Small town life made me quite neurotic, a demolition derby of repressed homosexual libidinous urges — Bitter Crank

I can relate to the small-town neuroticism, though without the homosexual demolition derby (which should really be a thing, if it isn't already).

A bit late to the party since I've been here for weeks already, but I just saw this thread so I figured I'd introduce myself:

I'm JustSomeGuy, like all of us are (girls are guys, too; don't be sexist).
I, too, am from a small town in the Midwest, which seems to be a pattern here. I suppose it makes sense that we would turn to philosophy--both to distract ourselves from the hellish winters, as well as to cope with the complete and utter lack of "things to do".
I love Stoicism and Taoism, though I'm a fairly new student of both.
I love arguing (in the philosophical sense) and try to do it as much as possible.
I also love learning, which is why I'm so passionate about philosophy.
If I say something that offends you, please don't take it personally, and know that it was not intentional (unless I made it explicit that it was intentional, in which case you deserved it).
In other words: don't mistake my bluntness for meanness.
I'm usually quite emotionless when discussing philosophy, which can come off as cold, but really I'm just trying my best to be as objective as possible.
I also have a very dry sense of humor, and this doesn't always translate well through text.
We can disagree about absolutely everything, but no matter how heated a debate might get I will harbor no ill will towards you unless you first express ill will towards myself or someone else.

Also, I love cake.

God speaks to people, sends thunderbolts, works out moral systems, decides what should happen adulterers. He's very much of this world, intrinsically tied up with human affairs. — Pseudonym

Exactly. Basically all I've been trying to say is that we can't talk about a God outside of our universe, so it follows that people discussing God in these ways cannot be talking about a creator God. Really, I just wanted to show the inconsistency there that most people don't seem to realize.

So, I agree with you entirely that a creator of the universe must logically be outside of our conception, but I don't really think a creator of the universe (complete with all the logical implications you outline) is what anyone actually has in mind when they talk about god — Pseudonym

I'm sure it's not what they have in mind because they haven't thought through the logical implications. I was just trying to bring some of those implications to light and show that talking about this kind of God at all is incoherent. We can really only talk about a God that is part of our universe, but this means that God could not have created the universe. Most people who believe in a God hold these incompatible beliefs about God.

I guess the conclusion to all of this is that if you're going to believe in a creator God, you can't talk about it at all because doing so limits it to our universe.

Edit: I just realized I'm basically describing the first few lines of the Tao Te Ching.

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth"

But that has nothing to do with brain activity. If external stimuli caused brain activity, then so long as there was always external stimuli the brain could never stop being active, meaning it would never die.

If it helps to replace "say" with "know" in my argument, that's fine. Maybe that's where the confusion lies. I just don't like to use the term "know" because that just opens up a can of worms about what knowledge is.

But since you seem to take issue with my use of the term "say", then go ahead and replace it with "know".

Look, this is very simple:

If external stimuli causes brain activity, then in absence of external stimuli there cannot be brain activity.

Or just that we cannot know if anything we say about him is true? — Michael

Well, in a sense, yes. That is essentially what I mean. If we have no experience of something, we cannot say anything about it. Meaning, nothing anybody says about it can be said to actually apply to it. So, if a condition of your God is that it created the universe, you cannot say anything else about that God.

If we cannot say anything about God then we cannot say that God created the universe. — Michael

I understand your reasoning, but that doesn't disprove the argument. If the argument is sound, and your conclusion is correct, it's still showing what I was intending to show: that discussing a creator God is impossible/illogical. That's not to say a creator God cannot exist, only that if one does we cannot talk about it. As I've said before, this all really comes back to the limitations of language as well as the limitations of our brains.

Could you please tell me what a brain process when it is isolated? — bahman

The information contained within itself.

Can you program a brain without external stimuli? — bahman

I don't know what you mean by "program a brain".

Here:

If God created the universe, then God is not part of the universe
We cannot say anything about anything apart from our universe
Therefore, if God created the universe, we cannot say anything about God

This is a logically valid argument. You can argue either of the two premises, but it logically follows that IF God is separate from the universe AND we cannot say anything about anything apart from our universe, THEN we cannot say anything about God.

we cannot say anything about anything apart from our universe and our experience of it. — JustSomeGuy

This still goes against your claim that external stimuli causes brain activity, though. If that were true, in absence of external stimuli our brains would shut down.

I think you're both missing the point, though. If we could make sense of God (the type of God we're discussing), then it would not be God. A necessary characteristic of a God which exists apart from the universe is that we cannot make sense of it. If we could, it would necessarily be part of our universe, because as I already said earlier: we cannot say anything about anything apart from our universe and our experience of it. So, if a characteristic of God is that it is not part of the universe, then it follows necessarily that we cannot say anything about what this God is like.

