SharonDee

Hmmm... if diana will be moderating this forum, I think I just found a reason to lurk in it. [/fan raving]

Bubba

Welcome diana. I admire your no bullshit take no prisoners style. I mostly lurk here and post in evo/cre but I'm glad to see your a mod here.

Bubba

Danya

Congrats diana, I'm sure you'll do a great job.

Kantian

I think the inherent logic in ordinary language is a crippled philosophy to maintain.

But that's a separate issue, and welcome to the EoG forum, diana!

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kantian ]</p>

abe smith

I don't suppose you've ever been in Ephesus, have yer, Missus? (Better back away from that....) All sorts (&gt; chhocolate, not licorice) of welcomes & bon voyages, Diana. Abe

diana

Last time I was there, people were worshipping some unknown god. Pissed me off. Haven't been back since.

d

long winded fool

I posted a thread about a month ago called: "Is the existence of an illogical god logical?" In it tried to (and I think I did) prove that, if there were a creator god, He (or She ) could, (and would) be non-existent, unscientific and illogical, and that this is ironically a logical assumption. You could assume that there is no god because of lack of evidence, but it is entirely possible that you could easily be proven wrong in the future. (In my analogy anyway.) Jobar and Llyricist did a good job showing that one can't, with the present understanding of science, prove that the god of my analogy exists, but I think it is clear in my analogy that IF a creator god did exist, he would logically have many of the contradictory qualities that atheists use to discount theism. If you have anything to add to this thread, your comments would obviously be more than welcome. Maybe it was logical to disbelieve that man could ever fly if you lived before the Wright brothers, but it turned out those who had the illogical belief were right all along. So then science, it would seem, is born of faith. Since we aren't at the pinnacle of human knowledge, maybe agnostics are just logical atheists?

Friendly ribbing aside, you seem to have quite a reputation here and I look forward to reading your posts and/or responses. It is a pleasure to have you moderating this forum diana and I hope you decide to hunt down and refute one of my foolish ideas (or ham-handed allusions) in the near future!

diana

Hi, long winded fool.

Nice nick, btw. I won't forget it anytime soon.

P1: We are capable of knowing/understanding those things that are logical.
P2: We don't know/understand any gods.
C: If a god exists, it must exist outside of logic.

I'm sorry. To me, this is not unlike arguing that Ben Franklin invented lightning. It's all bass ackwards.

I'm not sure how to explain that at the moment, and I'm on my way out the door. I'm hoping someone else who's been tangling with it can point out exactly where and why it fails (I'll be out of town over the next couple of days). All I can say at the moment is that it sounds all twisted.

IF dragons were dancing in my nostrils, I wouldn't have to sneeze because dragons, according to my understanding of them, are ethereal.

Sorry. I find hypotheticals that argue against logic using logic pointless.

Science works from all sorts of wild ideas and theories, but systematically discards those that don't hold up to scrutiny. "Faith" is believing in something that you have no reason to believe in, even after examination of all the relevant data. I think you meant "guesses."

And I may never live it down.

It's a pleasure meeting you, fool. Sounds like you'll be a pleasure to lock horns with.

d

long winded fool

But if existence and logic are both dependent upon the space-time continuum, and the space-time continuum has a cause, then the cause must 'be' outside of existence and outside of logic as we know it. The space-time continuum doesn't necessarily have to have a cause, but theists believe that it does, therefore logical contradictions pertaining to the 'existence' of this cause can't be used to disprove it. Of course, the cause itself can never be proven either, but the most an atheist can say is, "I believe that the space-time continuum is uncaused (infinite) because I have no reason to believe it has to have a cause." And the theists can rationally say, "I believe the space-time continuum was created because it executes sequentially and logically just like a computer program." You can prove that theists have unproven and illogical ideas about the nature of their "programmer," but you can't definitively say that there is no programmer. The programmer obviously doesn't exist in the program because he programmed its existence. In this scenario, agnosticism seems a much more honest (and free from "faith") stance than atheism or theism.

To read the whole program analogy, click <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000722" target="_blank">here</a>.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: long winded fool ]</p>

diana

long-winded fool,

If existence is dependent upon the STC
AND
The STC has a cause
THEN
The cause must exist outside of the STC.

Your first premise directly contradicts your conclusion. Same old story, different words.

d