completely disagree - theism is not illogical — Rank Amateur

I believe that God's existence is illogical. You would first need to consider where he comes from? How does he exist? This is the root of what God is, or it should be, and if we try and answer these questions, eventually we always lead to a logical contradiction which suggest that he doesn't exist. For example, St Anselm's attempt to prove that God must exist with the ontological argument. He says that God is the greatest concievable thing. Anything is better if it exists in our minds and in reality, if God only existed in our minds then he wouldn't be the greatest conceivable thing. So, using this, Anselm deduced that God must exist. However, the issue with this is that this could be used for literally anything you could think of being the greatest conceivable thing. Therefore, suggesting that God's qualities are nothing but imaginative powers which make his existence fictitious.

Is there another reasonable solution to the problem as it is defined? Flip a coin, perhaps, or just leave the train running down whichever line it happens to be on.... I won't say choosing the left track is worse than leaving the outcome to chance. For my scruples it seems like the best course of action, however we might seek to justify it with moral models. — Cabbage Farmer

Flipping a coin then leaves it to something else rather than the rules of morals. I was speaking as if I were a Utilitarian. They would choose the left side (One person) because the pleasure is maximized this way in the sense that more people walk away happy with their lives.

I wouldn't call it "condoning killing" to choose the left track or to condone that choice, in the example as you've defined it. — Cabbage Farmer

The choice that has been chosen is evidently taking another life. Perhaps that was a bad example. Take this one for thought: A burglar intends to rob a house where an old lady lives. One day he breaks open a window to break in, but sees the old lady on the floor. In shock, he flees. The old lady awakes, it turns out she was unconscious because her boiler broke and released carbon monoxide, the robber breaking the window allowed oxygen to come back into the room allowing her to regain consciousness. A Utilitarian would claim that this is a moral act. In this sense is Utilitarianism not condoning the robber's actions to break into someone else's home?

It's a reasonable attempt to do the least harm in a terrible situation. — Cabbage Farmer

It would be, but the thoughts that arise at the time is how many people are being killed. I'm sure the train driver would much rather being blamed for one life being lost than five others as it maximizes the pleasure overall.

I expect the evaluation of utility is an open question. — Cabbage Farmer

Utilitarianism has been evolved multiple times. There is Act, rule and preference utilitarianism that make attempts to rid of the very problems that I am proposing. But, we haven't quite yet got onto the issues of those particular theories.

Could you please simply explain transcendence just for clarity?

As does the categorical imperative, the only thing it lacks is flexibility, but morals do that anyway. We have established that objectivity is not effective when speaking of morals hence an issue with Emotivism, with Utilitarianists it is a way too simple matter of maximizing pleasure when morality is not all about pleasure, clearly. For something to be moral doesn't necessarily always have to favor the most individuals. Like in war, for example. Utilitarianism would say that war is correct in favor of the winner only, meaning that it doesn't look into situations clearly, no?

True, but then what of Emotivism that overcomes is/ought but is still bound by what feels right. It is entirely objective and is based on how you feel when in a situation.

True, but if he has knowledge intrinsically is it all knowledge?

I didn't think of it that way. Infinity is the bigger problem here.

If you treat the utilitarian calculus as a rulebook to abide by, then the differences between deontologists and consequentialists kind of gets blurry. A little. — Posty McPostface

Agreed, but morality is based on a 'rule book' it needs to be.

God's mind it can evolve into mathematics — EnPassant

Why should a omniscient being's mind be able to evolve, however? And I do admit that it is extremely logical to base God on primitive mathematics that can't be denied. But is this correct to do so? God is a being that should not depend on anything at all (I see where this also fails because if he doesn't depend on anything then he doesn't have a designer) But, God depending on God is still a dependence.

but utilitarianism is more practical or flexible than kantian imperatives. So, under such an assumption it seems like utilitarianism is superior to categorical imperative moral decision making. — Posty McPostface

Yes, but the decisions made by utilitarianism would be more flexible on the grounds that it cares solely on the consequences and disregards the actions. For example, If a woman discarded his last amount of food intending to litter but accidentally throws it into the lap of a hungry homeless man, is this woman moral? Utilitarianism would condone this action and call it moral even though there was no moral act. This disregards the theory overall because it no longer becomes a moral theory does it?

The explanation for why anything exists is going to run into an infinite regress, brute existence, or unknowns. — Marchesk

I completely agree, but does the idea of a necessary being sound logical to you? If anything this would disprove that there is a God overall as it would always lead to an infinite regression. How does a necessary being become necessary and what warrants that? Would that not then imply a designer also?

I'm just prodding here by the way.

Of course, but overall Utilitarianism does condone immoral actions where as the categorical imperative would be more stern on these situations that Utilitarianism just doesn't have the capacity to account for.

As a matter of fact, there is agreement between, for lack of a better term, "religionists" and "atheists" on that point: God is not the kind of being that we can sense. The divergence then is, what kind of being is God? Atheists reply, "an imaginary being". (Note that this is not the same thing as "nothing"). Religionists reply, "a transcendent being". — Mariner

Interesting, I didn't think of it this way. However, if this were the definitive answer then there would be no argument as to whether God exists or not. Even so, atheists may think that God is an imaginary being but they still believe that Religious people are putting their dependence and faith into something that is not real, whether it be transcendent or not.

I think that atheists are entirely separated from the fact that there is a being that is not physical 'out there' even if God is transcendent, that still implies that his some type of being. Linguistically, the word being means existence or even the essence of a PERSON which would imply physicality also. So under any circumstances Christianity always refers back to God being physical, transcendent or not.

Namely how do you devise such an awesome calculus to define what is moral? There are so many things to factor in that decising such a calculus is hopelessly complex and impractical. — Posty McPostface

I completely agree. But how do you feel about Kant's way of resolving this. Instead of having to base morals on a man made calculus, Kant uses a logical categorical imperative in which he claims that there are duties that we ought to do regardless of there consequences. It is near enough the exact opposite to Utilitarianism because it is not consequentialist. So Kant clearly destroys the calculus because he has put in place set rules that do not condone acts such as lying. Whereas Utilitarianism would.

Not sure there is a logical argument that if God exists, we would be able to understand God's nature. — Rank Amateur

I personally don't believe that there are arguments that are logical enough to prove the existence of God without entailing a problem. God apparently cannot do anything that is illogical but his existence is entirely illogical, therefore, he cannot exist.

I think if 'GOD' isn't fictitious — BrianW

I agree completely. However, I don't believe that God is a metaphore for life, but instead perhaps something that people can place faith in to cope with the dismay of life. However, you can see the contradiction here of why would God create this dismay just to get people to follow him. It takes away his benevolence and, therefore, doesn't make him God anymore.

Is this that important? Won't the quality of the biases produced that way depend largely on how you approach things on a daily basis? Sometimes on weekends I wake up just at the time when the alarm-clock would ring on weekdays. May be an analogy. — Heiko

This is incredibly important because it is and empirical falsifiable truth that we can depend on. The fact that our brain already knows what we are going to do before we are even conscious of the decision that we make, shows entirely that we are not in control of our decision. Of course this is important. In terms of daily approaches, it shouldn't make a difference.

Existence' is what 'transcendent' is transcendent to. — Wayfarer

I understand this - Kant did say that existence is not a predicate meaning that you can't explain God in terms of whether he exists or not because existence is not an adjective. But surely if God is completely supremely perfect and supremely logical then it is only fair to say that those that exist can only act on those that exist. It would be illogical to say that those that exist can act on those that don't and vice versa.

According to classical theology, God is not complex. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but it's part of the specification. — Wayfarer

This would seem to downplay God as to what he is said to be. To be complex is almost another property that God should hold just like omnipotence and omnibenevolence. How can something so simple create a universe as complex as this. I understand that you could say that it may be complex to us but simple to God, but then that would entail that this being is not as people say he is.

But you can't talk about god having a designer without talking about how he came to exist. Because that is the whole point, no? How did this complex knowledge come about in the first place?

God ever put us in a state of free will? Less good comes of it because it results in some good souls unnecessarily experiencing evil done to them on earth, and it results in some souls choosing evil and not receiving a good, eternal life with God. — Relativist

I agree with you personally in saying that Christianity is false. I just think that your argument could be a tad stronger. For example, it is stated in religion that God has put these evils on earth as a sign and our free will is used to determine whether we get to live a life of good will in heaven or eternal evil in hell. But, Free will can't be stripped away after earth life because then God will be taking away his gift to us which is not omnibenevolent. So, this leads on to the fact that, again, we have the potential to do bad in heaven and good in hell BECAUSE we still would have free will, therefore making the Two illogical and God doesn't do anything that is illogical.

Furthermore, this contradicts the premise that there are free willed souls in heaven that do not sin because it is clear that this is impossible. Because if you have free will you have to sin. They come hand in hand. This is what makes heaven and hell illogical because eternal greatness and eternal evil does not exist alone. They come hand in hand. Either together or not at all. Just because they are departed souls of Christians does not mean they are far from sin, is my point.

Both, in a sense. I was countering that particular premise because your argument depends on souls having free-will in heaven. Which has to be impossible because heaven is supposed to be the haven of goodness and obviously would not allow sin, but if we have free will then we have the potential to do and think bad things so bad and evil would still exist in Heaven which is not logical.

I don't follow how this would warrent God to be able to pop into existence. Why is God exempt from logical rules if he can only do what is logically possible?

I agree

Mhm.. Mhm.. The thread seems to have started a successful discussion even with my atheistic laziness. I am not an atheist, as it were, and I think its incredibly unfair to call atheists lazy because they don't agree with the fact that there could be a being out there that we are not able to sense. It's called strong empiricism, not laziness. If anything, the belief in a non-identifiable being that had created the world in 7 days and has not been heard of since, is lazy.

Just one more point, It is rather difficult to make philisophical claims without mentioning psychology in some way as the two are very closely related. So even if I was mixing the two it still put across my point of finding it hard to believe in a being that we have no empirical evidence of.

But does the designer need a designer? — EnPassant

Most definitely the designer needs a designer. How can you justify something as complex as 'God' to have clicked himself into existence. Even if that were a plausible explanation for his existence, wouldn't that imply that God is his own designer, therefore, he would have a designer. The real question that should be asked is; How did God come into existence? How is he able to step in and out of time (This is an ability of his implied by his omniscience). There has to be a logical explanation for his abilities for him not to entail a contradiction because a logical explanation cannot entail a contradiction. If 'God' was all knowing, powerful etc. There would be no room for doubt on whether he exists or not.

There exist contingent free-willed souls in heaven who do not sin (e.g. the departed souls of faithful Christians). (Christian doctrine). — Relativist

I believe this premise is flawed. How can you have contingent free-willed souls in heaven who do not sin. Heaven would not allow sinners or sins in it at all, if it is this magical haven of goodness that religion portrays it to be. If this is true then those who are in heaven do not have any free will because they do not sin rather than they do not sin because God created them. You can't have a free-willed soul in heaven it is just illogical. Free will entails making decisions between possibilities, therefore, these possibilities could be anything between ultimate good and ultimate sin. But how can you ultimate sin in heaven? Disagreeing with this would then make Heaven illogical which is somewhat a foundation of your argument.

Therefore God's omnipotence entails the ability to directly create free-willed beings that do not sin. — Relativist

God couldn't both create beings that do not sin and give them free will at the same time because not every decision in the world is going to be between options that are not sins.

So, at a very basic level, the idea of free will is flawed for the reason I outlined above. — TheMadFool

I agree entirely. Free will is incredibly flawed in both a realistic and religious sense (Not to sound condescending).

