A. is false, and B. & C. together is not logically possible. — S

Are you (plural) really using logic to determine the existence of God?
Are you really debating the objective existence of God in the scientific space-time universe?

Now might be worthwhile to consider how much you know about God? :chin:

You know that there is more than one form of logic don't you?

When I say "A is different than B", would you say that this is illogical, or would you say that this judgement is made without the use of logic? I would say that the judgement is made with the use of logic, because we must determine what "different" means and judge A and B to see if they qualify as different.

Are you (plural) really using logic to determine the existence of God?
Are you really debating the objective existence of God in the scientific space-time universe?

Now might be worthwhile to consider how much you know about God? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

No. Your comments are directed at the wrong person if they're directed at me. I was just using logic to analyse Rank Amateur's argument. That argument was only about God as defined by him for the purpose of his argument about theism. It says nothing whatsoever about God outside of those parameters. And I accepted that if God is supernatural, then science can't be used to discover the existence of God, unless God intervenes in nature. But the argument didn't say anything about intervention. As an atheist, I don't believe in God at all, nor do I believe in anything supernatural. I don't know anything about God except as a concept or a definition, and then what I can reasonably determine from that. For example, if the existence of God entails a contradiction, then I know that God doesn't exist. God couldn't exist in that case. So I'm a strong atheist in cases like that.

When I say "A is different than B", would you say that this is illogical, — Metaphysician Undercover

It's alogical. Or in other words, it doesn't have anything to do with logic. Logic is about inference/implication--what follows from what, basically.

Are you (plural) really using logic to determine the existence of God? — Pattern-chaser

As one of the (plural) you’s in attendance.....not me. Logic is just a set of rules for descriptions of true statements; it doesn’t determine anything existential.

Are you really debating the objective existence of God in the scientific space-time universe? — Pattern-chaser

Again, not me; I just don’t care. But if one is debating the objective existence of a thing, he must be doing so from the domain of a scientific space-time Universe; there isn’t anyplace else to find an objective existence, as far as we’re concerned.

I don’t know a damn thing about what is commonly referred to as “God”. But I sure as hell have a lot of experience with my fellow men who think THEY know about it.

Logic is about inference/implication--what follows from what, basically. — Terrapin Station

Right, so we have a word, "different", and we know what that word means. Then we compare A and B, and make the inference A is different from B. Why would you say that this is not a logical inference?

Then we compare A and B, and make the inference A is different from B. Why would you say that this is not a logical inference? — Metaphysician Undercover

You asked if "A is different than B" is logical/illogical. The answer is that no, it isn't. "A is different than B" has nothing to do with logic.

You could ask if "Just in case A isn't identical to B, then A is different than B" is logical. Would you like to ask something like that instead?

But if one is debating the objective existence of a thing, he must be doing so from the domain of a scientific space-time Universe; there isn’t anyplace else to find an objective existence, as far as we’re concerned. — Mww

Exactly. :up: [And this from a Believer, not an atheist.]

Again, not me; I just don’t care. But if one is debating the objective existence of a thing, he must be doing so from the domain of a scientific space-time Universe; there isn’t anyplace else to find an objective existence, as far as we’re concerned. — Mww

Agree - why I have never made the the claim that God is. I have only made the claim - I, as a matter of faith, believe God is. And this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason.

Then we compare A and B, and make the inference A is different from B. Why would you say that this is not a logical inference? — Metaphysician Undercover

When I compare a brick to a cinder block, I’m not sure I’m inferring anything. Why can’t I just be observing a difference, without having to logically infer there is one?

Are you saying sensual awareness itself involves logical inference? Metaphysically speaking.....which I suspect you are wont to do......I suppose you could say perception A is the major premise and perception B is the minor, in a cognitive syllogism, from which the conclusion that the brick is different than the cinder block is rendered valid deductively, but.....who does that!!!!

I bet you’re gonna get in a bunch of trouble by stipulating “not in conflict with fact”. Not in conflict with reason, sure, no problem; you had to reason to your conclusion, after all. While you are absolutely privileged to your own reason, from which a valid belief may follows, you are not so priviledged to your own facts, which suggests fact regarding faith is not the same as fact regarding empirical reality. Even so, it would appear you invite a whole world of explanatory hurt in trying to justify how a fact could ground something so subjectively dominant as faith.

i make to fact claim about God at all - other than there is none. If you wish to make an arguement to me that in fact God is not I would be happy to argue against it.

My only point by saying not in conflict with fact is, no one can say Rank, your faith in God is misplaced, because it is a fact that God does not exist.

Because its a meaning that cannot be shared. Unique to the individual — emancipate

What they all have in common is that they value their life.

I have only made the claim - I, as a matter of faith, believe God is. And this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason. — Rank Amateur

Scientific fact, and it's arguably in conflict with what's reasonable. And also, this all hinges on the meaning of "conflict". If scientific fact says there's no basis for belief and you believe anyway, then that's arguably a conflict.

