Does Christianity have something to do with Shawn's question? — Michael

No. I just made a side remark. Not fully pertinent to the topic. But so is not the opinion that we must choose YHWH to be the person we talk about. That is even less relevant.

I don't know what you mean by this. — Michael

Excluding other religions on the basis of a bias.

But so is not the opinion that we must choose YHWH to be the person we talk about. That is even less relevant. — god must be atheist

Excluding other religions on the basis of a bias. — god must be atheist

I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here. I just want to know who – or what – @Shawn is referring to when he asks if logic or science can disprove God. If he's referring to Zeus then I have something more meaningful to address. He's clarified that he's referring to Yahweh, so I'm now able to answer his question.

I hear you, Michael. Your point is valid, and I am only trying to say that it is impossible to choose one specific individual as god. You nail Shawn by the specifics, and I nail him by the impossibility of the requirement of specifics. That's all.

:up:

Yeah, I anticipated this one.

If refuting God was so easy you'd wonder why so many people still take it as true. (Genesis and God)

Mind you, I didn't come into this thread as a religious person.

Jorndoe's post was as good an answer that I could have hoped for:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/614606

Then, assume YHWH, then. — Shawn

Something is Yahweh iff it is the being that created the world as described in Genesis. Science has proved that the world wasn't created as described in Genesis. Therefore, nothing is Yahweh. Therefore, Yahweh doesn't exist. — Michael

Following on from this, assume that some deity exists. What does it take for that deity to be Yahweh as opposed to some other deity like Allah or Angra Mainyu or Zeus? Claims of miss-attribution only get you so far. Eventually you're not talking about Yahweh but about something else. If the world was created according to the Mandé creation myth then it's Mangala that exists, not Yahweh. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that Christians and the Mandé are referring to the same God but that the Christians just got everything about him wrong.

So if you want to argue that Yahweh can exist even if Genesis is wrong then you need to clarify the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be Yahweh.

If refuting God was so easy you'd wonder why so many people still take it as true. (Genesis and God) — Shawn

Because so many people are unreasonable. Or because they’re don’t believe in Yahweh but some other God.

Mind you, I didn't come into this thread as a religious person — Shawn

Then why only consider one religion’s God? Do you have in mind some God that isn’t tied to a specific scripture?

Mind you, I didn't come into this thread as a religious person. — Shawn

yeah, I anticipated this one. My guess is that you wanted to hear from atheists that it is impossible to prove atheism.

In a way you went about it the long way to see what truly is. Atheists can't prove atheism to be true. But theists can't prove theism to be true, either.

There is also the POV, it is even harder to prove atheism right in terms of relgious doctrines and harder to prove theism right in materialist views.

If refuting God was so easy you'd wonder why so many people still take it as true. (Genesis and God) — Shawn

You hadn't noticed? We did not refute the existence of a god. Of any god. (Other than YHWH's. It's either your way, or the Yahweh. -- Paul Spenser.) Because it is not easy-- it is in fact hard, if not impossible. It has not been done to this day.

So I would paraphrase your lament to "since god's existence is so hard to refute, you wonder why so many people reject the notion of a make-belief authority figure creating the world and wielding absolute power over it, who nevertheless never ever ever has manifested itself to mankind."

Then why only consider one religion’s God? Do you have in mind some God that isn’t tied to a specific scripture? — Michael

I only have experience with fundamentalists from the Christian tradition in defending God's existence. I don't think I would be able to have a peaceful conversation about Allah's existence with an Islamic fundamentalist.

What is god anyway other than a word? Whenever its explained to me Im confused, and faith gets mentioned a lot, and stuff like that. People seem to care about that word around some parts. I live in Morocco for a while and they cared a lot more about allah, different word but same thing. I imagine in china they don't give a damn about belief in god. So if we were raised there or lived there we wouldn't even be asked about it. Im rambling but its one of those things like a TV show, when all of your friends are really into it and ask for your opinion on it and whether you like it or not.

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

Something unscientific and illogical about God perhaps. That is to say what is unscientific is illogical and that which is illogical is unscientific. Materialism triumphs. Cui bono?

