It's in the post where I talked about people attributing mathematically infinite and perfect qualities to God- rather than expressively using superlatives to refer to something incredible say. Both atheists and theists should be embarrassed by that discussion around omni- qualities. Because nothing in scriptures need be taken in these mathematically infinite terms. Because the atheist theist discussion like this tends to presume an Abrahamist God. Because there are better interpretations of the descriptions of God's powers, nature. It's like an agreement between boht sides to follow the odd turning of some Christian theologians in the Middle Ages or whenever the omni qualites started getting banded about. Both sides acting as if there arguments about omni this and omni that defended or proved theism or atheism when in fact they are simply arguments about 1 interpretation of biblical scriptures intended meanings and what those would entail. So only one interpretation or one religions theology. Not theism in general. IOW not all theists and atheists should be embarrassed but many of those who get into those omni X means this or doesn't debates, should be I think.

Yep good points! It's like saying I know the mind of God ( and his/it's nature).

In a secular sense, we sure feel embarrassed when we make certain assumptions about each other...in that sense there's little difference here.

I don't see any non-omnipotent alternatives to the mythology of a divine creator of all things.

Perhaps you should explain more what you think a theism/spiritualism would look like sans omni-powers.

Also, it remains that pointing out that omnipotence is silly (as atheists do) is not embarrassing. Or, if it is, then you should be embarrassed right now, because all your argument comes down to is siding with the atheists as far as that argument goes (omni-potence as an illogical and useless concept).

Just curious, are you absolutely sure that things seemingly illogical are useless?

Just curious, are you absolutely sure that things seemingly illogical are useless? — 3017amen

Coben was asserting something along those lines actually.

As for me, I think they serve some purposes. Finding out what is illogical helps you figure out what is false, and can help you find out what is logical and move you toward truth.

And things that are only seemingly illogical are obviously useful, because that would of course imply that they are actually logical in some way.

I don't see any non-omnipotent alternatives to the mythology of a divine creator of all things. — Artemis

Not aware of any of the polytheisms and what their gods are like: look into the Greeks or see what Odin has to deal with. Or even the God of the old testament - getting pissed off or competing with lucifer - or even Jesus feeling forsaken on the cross, or the complexities of the HIndu deities, on indigenous versions of God or gods, that can have all sorts of versions of deities and creators? Never heard of the demiurge? I've met plenty of theists from all sorts of religions who do not believe in mathematical and infinity type perfections that must lead to paradoxes, and that includes even Christians. I'm not going to walk you through the variety of versions of God or gods out there. Especially since you couldn't even bother to read the original post but decided to get triggered by part of a single sentence in it.

Also, it remains that pointing out that omnipotence is silly (as atheists do) is not embarrassing. — Artemis

The debate is, as I said, in the way it is framed and tends to be considered by both sides (and by omni I meant the range of omnis, not just omnipotence, especially given that they often are using in conjunction in the debates.)

Or, if it is, then you should be embarrassed right now, because all your argument comes down to is siding with the atheists as far as that argument goes (omni-potence as an illogical and useless concept). — Artemis

I didn't argue that. I didn't come down on the side of atheists, I judge those who who think they are disproving God or theism in general when they play with the theists around the omni words. And yes, I think those theists who play that game are being silly too. Which I said in the orginal post. But you seemed to only manage to see the word atheists and couldn't bother to read the post. What is it with theists and atheists like you just playing these smug little games?

What, are you a child?

Coben was asserting something along those lines actually. — Artemis

No, don't speak for me. It should be obvious that if it takes five or six posts, and only when I repeat myself that you actually notice a portion of what I wrote, you're not the right person to represent me to third parties.

I don't respect the way you post or fail to read or decide to represent me and then in that post smugly imply you have a better way of thinking about something when making up my position. May you find and debate or snark with theists as silly as you are. You're not interested in discussion, just points and jabs.

I won't read you or respond to you again.

Sure Taoism is alive and well viz. Yin-Yang.

Did you know that you yourself are illogical? Think about the fact that you can drive a car and negotiate turns, navigate through traffic while computing 2 + 2=4 (among other things) in your mind and not crash.

Are you not simultaneously doing two things at one time defying the formal rules of logic?

I won't read you or respond to you again. — Coben

Well that escalated quickly. :roll:

Sure Taoism is alive and well viz. Yin-Yang.

Did you know that you yourself are illogical? Think about the fact that you can drive a car and negotiate turns, navigate through traffic while computing 2 + 2=4 (among other things) in your mind and not crash.

Are you not simultaneously doing two things at one time defying the formal rules of logic? — 3017amen

I see what you mean, but I don't think that defies the rules of logic the way you think it does. I think you're referring to the law of non-contradiction, but that doesn't really apply to multi-tasking.

So, while it is true that an apple cannot be both all green and all red at the same time, apples are perfectly capable (logically and in reality) of being part green and part red.

Back to your driving whilst calculating example, I can do both at the same time, because different parts of my brain are at work at the same time. My spatial awareness, motor memory, etc. are involved with driving, while another part of my brain is doing math. Not all of my brain is focused on the road, and not all of my brain is focused on the math.