Free will is the idea that we have the power to make our own decisions of which cannot be influenced by anything but our own infliction. But logically speaking, we have no choices at all. In linguistic terms, even the word 'choice' is incredibly flawed. The definition of 'choice' is an act of choosing between two or more possibilities. Breaking this down logically, doesn't this suggest that we have already been given said possibilities otherwise there would be no choice to make. Having the possibilities there just shows that our choice has either been influenced or already made for us. It's like your parents asking you what you want for your birthday but limiting your choices down to a space toy. That is your decision being influenced because you haven't had the full control over the situation and therefore, you do not have free will over any situation where you must make a decision because they are preemptively made for you.

In terms of religion, the idea of free will is paradoxical and is somewhat illogical. To those religious believers that believe in the afterlife, being heaven and hell, how can you justify free will? If God is all-loving and benevolent, then he would most definitely not take away your precious gift of free will in the afterlife, would he? If he does then he is stripping you of your own decisions, therefore, stripping himself of his omnibenevolence. So, God should let you keep your free will whether you go to heaven or hell. Now, let's say you get into heaven. How do you justify bad thoughts or bad actions? Because we have the free will to do them in heaven so is it still heaven if bad exists? Also, the same for hell. People would still have the desire to do good things in hell, so is does hell exist if good exists within it? I am fully aware that my analogy only applies to the afterlife but the applications to real life are incredibly strong. Free will cannot exist in the world because decisions are already made for us before we even do them. There are psychological studies proving that our brain makes a decision 5-10 seconds before we consciously realize, hence, who is making the choice?

I'm not going to argue with you, I haven't been hostile to you or anyone else. So you continue throwing your pointless tantrum, and I'll continue having conversations with these other people who are actually teaching me things rather than being dicks. Thanks.

You later referred to concepts. Do they exist? How do they exist? Compare "British" and "Seven". Can we say that Seven existed before there was any mind that could count up to seven? Will it still exist if all of those minds are extinguished? And how about British (or, British-ness), did it exist before the Big Bang, and will it exist after the heat death of the universe?

We get back to how do X's exist, come into existence, and fade away. — Mariner

I still think that these are concepts, things that do not exist to the extent that they are apprehend able. I cannot go over to the corner of my room and pick up a seven and place it in my hands. I cannot go and push British and I cannot stab justice (not a metaphor).

Validation is an epistemological matter too. Look back at my first reply to you. Empiricism, Experience, and Evidence -- that should be the order of inquiry. Is reality restricted to what can be perceived with our senses? What is the status of experiences? And what counts as evidence? We are getting to the second question now. — Mariner

Sorry, I am straying from the main point a tad. I just feel as though some sort of validation is in order for us to put so much faith in this 'being'. I think, yes, reality is something that is restricted to our senses because it has no truth or certainty value, again. (This may be a stray). I am seeing your point and agree with you to some extent. But this still doesn't prove why validation or apprehension of God must be excluded from the question of whether he exists or not.

If you don't like the topic, don't come to my thread. It's as simple as that. My problem is clearly stated in the title. I am having trouble believing why people place so much faith in this 'being' due to the reasons above. Do not bring your negativity if you have nothing to say that will further my knowledge and contributes to the thread in a positive way. Thanks.

If we can't, does that mean that X does not exist? Is "apprehensibility" a requirement for existence? (Note, you can say yes or no :D. Both possibilities are in play). — Mariner

Indeed, I believe that if something has the ability to be apprehended, in any way, must be real and therefore exist. What reason does it have not to be. Saying something exists because it is there is not a contradiction. But, saying that something exists but isn't there is a contradiction is it not? I think of a chicken (For lack of a better example). The chicken is there and I can apprehend it. Therefore, I believe that it exists. The chicken somehow is not there when I look again. I believe that the chicken is still there. Is this a rational belief? I cannot be because this is a contradiction and is therefore impossible.

If we cannot see X, does that mean that it is not real?

Search for counterexamples. I'll give you a few members of the class of "stuff which cannot be seen, but which is real". Justice. Seven. British. — Mariner

Agreed, but these things you have listed are concepts. Things that are unreachable by the senses. Alright, this could be the explanation for God. But this would still make him a concept and that is what he will remain until we have validation.