Oh hell no....I’m not arguing for or against anything I haven’t convinced myself I know something about.

I guess I see where you coming from here. Not in conflict with fact because there isn’t a fact to be in conflict with, and that’s all cool and stuff, but I’m a fan of knowledge myself, and where knowledge isn’t attainable.....or I’m just not interested in pursuing it......I’m just as happy being ignorant, rather than inject a subjective explanatory placeholder.

I bet you’re gonna get in a bunch of trouble by stipulating “not in conflict with fact”. — Mww

He already has done. It took many pages of discussion to finally reach a resolution, and he's forgotten it already! This is one of those moments where you don't know whether to laugh or bang your head against a wall.

Threw me for a loop, no doubt. When I read “belief not in conflict with fact”, many years of cognitive prejudice comes to the fore and I wanna say....WHAAATT???

He got all tricksies on us hobbittses.....he said a thing (faith) is truthfully based on not-fact, which is of course, quite possible.

If you wish to make an arguement to me that in fact God is not I would be happy to argue against it. — Rank Amateur

Yes, you've made that pretty clear multiple times, but that would be unwise for anyone who is a soft atheist, as they don't have that burden. You should be directing that comment exclusively at strong atheists. Will you change your ways? I'm not hedging my bets. I think you're a creature of habit.

Not in conflict with fact because there isn’t a fact to be in conflict with, — Mww

There's definitely a fact. Of that I am certain. As per the fundamental laws of logic, either God is, or God is not. It can't be both or neither. That's metaphysics. If we don't know either way, that's epistemology. Please, let's not confuse the two.

Whether it's in conflict is open to debate.

Threw me for a loop, no doubt. When I read “belief not in conflict with fact”, many years of cognitive prejudice comes to the fore and I wanna say....WHAAATT???

He got all tricksies on us hobbittses.....he said a thing (faith) is truthfully based on not-fact, which is of course, quite possible. — Mww

Yes, faith can be absurd. There are no restrictions on faith. But reasonableness is different. If we're being reasonable, then we can't permit absurdity. Rank Amateur and I established earlier that if he's being reasonable, then his claim has to be about scientific fact, not fact simpliciter. And if he's not willing to be reasonable, then why are we even having this discussion with him? Faith nuts who want to engage in rational debate about their nutty faith should be shunned as though they have the plague!

What is not a scientific fact, and is being acknowledged as true, is the existence in the Universe, or acts as the cause of the Universe, of the thing Rank claims to have faith in. Conflict with what doesn’t exist, is impossible.

All empirical science has a metaphysical ground. Metaphysics without empiricism is transcendent (mystical), empiricism without metaphysics is stagnant.

Fundamental laws of logic have no rule over faith-based cognitions, the prime example being transferring the being of some supernatural necessity from phenomenal in the world to ideal in the mind.

You know as well as I, that illogical arguments are still manifestations of logic, just as unreasonable thinking is still reason. Reason is way too subjective to chastise too rigorously. Enough to disagree, but not enough to ridicule. Among otherwise reasonable people, I mean. Nutjobs get no respect, throw the fools on the fire, I say!!!

What is not a fact, is the existence in the Universe, or acts as the cause of the Universe, of the thing Rank claims to have faith in. Conflict with what doesn’t exist, is impossible. — Mww

Are you saying that it's not a fact that what he has faith in (namely that there is some form of supernatural being or entity) exists in the universe and/or acts as the cause of the Universe? And are you saying that because you believe that some form of supernatural being or entity can't exist in the universe because the universe is natural? And that if it doesn't exist in the universe, then it must not exist at all?

In short, if x is supernatural, then x doesn't exist?

And if it's not a fact, then we can't rightly say that anything conflicts with it as a fact?

All empirical science has a metaphysical ground. Metaphysics without empiricism is transcendent (mystical), empiricism without metaphysics is stagnant. — Mww

Seems about right. I'm an empiricist, but not an extreme empiricist like Berkeley or Hume. I agree with Hume quite a bit, but my position might be closer to Locke or Kant.

Fundamental laws of logic have no rule over faith-based cognitions, the prime example being transferring the being of some supernatural necessity from phenomenal to ideal. — Mww

Yeah, you could've stopped at, "Fundamental laws of logic have no rule over faith-based cognitions". No example necessary. I completely get it. Faith has no restrictions and can permit absurdity. It's the worst possible way to approach the stuff of philosophy. It is anathema to it.

Nietzsche has some of the best quotes about faith.

You know as well as I, that illogical arguments are still manifestations of logic, just as unreasonable thinking is still reason. Reason is way too subjective to chastise too rigorously. Enough to disagree, but not enough to ridicule. Among otherwise reasonable people, I mean. Nutjobs get no respect, throw the fools on the fire, I say!!! — Mww

:up:

Are you saying — S

.......yes, although I’m more agreeing with Rank saying it than saying it myself.

And are you saying — S

A.) because you believe that some form of supernatural being or entity can't exist in the universe because the universe is natural?
.......By definition, yes; what I believe is irrelevant.