But note that if a child were to suddenly jump in front of my car, I would focus solely on driving and engage in some attempt to avoid the child and abandon the math, because I would need all of my attention for the task at hand. Likewise, I can only do mental math up to a point in the car. I could not calculate lengthy algorithms regarding quantum theory while driving--at least, if I did, I might be so distracted from driving that I don't even notice the child....bad news all around!

navigate through traffic while computing 2 + 2=4 — 3017amen

And I'm using my cell phone, listening to the radio, conversing with passengers, eating a candy bar, smoking a cigarette, rolling a joint, steering with my knee, and writing this post on a tablet.

Oops! You just took out a family of four.

LOL... Thanks to Artemis for that lucid example.

Ok, so was it true you were driving or true you were not driving, while computing math in your mind?

All I saw was you driving. Is that some sort of subjective truth or something only you experience?

Ok, so was it true you were driving or true you were not driving, while computing math in your mind? — 3017amen

I don't know, for I was also picking something up from the floor and drinking a beer.

It would have been objectively true that I was driving (though all objective statements are made with fallibalism in mind).

The math would have been my subjective experience, though it would have been objectively true that subject A (me) was having the subjective experience X (math).

Are religious experiences a subjective truth then?

You mean like a vision of Jesus? I can believe that such subjective experiences are true whilst maintaining that the experience itself may not have been:

Subject B may well believe to have had a religious experience (objective truth), and s/he may have had a subjective experience of some kind (also objectively true), but whether that experience was an objectively true, independently real "Jesus" is not clear or proven.

Ok we're getting closer I think but I want to understand:

A voice like God spoke to me last night. Is that true or false? Is it both a subjective and objective truth?

What I'm saying is false. Is that true?

If you believe you're telling the truth, then it's true that you had an experience which you believe was God speaking to you. It might be objectively false that he did speak to you, though, and your subjective experience has other objectively true explanations.

If you are lying, then it is true that you are lying, but then it is false that you had this experience.

So it sounds like you don't really know then right?

While it is true that I couldn't judge the objective truth or falsity of the existence of a deity on your subjective testimony alone, your subjective testimony is not all that I have available to me to test the hypothesis of God.

Ok it does sound like you're on the fence.

You can't decide if it's A or B, you're in the middle as it were. Are you breaking that rule?

If not, sounds like subjective experiences are real to people nonetheless.

I am not an atheist, though I used to be. But I would say that it is just as well that you stopped reading those people, for only one of those four is a trained philosopher. Why read people who are talking outside of their areas of expertise? You aren't going to get good arguments, just rhetoric.

As for not being able to deal with the arguments theists throw at you, why not take seriously that this is because they're good arguments?

Both atheists and theists should be embarrassed by that discussion around omni- qualities. — Coben

:up: :smile: They embarrass me, anyway.

Okay are you seeing that gradations of Truth from consciousness is illogical in the sense of defying the law of contradiction, yet normal? Could we argue the same when humans say I don't know or they are undecided about a proposition?

After all building a computer doesn't have a middle ground, and if it does it will lock up.

Gradations of objective and subjective truths I submit, breaks the rule yet happens all the time in our cognition.

Or back to your consciousness; gradations of subconscious and conscious cognition?

In any event I apologize you said you have other tools available to you to test the hypothesis of the existence of God can you please share those?

I suppose all roads will lead back to deductive reasoning not helping the atheist support their belief. It's inductive reasoning that is more compelling....and make the debate more meaningful for both sides.

I'm not sure gradations is the right word here, but maybe explain what you mean more before I comment on that.

It's been awhile since I studied all the various forms of formal/modal logic, but from memory, when it comes to human condition kinds of things (AKA consciousness and perception) you have to drop the law of excluded middle.

For instance when something is perceived it is both object-ive and subject-ive, like it normally is perceived. It is computed in our consciousness as a mix of both. Meaning, during our normal cognitive thinking process it's not a simple 50-50 split; it might be a gradation of the two where it's .333 subjective and .667 objective, or the opposite, et.al . Like playing and listening to music. (Or experiencing the phenomena of Love.)

On a human scale, it's related to blending the dichotomy instead of defaulting to either A or B. Maslow and Kierkegaard talk extensively about how living life is A and B; not A or B. Of course there are always exceptions. But unfortunately we are taught that living life should be either/or.

Anyway my layman's take on it. And if that makes sense, it follows that we are an illogical mix of things.

And that goes back to why deductive logic (the ontological argument) doesn't work for both sides. Question is how do we proceed?

Interesting take, but this just goes back to what I said previously about the red/green apple. Logic tells us that the apple cannot be both all green and all red at the same time. But logic also allows that some of the apple can be green and some of the apple can be red.

That's just basic Aristotelian logic/square of oppositions stuff though.

Unless subjective and objective truth are each somehow all encompassing while at the same time being mutually exclusionary (which I think I've shown they are not) there is nothing illogical about them existing simultaneously.

I'll take the challenge and debate this with you further for sure. But real quickly, what if the apple that was painted red/green as you say, is spinning. How would we know it's truth? Would it be a different color while it's spinning?

It would be true that it appears to be a different color, but it wouldn't really be. It would be an optical illusion.

Interesting so you agree that life , (the nature of existing things) is illogical ? Or maybe define what you mean by illusion.

Just so I'm clear, I would be happy to start another thread if your position is that this life is completely logical with no mysteries.