you...
...but I can't quite relate to turning a lack of reason beyond that into reason the way you're trying to do here.

Wiploc

If logic doesn't work, then he can't have a reason to believe in god. Phrased differently, his belief in god is unreasonable.

The logic-is-the-wrong-playing-field position is the last-ditch defense of the Christian who has tried other positions and had his legs kicked out from under him repeatedly.

You might point out to him, nicely, that when he became a Christian, it was because the Christians were telling him Christianity made sense. If he has abandoned all of their arguments, it is because he has realised that every time they advanced a justification for their belief, they (the Christians, the "good guys," his role models) were telling him falsehoods.

If he's down to, "This doesn't make sense but I still believe it anyway," he's got one foot out the door.
crc