I would be careful of associating logic with correctness; something can be logically valid without being sound.

Well, i didn't say it's going to be easy...

To understant what I want to say requires lots of attention !

Let's say I want to build a thing in the real world, not just in my mind...so far so good, if let's say I want to build a system or a mechanism based on the principle that 1+1=9, now, can I realize this object, can I turn my dream into reality ? NO ! Reality works based on the principle that 1+1=2. So, if i want to make something real I am obligated to respect logic (correctness) 1+1=2. Why am i not allowed to build something real based on an erroneous principle ? What is this something that does not allow me to realize, to transform into something real my insane(crazy, non truth, non logical) dream (1+1=9) ? And why ?

I am asking basically here "what is a mistake, what is erroneous ?"

This is the importance of logic, of correctness, it alows us to turn something from inside our minds into something real, but only by respecting the laws of logic this is possible, otherwise we fail !

 

PS: Please excuse my english mistakes, I am from another country and is dificult for me to think into a diffrent language and translate into english exactly what I want to show you...is pretty hard even in my own language to make someone understand what I want to say because it's hard to speak of logic and the importance of it, etc, etc.

Exactly ! You've understood correctly... That's what's important, to understand what I mean, not necessarly the correctenes of the terms i'm using.

That's right, i was speaking about the connection between the mind and the phisical reality, what that is and why we need this connection.

True logically correct things exist in our minds but allso in the real world, and logically correct things that are correct only in our eyes but not in the eyes of truth exist only in our minds but can't exist in the real world, ever !

This is what separates right from wrong, true logic from false logic. So, God exists somewhere, that's for sure, but where ? Only in our minds, or in our minds and in the real world also ? Because when you're asking this question: "Is god real ?" this is what you're trying to determinate, if he exists not only in our minds but also in truth(real world), if he is real, if he is truth, not false(lie).

So, a real thing exists in both things, in our minds and in the real, but a lie(non logical, non truth) can exist only (and only) in our minds, but never in the real !

This means that if you look at yourselfe when you are trying to convince yourselfe that god is real, if you see that you're trying to move against the importance of truth, logic or correct thinking, you're trying to keep something non truth, non logical alive in you, something that can't exist in the real ! Or, that's the basic definition of fooling yourselfe !

 

PS: Again, please excuse my poor english.

I agree, I know this, you know this, but how can you convince a "believer" that god is imaginary, with what proof ? Try to convince a priest for example to let go of God ! With what argument ? Only logic can do this somehow...but a stronger logic, something never done before. If you try to speak against God with a priest for example, his natural instinct will be to try to fight your arguments and doing so, he'll fight logic, reson, and correct thinking sayng it's all done in the name of correct thinking ! He'll fight truth saying it's all in the name of truth, he'll say "god is the truth", but if god is the truth, THEN RESPECT THE TRUTH and let go of God, but no, eyes wide shut (this is the correct term to describe those peoples) !

I totally agree with you, we need to prove that anything that is not scientific/empirical cannot exist. But what if that prove is our very selfs, what if that prove is our very minds and the simple fact that we think, what if the prove is in the way thoughts are constructed ? Nobody has ever, EVER, analysed clearly those things within us. Why thoughts are constructed the way they are constructed, why for example you cannot belive in something that is not true, why a thing that is not true cannot exist in the real world but only inside our minds ? Why for a thing to exist in the real world (to be) is necessary to be possible first, what is this "possible", what is logic, what is "a sound thing", what does this show us ?

Maybe this is the way of confirming or infirming the existance of God, but it requires lots of studying and hard work first.

 

Just as problematic is that the average person doesn't really understand scientific method or empiricism. Hence all the crap for sale based on psuedo-science and even outright lies dressed up in quasi-scientific language. 

 This is why a little philosophy is a bad thing.  People latch onto one of the easy to remember truthisms, like "Nothing is certain" and run with it until they have concocted their own bizarre little universe.  Since they have "philosophy" on their side, they think their opinions are as valid as anyone else.

If only they actually did know philosophy, they'd know that their loopholes have been closed off long ago, and the actual philosophical dilemmas they are referencing can't be used the way they think.

 

To me it looks like a search of understanding the mind and not of external objects like God(s). When you understand the role of your mind in life, the use of God(s) becomes obsolete.

To investigate anything first find out where it starts and where it ends. Then follow the process from on point to another to map the sub-processes. Do the same with each sub-process. If you´re not methodical, you´ll get lost and loose the big perspective.

Speaking for science, this is not correct. Hyperbolic geometry was essentially an abstract extension of Euclidian  geometry until it was found to have real applications in  physics. Mathematics often pushes into areas of abstraction that have no apparant connection to physical reality until later when some scientist discovers how it solves a particular problem. At Isaac Newton's time, somebody working with 9 dimensional spaces would have been considered "out there". Today, higher order spaces are commonly used in cosmology. 

I purchased two weeks worth of them as a gag Valentine's day gift for the girl I'm currently seeing. 

No shit?  Your're insane. In a good way.

What's her real gift? 

You're sick and twisted, but I can see how that would work to your advantage.

Good call on the chocolate, by the way.

 

It's typical that a Theist would argue against logic, since most Theists are Misologists. However, for a Theist to diminish rhetoric is unique, since there is nothing but rhetoric in religion. For example, Jesus always spoke in metaphor. Are you saying that rhetoric is useless for expressing truth, or that vague language needs to be challenged?

I would argue that religious language is the most vague of all expressions. After all, you are the one who simply takes things on Faith, which is a poorly defined term if there ever was one. 

As an advocate of reason, I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I reject your formulation of it. There are two fatal problems for this argument:

1. Logic *does* speak against itself on a daily basis. My logic speaks against Todangst's logic speaks against Behe's logic speaks against Dawkins' logic. Whenever two people argue, logic is speaking against itself.

2. You are equating what is *logical* with what is *true*. This contradicts the ideas behind the scientific method, as well as our everyday experience. As Popper pointed out, even the most logical statement we can imagine may turn out to be false in reality. He made the point that even 2+2=4 may be false in some cases, such as when we combine two drops of water with two more drops of water- we get ONE drop, not four. When reality contradicts logic, reality wins. This is why scientists have to test ideas against reality, even when they are rigorously deduced from what is known.

I enjoyed your OP. Interesting writeup.

All of that makes pretty good sense, and i completely agree that you are all correct on your knowledge of thinking over thinking, and your rationale on acceptable frames of mind, but i maybe think that you are wrong on a couple of things.

false statements that i assume most of you believe in this thread:

 

Us humans have totally got the whole knowledge thing down pat.

Our science knowledge is very complete and almost perfect.

We pretty much know everthing there is to know about ways of thinking and possibilities of the supernatural.

 

ok, so, we do have a really strong grasp on everything pertaining to mankind, being man ourselves that almost comes naturally.  but look at the big picture guys, you cant explain the unexplainable, can you?  (youre prolly going to think that is a cheesy and false sentence, but oh well).  Lets suppose for a minute that there is a God.  Would he want us to have the knowledge that he has?  would he want us to be able to see his way of thinking, or would he want us to be who he created us to be, which is dumb and confused.  please dont be mad because i am calling you dumb and confused, because remember, we are supposing for a moment that God is real, and by His standards, Einstein and Darwin and everyone else is dumb too. 

God is still real in this paragraph too, so bear with me.  He is omnipotent and omnipresent, meaning he has supreme power and is everywhere at once.  this may be debatable in itself, but really, if he is those things and we are not, i think he can comprehend a little more than our finite minds can.  back to the old 1+1=9 thing.  i gurantee you that God would not let human math get in His way of making that equation true if he so desired!  it is in this mindset then, that i can say that whatever you guys say is totally "true and rock hard firm"  is very debatable and  probably  untrue  when put into prospect with infinity.  When we are faced with infinity, we cannot grasp it, so therefore, we cannot see eye to eye with God.  He will always be omnipotent, and we will always not. 

When faced with black holes, we are at a loss to completely explain this phemomena.  We only recently discovered the quark of an atom, and also that if half of an electron is spun in circles, the other half will spin regardless of position in space.  these things can boggle the mind and prove our science and theories very false. 

So basically, what i am saying is that this whole forum is pretty much pointless when on the topic of proving the religious mindset wrong.

 

Such an ironic statement Presup! i shall note it

By saying that there are some things that you do "know," you are saying that you have thought of all the aspects or theories that you could think of that could prove your knowledge of that subject wrong.  I could say that i know that i am holding a glass of water.  That doesnt neccesarily mean that i am, in fact, holding said glass of water.  I may be able to see it, drink it, hold it, and do many other tests of its validity, but who is to say that there is not something that contradicts my "knowledge?"  If you say that that is impossible, then you contradict yourself, because you said

"I don't think anyone is arguing that our scientific knowledge is in any way complete or perfect."........"As for the supernatural, any such possibilities depend on your definition... generally speaking though, it rules itself out by definition."

Definition?  Is this definition a known fact, or is it an attempt to explain something simply by stating that it is unexplainable?  You are correct, this definition does indeed rule itself out.  (Frankly, i dont see why you saw the need to put that in there) 

"Can't explain the unexplainable? Well, obviously you don't mean literally unexplainable, so you must be talking about things not explained by the current scientific theories."

Yes, i really mean literally un-explainable.  refer the part of my previous post speaking about not being able to see eye to eye with something involving infinity.  You say that science hasn't failed us yet! (snickers).  I am only a junior in high school and i know of many ways in which science has failed humankind greatly.  an example that i only learned last week in chemistry is the european/oriental alchemists trying to make gold and fountains of youth.  It is true, these ventures were not totally pointless, as they isolated many "new" elements from the periodic table in the process.  might want to google "science failures"

You asked me if God would want us to be dumb and confused.  This is a rather flattering question to ask me, but it is one that i cannot answer.  I personally have no clue of the wants and/or anything else pertaining to God except what is stated in his righteously self-proclaimed Word.  I'm frankly not even sure that God has the need for wants....or the need for needs in that matter.  Basically i dont know. 

Do you know for a fact that omnipotence is impossible?  becarse if you do, you are only lying to yourself.  Another thing that is kind of off topic, but caught my attention:  does it make you feel bigger to say deity instead of God?  I am not referring to a god or a goddess here.  i dont care what you think about omnipotency in raa or zeus or athena.  I am pretty sure you knew that, though.  I just dont see why you dont want to face the confliction correctly.  sorry if i offended you, it had to get off my chest though.  Back to omnipotence.  if you can prove that... that is to say, if you can "know" that it is impossible, im pretty sure you would be God.  But I am also pretty sure that you are not, nor do you proclaim to be.  Therefore, by LOGICAL reasoning, i can say that you do not know this.  you might want to pick up a book like logic for dummies.  (a joke for your reccomendation to me)

I will not try to argue the first part of your last paragraph false, because you contradicted yourself for me.  I am not in this forum to argue against proof of God in nature, so i will skip this part as well.  I am here to discuss this "Logical Trap" for which this thread is named.  You were very righ in your last paragraph, it seems, and i think i will use your last 2 sentences to wrap up mine as well. 

"We already know how to formulate valid arguments and think logically, but the religious mindset isn't about knowing the truth. It's about satisfying psychological needs."

 

you are very correct.  my concepts are flawed in many ways from the viewpoint of mankind.  What i am saying, though, through my far-out and rather sketchy concepts, is that *if there is a omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God* then he is just that.  And we are just not. 

A metaphor that i thought was ingenious from the movie The Mothman Prophecies (cheesy movie) is this.

"Alexander Leek: If there was a car crash ten blocks from here, that window washer would probably see it... From where he's sitting, he can see a little farther down the road.

John Klein: I think we can assume that these entities are more advanced than us. Why don't they just come right out and tell us what's on their minds?
Alexander Leek: You're more advanced than a cockroach, have you ever tried explaining yourself to one of them? "

If you get the picture that i am trying to explain, you can see that we cannot possibly comprehend or begin to comprehend the perfection that is God.  We cannot even refer to specific points in the God mindpool to argue, seeing as how we are like the cockroaches.  There is nothing to argue about, and nothing new that i can bring to light that others havent before.  i see that it is rather pointless to argue my opinion in an athiestic forum.  (a strange idea in the first place)  I realize that pointing out flaws in anti-God ideas has never really converted anyone.  I wasnt really trying to convert anyone, but i was trying to prove myself right.  I realize that we will probably both always be stubborn and firm in our opposing viewpoints.  .  I cannot say, however, that i regret having put up my argument.  It has been eye-opening to really explain my beliefs in a comprehensible way.  Also it has been interesting to hear your side of this debate. 

On another note, not necesarily to anyone in particular, i am perplexed to see that your aim is to "fix" people from believing in God.  I would say that the average Christian to debate on this site is pretty set in his/her ways, much like Tanath or myself.  How can you proclaim to do something like that?  I will never know.

As is probably evident from my crappy writing in this post, i am very tired.  I am sorry if you do not see eye to eye with something i have said.  I thank you for debating with me, tanath, although i dont really see why you did choose to debate with a teenager over an idea that neither of us are wavering on.  I bid you toodles.

myspace me www.myspace.com/swangotango peace

 

I dont know where you are getting some of the stuff you are.  i believe that you are putting some word in my mouth. 

 

for one thing, what does it matter what i think about a glass of water?  im not sure what you are proving with this question.  totally off topic and random.  and, it is obviously not the same criteria i use to assess the divinity of Jesus, simply because jesus is not palpable to me.  water is.

ok.  now for the good stuff.  i agree that if we were perfect we could do things like communicate with dogs.  i dont disagree with you.  and i also agree that we are certainly not perfect in any way. 

when did i say my God was limited.  He is the opposite of limited.  He is omnipotent.  He can understand anything.  I dont know why you would question me on something like this either.  when did i suggest that my God is not a perfect teacher?

Are you saying that God only teaches his favorite people?  this is not true.  You have grossly misconcieved the idea, here.  Jesus taught as many people as he could in the time that he was here on earth.  After that, the only true word was the Bible.  now, the Bible is available to pretty much everyone, but only some people choose to read it and believe it.  God doesnt favor the people who read it, or love them more.  But he does grant those who accept him as their ticket to salvation a way into heaven.  i dont know what skewed concepts you have about this situation, but you might have greatly benefited by a quick internet search before your post. 

speaking of posts, sorry it took so long to respond i dont regularly check this website.

i hope i have cleared up my beliefs to you.

i just reviewed my previous post, sandwiches, and im pretty sure i answered every one of his questions.  and statements that i thought needed other light shed on them.  why does my assumed lack of correspondance matter to you anyway?

Mmm, this looks interesting.

On the glass of water you have run into Moore's paradox, originally stated "It's raining outside but I don't believe that it is." Wikipedia has a decent entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox

Next, the issue of instruction. I don't like daedalus's french teacher metaphor, so I'll try and construct a better one that more closely matches the situation.

A young professor discovers a new kind of math. For some unknown reason, the professor refuses to teach the material himself and instead teaches it to his aid and tells her to teach it for him. She dutifully does this, but after a few years she is afflicted with a serious illness and knows that she will be dieing soon. The professor, still unwilling to teach in person, instructs his aid in the writing of a book on the issue.

Decades later, the book has been retranslated and reiterated by many people who do not necessarily understand its contents. The book has grown thick, many of its chapters plagiarized, lost, different chapters replaced with the assumed correct ones, and now nobody really knows for sure which chapters are the originals. The book is trusted by a lot of students, although not necessarily for good reason.

However, the professor is still alive but also refuses to teach. People send letters to the professor, but rumor has it that he only responds to a very few. Instead, people look at the book for his answers or they try to see how the professor is speaking to them from the models implied in the book. An entire group of mathematicians gather in order to interpret the book for especially willing students.

Finally, it gets to the point where no one can remember whether any significant contribution to the academic foundation was ever made by reading the book. Many older mathematical texts have been found which clearly describe all the things which the professor's book hints at. While some portion of the community disregards the book, the majority still believes in it and uses its methods to try and build rockets, airplanes, etc.

So when we ask "is the professor a good teacher," I would say no. It is clearly within the teacher's power to stop the problem before it got out of control. What motive can we ascribe to the teacher not wanting to do the sensible thing? These are some of my answers:

1. The teacher does not care.
2. The teacher wants their material to be corrupted.
3. The material only seems corrupted because it is hard to read.
4. The teacher died a long time ago and became a Chinese whisper.
5. The teacher is embarrassed about the material.
6. The teacher never existed in the first place, and was a fabrication of the woman who was supposedly his aid.
7. The aid and the teacher never existed, and it was a group of students who originally created the book.

Since this is a functional metaphor, I will now return a result. If god exists then it, like the teacher, is alive but refuses to teach in a way that would be expedient. God, like the teacher, allows corruption of the original work. God, like the teacher, allows the work to be misinterpreted with sometimes disastrous results (ever try to build a plane with bad aeronautic calculations? It ain't pretty).

How many of the metaphorical teacher's motives can we ascribe to god? Of course it depends on your idea of god, but let's say that god is an omnipotent being that still obeys logic (even if only for some unknown reason, though this god could break the rules of logic). Let us also say that this god is loving. So to carry the meaning of the metaphor over:

1. This god must care, being loving. This part doesn't work.
2. This god may want the material to be corrupted as some kind of deeper lesson.
3. If the material isn't corrupted, why is it hard to read? A good teacher should be clear, unless this is a lesson.
4. It could be that there was a god, but its gone now along with all evidence of its existence.
5. This god is probably not embarrassed, unless this god really isn't absolutely perfect and wants to cover up some past mistake to continue the illusion of perfection.
6. This god doesn't exist, but the messenger did.
7. Neither the god not the messenger existed.

The only one that seems valid to me is number 2 and 3. What deeper lesson could there be in the corruption of the single document which contains the message of this particular god? I don't know. Do you?

What deeper lesson could there be in having a book that is hard to read and yet supposedly necessary to avoid eternal punishment? How could anyone be held accountable for not understanding such a book when the context in which they live contradicts the nature of the book? Why this book? Why not one of the other books ascribed to different gods, some of which make a lot more sense?

When you say that only a few people choose to read it and believe it, you are running in a large circle. If it is necessary to read the bible and believe it, it seems essential that one believe before reading. The book doesn't make sense any other way. I have never heard of someone who picked up the bible, read it, and believed it without prior coercion. I have looked into it, and so far everyone who picks the book up and reads it without knowing what it is beforehand thinks it is either a joke, appallingly cruel, or nonsensical.

I think the simplest answer, the one that requires the least explanation, is "it's all a hoax."

Again, I think you've missed the point of metaphor. A good metaphor takes something that is hard to work out and puts it in everyday terms. Since the current topic is "is god a good teacher," it makes no sense whatsoever to include what you have written.

Does loving students have any bearing on a teacher's ability? No, a teacher can like their students and still be a bad teacher as they are not mutually exclusive.

Does the possibility of that teacher having students before affect their ability? No, they still might be a bad teacher. Having students does not a good teacher make.

Does a growth in the number of students mean that a teacher is good? No, the students could have been misled.

Does the corruption of an aid have anything to do with the teacher? No, the teacher could still be a bad teacher.

Moreover, all of these things assume that there is a teacher to begin with. You haven't created any premises which address the argument, so my metaphor stands.

 

I would point out that the claim is not that God is a GOOD teacher, but a PERFECT one (since he can't do anything imperfectly).  So, once he decides to teach ALL of his students WILL learn the lesson - not could, should, or possibly but WILL. (Since once a perfect teacher decides to teach, they will do it perfectly).

Also, even a student who doesn't want to learn, WILL learn under a perfect teacher, since that theacher will make that student either want to learn, or learn despite himself.

Since it is obvious that people have not learned the lesson (as evidenced by the multiple religions, and corruptions of the same religions), then we MUST conclude that God is not a perfect teacher.  Whether he sent Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or Ayn Rand, he is NOT getting the job done.

 

(And, after all, the fact that a large percentage of the world believes in a god is immaterial.  A teacher does not spend his time trying to prove he is in front of the class - it is absolutely self-evidence to ALL students that a teacher exists.  Even Helen Keller knew her teacher existed, and she learned to speak - and he wasn't perfect.)

 

 

 

In fact, Helen Keller is a great example. In the beginning, she didn't want to be taught, and it was unlikely she would learn to speak.  However, she did - because he was a good teacher.

 

Think of "Stand and Deliver", a teacher in the Projects teaches (most) of his students so that they are able to graduate.

 

However, God can't get it right no matter how many prophets he sends.  Perhaps he should stop sending substitutes and do his job?

 

 

wow, many objections there.  most can be quelled by reminding the people unhappy with my metaphor that God gave us the power of free will, and, thus, relinquishing His absolute power over our actions and decisions.  In doing so,  He destroyed all hopes of leading us to perfection.  This is why people cant decide over homosexuality, divorce, etc. 

the last argument is correct.  that God himself sanctified his word (which is the work of humans) is completely faith oriented.  one cannot see eye to eye on this when one has faith and the other does not.  It is true though, that there is a little more evidence on this than there is on aliens on neptune or moons being made in 1999.

the Bible is hard to understand.  For one, it was written in languages i do not know and roughly translated to a speak that is foreign and not of this era.  This adds to the strain of getting a meaning out of scripture.  Also, many texts are puzzling anyway, speaking in metaphor that may not be applicable in today's societies-Revelation being a leading book in this category. 

my math adds up just fine, because of my extra variable called faith.   <-- wow that sounds so cheesy lol!

what?  no.  not only is this totally not what were talking about here, and wrong as well. 

i used free will as an answer to the previous questions, not as an answer about how God teaches us lessons.  He gave us free will because he loves us, not because we need taught anything.  He didnt want a bunch of mindless zombies running around worshiping him.  He wants us to choose to love him, because he deserves it. 

Where does the orphanage come in?  is it earth?  havent we always been on earth?  God doesnt parent us.  He is essentially out Father, yes, but He doesnt order us around.  He laid out some ground rules.

How does He kick mud over the people who defy Him?  What has God ever done unfairly to you?  i was disappointed in this post, because it only slightly reflects on the topic previously being discussed.