External stimuli. — bahman

That is demonstrably not true, though. It has been well-established that when in complete sensory-deprivation our brains are still very active. We hallucinate. We essentially create our own stimuli.

Actually I don't disagree, I have recently thought that some sort of plural pantheism might be close to the case. — Cavacava

Read Spinoza's Ethics, if you haven't. His explanation of God as Nature had a huge impact on me.

However, I took this discussion to be more of an epistemological discussion about the nature of god, — Cavacava

It was. I was just trying to get you to understand that perfection needs qualifiers. You cannot just say something is perfect, you have to be clear on what it is a perfect version or example of, and what characteristics qualify it to be a perfect version or example of whatever it is.

You should look into this more elsewhere, maybe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The things I'm saying are true; this wasn't an opinion I was defending. You just don't seem to understand the concept of perfection.

Well tell me what do you think god is? — Cavacava

Nature.

I thought of one more way to try to get this concept across:

Remember those spheres I was referring to earlier? I said one was a perfect sphere and explained why. But you say God is perfect, so I assume this hypothetical sphere can't be perfect, because if it were it would be God according to you, correct? So tell me, what is it that makes my sphere imperfect? What characteristics does it lack which are required to qualify for your idea of perfection?

That is the perfect song for this occasion (though I find Elvis to be perfect for any occasion)

Are you serious?
Okay, I give up. I tried.

Perfect for what????

Again, as I said (and you agreed) "flaws" or "defects" are also subjective. What is all of this in reference to? Perfection and flaws only make sense in context or comparison.

I'll give you an example:
A perfect sphere is only perfect in regards to it matching every single one of the criteria for what a sphere is. A sphere would be flawed or have defects if it met some, but not all, of these criteria.

So, when you say God is "perfect", what is he a perfect example of? Furthermore, what criteria is God meeting that makes him perfect? You cannot have perfection without initial conditions being set, because perfection as a concept is relational to specific criteria.

Perfect in regards to what? As I said (and you agreed), "perfect" is subjective. So when you say something is perfect, you need to make explicit what it is perfect for.

So does it make sense to apply our subjective concepts to God?

If god is perfect he can have no flaw and not being logical is a flaw — Cavacava

"Perfect" and "flaw" are both subjective concepts.

a world containing square triangles would not be talking about the same squares and triangles that exist in our world. The meanings of these words would have changed, as the meaning of triangle is changed when a triangle is scribed on a sphere. — Banno

That's exactly what I was trying to say; maybe I should have elaborated more.

Logic does not constrain the world in any way. But sometimes the logic one chooses is the wrong one for what one has to say, and hence needs changing. — Banno

This follows from what I said, that logic is a product of our observations of this universe.

I think we agree and I just wasn't clear enough.

a square triangle cannot exist on a plane; and that's jut a result of what a square and a triangle are. Further this is so in any possible universe — Banno

Well, in a sense I agree and in a sense I don't. It really has to do with language. The language we are using describes concepts in this universe; we cannot apply any of them to any other possible universe or anything outside of our universe. Like I said earlier, we cannot say anything about anything other than our own universe, because our universe is all we know. Our language and our logic are products of our observations of this universe. It's exactly as unenlightened said:

To put it another way, logic does not constrain the world in any way, nor does it constrain God. It constrains what can be sensibly said. — unenlightened

So God can make square triangles? — Sam26

Banno answered this pretty well, I think, but I'll refer you to another post I made which covers this also:

...you're talking about things that are not possible in our universe. These things are not possible because of the way our universe operates. We cannot say anything about what any other possible universe/reality could look like, because we only have experience of our own. We are limited by our universe. God is not.

If you believe God is limited by our universe, then he cannot be omnipotent, and he cannot be the creator of it. That's fine, you can believe in that sort of God, but when people speak about God they're usually speaking about an omnipotent creator God. — JustSomeGuy

To elaborate for your specific question, in our universe a shape cannot have four sides with all right angles and three sides with non-right angles at the same time. The fact that this is not possible in the universe we live in says absolutely nothing about what God is capable of, because God is not bound by our universe if he is omnipotent and created it. Just because something doesn't make sense to our very limited human brains, doesn't mean it is beyond the capabilities of God. I already discussed this in another post, as well (I suggest you actually read through the thread next time):

You're saying that God is limited by what you can imagine. Why on Earth would that be the case? It's quite egotistical, isn't it? I'm not calling any of you egotistical, just so we're clear; I don't believe any of you are making the argument with the intent of it being egotistical. But that doesn't change the fact that it is an egotistical claim.