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God?
— Shawn

Something unscientific and illogical about God perhaps. — TheMadFool

Not illogical. The faith in god is unassailable by logic.

But unscientific, yes. Science is based on evidence. There is no empirical evidence of god. If you are a faith-bearer, yes, even the grass and the stars and the orgasms in this world can be evidence of God. Actually, not to all faithful, but to some. But if you have no faith in god, then there is no evidence. And to a lot of god-fearing people, even orgasms and grass and stars are not evidence to the existence of a god.

Not illogical. The faith in god is unassailable by logic. — god must be atheist

I can't seem to parse this sentence. What do you mean "faith in god is unassailable by logic"? In my book it means "faith in god" is illogical and that's why it is, in your words, "unassailable by logic"!

But unscientific, yes. Science is based on evidence. — god must be atheist

That's not completely on point is it?

It seems like if you're proposing there's a God you're saying anything that seems random may not be.

I'd like to know how you prove that randomness isn't actually orderly. Really you're just postulating an equally imaginary thing: a lack of anything.

What begs Occam's razor is just a matter of opinion. What's more complicated: true chaos or true order, and is there really a difference?

How would someone who identifies themselves as a person ever be able to distinguish true chaos from order, and why can't God be true chaos?

That's not completely on point is it? — TheMadFool

Hm. So it isn't.

I can't seem to parse this sentence. What do you mean "faith in god is unassailable by logic"? In my book it means "faith in god" is illogical and that's why it is, in your words, "unassailable by logic"! — TheMadFool

There are two ways to be not logical: 1. By committing a logical error, for instance, saying that the cat is both alive and dead in the box. (Contradicting the law of excluded middle). This is illogical. 2. By not explaining by logic. "My cancer went into remission because of an act of god." Here, there is no logical error; it is not illogical to say this, while it at the same time is most likely not true.

The idea is that logic is a formal system, that can be violated or not. Some things that are not true are not violating logic. However, they may be outside of logic; not dependent on logic; not being a function of logic. Such is the faith in god. You can't logically argue that there is no god. (Much like you can't logically argue that there is god.) It's all in the set of basic assumption, and this assumption can't be shown to be true or else false. It is a question of belief, of faith.

I hope to have clarified my position to your understanding.

I classify thinking in the following way:

1. Logical (consistent) [e.g. moral]
2. Illogical (inconsistent) [e.g. immoral]
2. Alogical (neither consistent nor inconsistent) [e.g. amoral]

A statement is either logical or illogical. Alogical could be things like "blue" (the word), orgasm (the feeling), basically anything that's not a statement.

"God exists" is...

Do any of you know anything about topological quantum science? Try it and it will blow your mind on what is logical and illogical.
The more we talk to nature using a scientific approach the more we realize nature doesn't care about "us" and the more the idea of "God" loses any importance at all.
Whether we look at the macro or the micro, we realize we're a "collateral consequence" not the product, intention, of any kind of God.

The more we talk to nature using a scientific approach the more we realize nature doesn't care about "us" and the more the idea of "God" loses any importance at all. — Raul

You should try talking to nature through the scientific approach of enactivism. Its pragmatic grounding requires nature to care about us , given that the nature we encounter is partly a result of our own constructions and behaviors. This pragmatism is far removed
from a God centered thinking.

requires nature to care about us , given that the nature we encounter is partly a result of our own constructions and behaviors. This pragmatism is far removed
from a God centered thinking. — Joshs

So you say that enactivism considers "us" outside nature? Another kind of dualism? That is not what enactivism is about.

So you say that enactivism considers "us" outside nature? Another kind of dualism? That is not what enactivism is about. — Raul

That’s right. That is not what enactivism is about. Enactivism is about the reciprocal coupling between organism and environment in which the organism has a certain autonomy in its functioning in the world. This autonomy gives our perception of reality a normative dimension. We experience nature relative
to our pragmatic goals and aims, just as any organism isn’t just shaped by its environment , but in turn shapes and ‘produces’ that environment.

:up: