WJ

Vib!

Well, I wish Mr. Darwin would answer the question, but in the meantime, does your book talk about how we arrive at logically necessary truths?

Walrus

Hobbs

So, there is some standard above and beyond God according to which God is necessary? Why not just bypass God and "worship" (if worship is appropriate; perhaps just acknowledgement, or living according to it, would be more appropriate) this standard to which even God is subject?

WJ

seanie!

We crossed. You're real close. Let's see what vib or darwin says before we jump to any 'absolute' conclusion about what logic can and cannot do. Like I say, you're real close. While we wait, consider what type of logic you use to arrive at your own conclusion that god does not exist.

Walrus

seanie

I'm repeating myself from elsewhere but let's look at it in the form of an analogy.

Put it this way;

Your Leprechaun theist believes Leprechauns exist. Actually they'll usually claim to know they exist the evidence being; that they really, really, really believe; that they read it in some book; an invisile Leprechaun spoke to them.

Your Leprechaun agnostic acknowledges that there is no absolute proof either way as to the existence of Leprechauns. Hence they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of Leprechauns.

Your Leprechaun weak atheist will proclaim that they do not have a belief that Leprechauns exist. Not that that they believe Leprechauns don't exist mind you. They're not saying that. Just that they personally have no belief that they do.

Your Leprechaun strong atheist will say 'Leprechauns? Are you NUTS! Where's your evidence? Oh I see; you read it in a book did you? And an invisible Leprechaun spoke to you? (Nurse prepare the medication) Well that's just swell but I'm not convinced. Now come up with some persuasive evidence and I'll be willing to reconsider. But until you do I'm going to carry on believing THAT LEPRECHAUNS DO NOT EXIST.

That there is no evidence Leprechauns exist doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist.

But if there is no evidence it's a whole lot more sensible to proceed on the basis that they don't exist rather than that they do.

Now replace the word leprechaun with the word god and you'll see where I'm coming from.

My (provisional) default assumption is that god does not exist.

Now if you can demonstrate why god's a logical necessity rather than merely asserting it I'm willing to listen.

But you've never done so when asked before.

WJ

Ok seanie, I'll give it away (well maybe not all of it, you'll have to work a little bit.) If I understand your cut and paste-argument, you have just outlined logical deduction as a particular methodology, correct?

Walrus

seanie

Hold on.

I cut and pasted my own argument from elsewhere.

I've done you the courtesy of indicating how I arrived at my particular conclusion.

Now several times you've claimed God is a logical necessity. Would you please do us the courtesy of explaining the process by which you arrived at that conclusion.

And then explain how you reconcile this with your claim that you can't trust logic because all human logic is fallible.

MrDarwin

Was it a question? I took it as a non sequiteur. I'm sure you're dying for me to ask, so here goes: why do you think God is logically necessary? Or better yet, why do you think that I should think God is logically necessary?

(I should probably modify my OP slightly by clariying that I don't deny the existence of god(s), I simply find no evidence that such things exist, and thus no reason to believe in them. I am an agnostic with respect to the concept of god(s), but a strong atheist with respect to the Christian concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent creator/deity; I find this concept to be both irrational and illogical, given what we know about the world around us, and both illogical and self-contradictory given what the Bible itself tells us about this deity.)

WJ

Seanie!

Come on now, I'll certainly tell you, but you have not been forthcoming with your argument.

You just said: "I've done you the courtesy of indicating how I arrived at my particular conclusion."

You refuse to answer this question of methodology, which *I* will extend the courtesy and answer for you if it will make it easier for you, then, you tell me if you agree (or not) so that we may continue.

Q- How did you arrive at your particular conclusion?
A- Deduction (?).

Seanie, is that true or false?

Walrus

seanie

Put up or shut up.

I've given you my argument (flawed though it may be)

Now explain.

Why is God a logical necessity?

How you reconcile this with your claim that you can't trust logic because all human logic is fallible?

Jack the Bodiless

Hold it right there.

Elaborate.

Are you saying that "God" is a member of the set of "logically necessary beings", or are you defining the word "God" to mean "any logically necessary being"?

If the former, you need to first demonstrate the existence of "God", then explain why "God" is a logically necessary being.

If the latter, you need to explain why my bathplug (which I believe to be an inevitable consequence of the subtle interaction of forces and energies over a period of 12-15 billion years since the Big Bang) is not a logically necessary being, and not therefore a God.