B.) And that if it doesn't exist in the universe, then it must not exist at all?
.......No. B does not follow from A necessarily. Complete knowledge of the Universe as effect does not give any conception of its cause.

C.) And if it's not a fact, then we can't rightly say that anything conflicts with it as a fact?
.........That which is not a fact can be conflicted, but only by another fact. That which is not a fact cannot be conflicted by a faith-based proposition. To whit: that I am having breakfast tomorrow is not a fact, and you cannot conflict with that by supposing I am going to when tomorrow gets here. But you sure can after tomorrow gets here and I do or do not get my breakfast.

worst possible way to approach the stuff of philosophy. It is anathema to it. — S

Absolfreakin’lutely. You’d make a fine Kantian, I must say.

“......I cannot even make the assumption (...) of God (...) if I do not deprive speculative reason of its pretensions to transcendent insight. For to arrive at these, it must make use of principles which, in fact, extend only to the objects of possible experience, and which cannot be applied to objects beyond this sphere without converting them into phenomena, and thus rendering the practical extension of pure reason impossible. I must, therefore, abolish knowledge, to make room for belief....”

scientific fact says no such thing. Scientific fact says they do not know. What is the consensus scientific view, is the universe is finite and had a beginning. That may change, that is the very nature of science. It is a long and wonderful history of continually being wrong, but with an amazing honesty, to correct itself and move on.

Every generation has stood on its top rung of scientific knowledge, amazed at their own brilliance, and looking down at the errors of those on the lower rungs, without acknowledging all of them felt exactly the same way in their time about the quality of their knowledge. And in general the folks who feel this the least, are the actual ones doing the science


So S what you are left with is an absence of belief,

Science says I don't know,
And jerks like me keep offering up "rocks" with God written on it, and you pick it up, look at it
Turn it around and then throw it away, the proof isn't good enough, bring me another rock, and I'll let you know if that one is any better

You sit in a metaphorical limbo, waiting for science to know, and have no determined position on anything until then.

Perhaps our purpose is to leave a mark of ourselves on the minds and hearts of others so we may never die.

You asked if "A is different than B" is logical/illogical. The answer is that no, it isn't. "A is different than B" has nothing to do with logic. — Terrapin Station

As I explained, you are clearly wrong. Whether A is different from B is a logical judgement. This is because one needs to proceed with a knowledge of what "different" means, and make the judgement accordingly. That is a judgement of logical.

If you really believe that this is not a logical judgement, then what sort of judgement do you think it is, just a random guess?

You could ask if "Just in case A isn't identical to B, then A is different than B" is logical. Would you like to ask something like that instead? — Terrapin Station

No I would not like to ask that. I would like to ask you what sort of judgement is the judgement that A is different from B, if it's not a logical judgement?

When I compare a brick to a cinder block, I’m not sure I’m inferring anything. Why can’t I just be observing a difference, without having to logically infer there is one? — Mww

The point is that "different" has a definite meaning. And, if you are judging that a brick is different from a cinder block, then you are inferring that these two things qualify for the relationship called "different". Simply seeing a cinder block, and seeing a brick does not constitute judging them as different. My dog sees these things, and I do not know what sort of judgement my dog makes when seeing them, or how my dog perceives them, but I am quite sure that my dog does not judge them as "different". She never told me that things are different, so I don't believe that she knows how to use this word.

Are you saying sensual awareness itself involves logical inference? — Mww

Actually I am saying quite the opposite. I am saying that we ought to be careful not to conflate these two, sensual awareness and logical inference. Being sensually aware is one thing, but putting words to the things which we are aware of, is a completely different thing. And, we ought not say that putting words to things is just a matter of being sensually aware, because there are all sorts of creatures who are sensually aware yet they do not put words to things. The difference I believe is that putting words to things is an act of reason, rather than an act of sensation, and acts of reason are referred to as logical, or illogical if mistaken.

You start your post with a true observation of science, but you turn that into somehow trying to prove your validity in argumentation because you offer up something that should be swallowed just because science hasn't proved something yet?

The ones doing true science, the ones who are actually constantly in search of real answers are the ones never happy with the answers they get, but also, they do not take things with questionable logic as answers to anything. Just because scientists don't know something, doesn't mean they accept wild fantasies before finding the true answers.

It's also wrong to say that science is wrong all the time and build on correction. Answers in science that are proven theories are proven theories and they build new theories on top of them. This is why the unification theory is so hard since you can't erase the proven theories of either side, you need to find a theory that combines them all.

the proof isn't good enough, bring me another rock, and I'll let you know if that one is any better — Rank Amateur

This requires there to be proof in the first place. Questionable logic that is based on assumptions and fallacies does not count and all arguments so far, for any supernatural beings, have failed to reach that level of deduction.

This applies to all sides, but scientists are probably the only ones who keep demanding themselves to be better constantly. If religious apologists were ever that disciplined in trying to prove their ideas, things would look very different.