This may be a cliche kind of metaphor, but consider something "lower" than us. Lower than biological life forms. A rock, for example. Do you think a rock understands logic? Can a rock imagine mathematics? If course not. It's a rock. We are not rocks, which is why we can do those things that rocks cannot conceive of (including conceiving of things).

Now, when we talk about God we're talking about a totally different "kind" of thing than we are. Similar to rocks vs. humans, but to an even greater degree. Why in the world would this thing (God) be constrained by our limitations? — JustSomeGuy

God is bound by your imagination? — JustSomeGuy

This is the root argument everyone who says "God cannot defy logic" is making here.

You're saying that God is limited by what you can imagine. Why on Earth would that be the case? It's quite egotistical, isn't it? I'm not calling any of you egotistical, just so we're clear; I don't believe any of you are making the argument with the intent of it being egotistical. But that doesn't change the fact that it is an egotistical claim.

This may be a cliche kind of metaphor, but consider something "lower" than us. Lower than biological life forms. A rock, for example. Do you think a rock understands logic? Can a rock imagine mathematics? If course not. It's a rock. We are not rocks, which is why we can do those things that rocks cannot conceive of (including conceiving of things).

Now, when we talk about God we're talking about a totally different "kind" of thing than we are. Similar to rocks vs. humans, but to an even greater degree. Why in the world would this thing (God) be constrained by our limitations?

So things you can't imagine can't be possible for God? God is bound by your imagination?

No, I'm saying that if doing the logically impossible is incoherent then it isn't wrong to suggest that a God that can do everything that is logically possible is "all-powerful". — Michael

Okay, you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying, or what you're saying yourself.

Let me ask: what do you mean by "incoherent"? Define the term.

There is no God who can do the logically impossible, as such a thing is incoherent. There is just (possibly) a God who can do the logically possible. — Michael

You're begging the question. You're saying that a God that defies logic isn't possible because it would defy logic.

Interesting perspective. Very similar to the morality issue.

He might have had the power to create it but not have the power to do whatever he likes with the result. — Michael

I'd like to see an argument for that as a reasonable possibility. If God created the universe and all of the laws by which it operates, what reason would there be to believe that he could not control it once it was created? Seems baseless, to me.

If defying logic is nonsense then to say that a God who can defy logic is more powerful than a God who can't is like saying that a four-sided triangle has more sides than a three-sided triangle. — Michael

It's not at all like that. Claiming that a God who can do something that another God cannot is more powerful, would be equivalent to saying that a shape with more sides than another shape has more sides. It's essentially a tautology.

Claiming that "defying logic is nonsense" is also a tautology. You're just describing what "defying logic" means. The claim that "defying logic is nonsense" isn't saying anything at all in regards to the issue at hand.

The responses here honestly surprise me.

If God cannot defy logic, then God is not omnipotent. Plain and simple. A God who can defy logic would be more powerful than a God who cannot, and omnipotence means "all-powerful".

If you're going to claim God cannot defy logic, you're claiming God is bound by the laws of the universe he himself created (assuming we're talking about a creator God).

With all of this...



...you're talking about things that are not possible in our universe. These things are not possible because of the way our universe operates. We cannot say anything about what any other possible universe/reality could look like, because we only have experience of our own. We are limited by our universe. God is not.

If you believe God is limited by our universe, then he cannot be omnipotent, and he cannot be the creator of it. That's fine, you can believe in that sort of God, but when people speak about God they're usually speaking about an omnipotent creator God.

As a fairly new member of this forum community, I'd like to briefly interject to make an observation:

You guys are weird.

Carry on.

My full explanation:

If God is omnipotent, then he is not constrained by logic.

We are not omnipotent. Asking if something is "possible" needs qualifiers. Possible in what situation? If you're asking me if 1+1=3 is possible in the world we live in currently, the answer is no. But God does not live in the world we live in, and so God is not bound by the laws of nature. God makes the laws of nature. So, if God is omnipotent, he could change the laws of nature to make 1+1=3, if he wanted to. It would be within his power. — JustSomeGuy

When you ask about the things God can do, you have to first make it clear what characteristics your God has.

If God is omnipotent, then yes, he can defy logic.

I could be wrong, but it really seems to me as though Pseudonym has been trying his hardest not to share his actual beliefs, because the few times he has slipped up and shared them he has been called on their irrationality.

This would also explain why he has written pages worth of comments and yet doesn't seem to have actually said anything at all.

I appreciate your treating my statements reasonably, without reading your own prejudices into them as others have done. But based on previous interactions in this discussion, I would brace yourself for incoming "slut-shaming" accusations. Some here seem to believe that men aren't allowed to have a preference against women who sleep around, because it implies you are "shaming" them. I have male friends who prefer women who do sleep around, does that mean they are shaming women who don't? I also prefer women with a good sense of humor, does that mean I'm shaming women who don't have a good sense of humor? Obviously not. It's not about shame or respect, it's about preference and compatibility.

You've asked me the same questions multiple times after I already answered. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence at all, the fact that you do seem to be intelligent is why I assumed there must be a language barrier causing our misunderstandings.

You asked me:

Isn't 1+1=3 illogical? — bahman

After I had just said:

If God is omnipotent, then he is not constrained by logic. — JustSomeGuy

If you're asking me if 1+1=3 is possible in the world we live in currently, the answer is no. But God does not live in the world we live in, and so God is not bound by the laws of nature. God makes the laws of nature. So, if God is omnipotent, he could change the laws of nature to make 1+1=3, if he wanted to. It would be within his power. — JustSomeGuy

I feel like that explanation answers your question. Yes, 1+1=3 is illogical. But if God is omnipotent then he is not bound by logic, so if he wanted to he could very well make 1+1=3.

I disagree with this — TimeLine

You are free to--science is not absolute and can always be proven wrong--but we have strong evidence that more testosterone does indeed cause more aggression or tendency towards violence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

"Atavistic residues of aggressive behavior prevailing in animal life determined by testosterone remain in man, attenuated and suppressed by familial and social inhibitions, but still manifesting in various intensities and forms from thoughts, anger, verbal aggressiveness, competition, dominance to physical violence. Testosterone plays a significant role in the arousal of these behavioral manifestations in the brain centers involved in aggression and on the development of the muscular system that effects their realization."

"The action of testosterone on the brain begins in embryonic life. During the fourth to fifth month of pregnancy a surge of fetal testosterone occurs reaching adult testosterone levels which induces anatomical and organizational changes in the male embryos brain. Even earlier at the DNA level, the number of CAG repeats in the genes of the androgen receptors appear to play a role in the expression of aggressive behavior. Men with fewer CAG repeats have more active androgen receptors and enhanced testosterone action."

We often assume that since men are biologically stronger that it somehow equates to biologically likely to be aggressive but again, aggression is not physical. It is a subjective disposition and if men act on this, they do so for mostly social and environmental reasons and not because they are genetically predisposed — TimeLine

This, too, goes against our current understanding of human biology, as explained in the quotation I just cited.

The word 'irrational' is a strong word to use for fluctuations in hormones that - depending on the woman - has a minor or temporary affect, just as much as a bad night sleep can have. Can you show me this scientific evidence that women become 'irrational' because of their menstrual cycle? — TimeLine

While I think comparing the hormonal changes that happen during this stage of the menstrual cycle with a bad night's sleep is disingenuous, you're probably right that my word choice wasn't quite fitting. Irrationality isn't technically a very scientific term.
However, as I have already said, my only point in bringing this up was as an example of biological differences between males and females. I did not say or imply that men are more rational than women. I wasn't meaning to comment on women's rationality at all, only at one of the many biological differences between men and women.
For what it's worth, though, I've had long-term romantic relationships with 4 women in my life who I have lived with for varying amounts of time, and every one of them displayed what I would characterize--and what they also referred to--as irrational behavior.
I also grew up with a mother and three sisters, and every one of them have many times addressed the fact that when they have PMS, they are irrational. Their words.
This is not scientific evidence, this is anecdotal. But seeing as how eight out of eight or 100% of the women I have been closest to in my life have both clearly displayed what I would characterize as irrational behavior, and verbally confirmed on multiple occasions that they, too, view themselves as being irrational during this time, I feel confident concluding that it is a common occurrence among females during this stage of their menstrual cycle. I will not try to argue that there is scientific evidence for irrationality, since I personally don't believe that is possible due to irrationality being a fairly subjective term. I also won't try to argue that my experience with these 8 women applies to all women. But I find it perfectly reasonable for someone with my experiences to conclude that the biological/hormonal changes that happen during the pre-menstrual stage often cause women to be more irrational during this time.

You are unbelievable.

I can't believe how many times I'm having to repeat this. Where have I said that the cons of religion outweigh the pros? — Pseudonym

First off, I don't recall you having to repeat this at all, but I'll "be charitable" as you say and assume I missed it.

However...

This is insane. Religions have, at best, had a mixed consequence on the world, even the pope does not disagree with that as he has condemned past activities of the church.
Some people look at this mixed consequence and conclude that the good stuff outweighs the bad. I'm fine with that. I disagree but I can see these are mostly intelligent people and the data is, as I say, mixed.
Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. — Pseudonym

Why anyone would want to continue engaging with you when you have repeatedly been so intellectually dishonest is beyond me.