ImGod

I wish you would have made sense out of these statements, but you missed the wording in 2 and 4, and though true, 3 (about atheists) is irrelevant.

1.Most humans aren't christian.
2.Most humans are theists.
3.Most human's aren't atheists.
3.Most humans know of the concept of god.
4.Therefore, most humans who are theists, don't believe in the christian God.

Draygomb

1 True
2 False - All Christians are Theists
3 True
4 True
5 False - has no logical connection to the premises.

DarkBronzePlant

WJ,

Here's my original quote:

Note that I was pretty much outright saying that the logic I present is not sound. It was merely the starting point of an idea.

But hey, since you brought it up, let's do this. Rather than jump to your logic, which I presume you intended to seem absurd, let's start with what I presented. Why don't you go ahead and point out the flaws, and we'll go from there?

(BTW - Christian's and Atheist's are possessive, not plural. To indicate plurality, use Christians and Atheists)

WJ

Sorry guys I've been out for awhile.

RE:

1. One of god's attributes is omnipresence.
2. Therefore, if god exists, he is everywhere.
3. God is not here with me.
4. Therefore, I can conclude that god does not exist.

My answer:

1. How do we know that? The statement has no meaning, except for the concept of supernatural phenomena-God and other unexplained phenomena.
2.Because of 1., this statement too appears to be of supernatiral phenomena. Otherwise it is unknown or either true or false depending upon a persons faith and/or belief system.
3. How do you know this? He could, then again, he could not.
4. That conclusion could be true, false or meaningless depending upon the experience and/or beliefs and/or psychological make-up of the individual.

Logic isn't too helpful is it(?).

Walrus

DarkBronzePlant

Logic is quite helpful!

So now then, it seems that statement #1 is useless, correct? #1 and #2 are essentially redundant, and as you point out, "omnipresence" has little useful meaning. Okay, then cobining #2 & #1, and throwing out the "omnipresence"

In my episcipalian upbringing, I'd been taught time and time again that god is everywhere. Are we saying this absolutely isn't true? Might not be true?

WJ

Well, in our context,logic would only be helpful to articulate the fact that there exists uneplained phenomena, contradiction, true or false statements about what we know of the world based on the apriori and so forth(then trying to explain it).

So, since there is no meaning of truth to the aformentioned exercise, go on believing that which you feel is the truth anyway.

If a 'teacher' tells you something from his subjective experiences [ie, a claim that God is everywhere, etc. etc. etc..], how does it become your very own truth? How do you know whether you are good at say, basketball?

Since, in our discussion, the concept of omnipresence is not logically possible, then do not proceed any further with your thought process. End of discussion.

I still can't figure why Atheist's are so concerned about God?

Who said God was logical? Did you talk to him? Did you have an NDE or something?


Walrus
------------

Trees have an existence; God in this sense, doesn't Next question.

cleftone

Walrus,
While I believe every abstract 'event' has some sort of physical component/corollary, I neither implied nor said that reality is made up of only such physical entities. A strictly phenomenological approach to the question of a god's localized presence, given the clear rationaldilemmas I alluded to above, is absurd. Just ask most physicists.

It is obvious that inductive reasoning will put you closer to acknowledging that there is indeed a metaphysical presence in the universe.
Agreed, in part. Induction is a great tool in the discovery of abstract (or even metaphysical) 'entities' like love and goodness and conceptions of evil, etc. But inferring the existence of a god based on presumptions of design and order and causation in the universe just begs too many questions of a strictly rational nature. Induction can be abused by people who are too lazy to deal with these issues more deeply.

Pascal's Wager odds are pretty convincing.Come on, man...

I can sensibly affirm the existence of metaphysical entities other than a god, can't I? And I think I stated clearly in my previous post that I do indeed have faith, so really, no theist has anything "over me". I am sympathetic toward your underlying suspicion of any theory that is touted to be strictly presuppositionless or rational in nature, but the other end of the spectrum is equally inadequate.

You see, the concept of God relates more to the 'whys' of existence, not the 'hows'.
Who says? Physicists?

Besides there is no 'object' to debate. So what's the point?
The points are many. One is that religion is not healthy for humans. I'd like to think that exposing theistic ideas (like omnipresence) for what they are (silly, childish, evil, etc.) is one way to dislodge religion from the mind of man. I think that is an important contribution to humankind.

If science or you or me can provide a material-objective proof to consciousness... problem solved!!! Get it?
Yes, I get it. Do you remember what the problem is? I don't think science has all the answers. I may have equivocated on the term in my previous reply. When I use the term science in a thread of this nature, I probably mean 'reason, open-mindedness, scientific inquiry, the creative human drive', etc.

What's amusing is that the atheist seeks answers through time, yet uses timeless concepts to make their case.

Even more amusing and frankly, glaring and lame, is the theist's insistence that god is both transcendent AND omnipresent. I'll let the theist speak for himself:
Saying that God is everywhere is a misnomer. It implies that space is an entity God fills, when actually it's the other way around. God's being creates existent things that create the space that is filled with existent things that is where God is. This reads like some Theosophist shit from the 20's. Isn't it great?

Cleftone

John Page

No it doesn't.

You are making the mistake that Atheism is synonymous with logic. (Don't believe everything you read!)

bgponder

Walrus.

The Pascal comment cinched it for me. Up until then, I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt in wading through all these philosophical terms you sling around. You blow more smoke than an overloaded log-truck on a cold morning, IMO.

In plain language now--why do you think it's more reasonable to live according to what you can't know, rather than what you can??? We've seen your recurring "life is a paradox" theme, and I, at least, am assuming that this is connected to your reasoning re Pascal--are we to understand that you use such reasoning in other(significant?) areas of your life as well? Perhaps, do you own both a bicycle and a car, but usually catch a ride to work in the morning with old Mrs. Jones down the street, because though you bought the bicycle to ride because you can't know if your car will start, you may as well not ride the bike because you might not be able to work the cable-lock combination? Somehow, I seriously doubt that you apply this reasoning to most other areas of your life. Why with Religion?

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: bgponder ]</p>

Draygomb

Draygomb's Wager

Given that only one religion is correct and that it may not be known to Man. The only logical course is intelectual honesty which leads to Atheism. After all if god didn't want us to be atheists why did he create so many ridiculous religions. Perhaps god only likes those who are intelectually honest.