Ontology must come first -- we must get to the heart of what exists, how it exists, how it comes into existence and ceases to exist, before we approach the question of how do we know about it. — Mariner

Indeed, So how does God exist then? If he does then he cannot cease to exist otherwise he wouldn't be God. Yet we don't know about it for certain. I have shown how God could possibly exist, and yet I still cannot approach the question of whether I am certain of this or not because there is no validation.

"my problem with God" (not "with other people's interpretation of God", or some similar expression). — Mariner

I do refer to God as a whole, bringing both the religious aspect in along with God himself. As he cannot be God without the religious aspect, therefore we cannot exclude it from the OP. I do believe that we cannot apprehend X by itself as there are many other qualities combined to create X. Yet, we know nothing of the qualities of God (Primary and Secondary). Therefore, can we really say that we can apprehend God? Some might say that you don't need to see God to believe in him. But that just means that they are putting full faith into something that is not real. Believing and knowing what is real/the truth are two very different things.

But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about X. — Mariner

I agree with this also. The question does seem to be about X itself instead of our interpretation of it. However, an interpretation lacks a certainty of truth does it not? But it does bring about a belief. Perhaps this is what people do with the issue of God. Instead of thinking of him directly, they think of how they interpret him to be leading them to develop a belief that this is the correct thing to believe in, resulting in the existence of X. However, I disagree with this because again, A belief is not always a truth.

also believe the social security that came with all believing in a higher being for those that needed a group to feel inclusive is another valid reason for why God exists. — Donny G

I agree this may also be the case!

Are there any answers that you have to the questions you have presented? I'd love to hear them.

I agree, but there has to be some sort of logical explanation as to why we have new experiences after falling into slumber.

do you agree with me that science is not entirely correct in its methods and principles. — TheMadFool

Indeed I do

You forget, Science is based on the one thing that doesn't necessarily exist; Mathematics. Take a number or any kind in your mind, Now make an equation and go out in the world and find it. You physically can't. Basing God's existence on science couldn't be more controversial because your trying to use something that doesn't exist to prove that something does exist. Does that work? Let's try. I'm going to use the concept of Unicorns to prove that my dream island exists. It doesn't work, nor does it make sense.

Agreed, a relationship may be formed between the mirrors sepereatley; but together they are no longer functional for what they are intended to be used, correct? Furthermore, the relationship between two mirrors is fairly different between the mind and the world. If the mind needed the world to exist as some sort of barrier, then there would be no need for relationship between the two as there would be nothing for us to draw our own concepts and representations from. Meaning that a table would look the same from every angle. Shadows would remain the the same no matter the time of day or your movement; and so on. There needs to be a distinction between the two for these things to remain how they seem to be. A relationship between the two means fixation on the things that change often. As a result, the mind therefore looses its function.

But the point was that we cannot find this continuity in the wall, we cannot "walk around" the wall because there is a break in it, and that is the present. See, there is a wall to the past of us, and a wall to the future of us, and these two walls have completely different features. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree, I think that there is a continuous wall, Just because we live in the present and remain here does not mean that we are unable to foresee or progress the future. I agree there may be different features for each time frame (past, present and future) but not everything changes between these time frames. A break in the wall would suggest a complete rework of time, thought and maybe life itself; as if there were a break in time. I agree, we aren't able to interchange between fragments of time, ourselves:

But our minds have that capability.

We are able to travel back to the past in our minds and revisit events that have already happend. Is it not possible that we do the same thing for the future; during a common night time dream or a day dream? Time may be a problem for our physical states. But if it wasn't a possibility, would we have things like memory? And would memory exist if there was a break in the wall?

I disagree, Science cannot be the main fundamental manifestation, or one atall as it provides information that could not exist due to the fact that it is mainly based upon mathematics. As mathematics is non-existant I would assume that neither is the information that it provides. Yes, 1 + 1 is 2 but that is a concept created to represent the '1 thing' add another '1 thing' is equal to '2 things' and is not necessarily existing. The mind cannot view itself directly; I agree. But neither can science view the mind, art and even technology despite its many advances. However we still remain certain that it is there.

If the mind is non-conceptual and non-experiential, then how do you know for certain that it exists?

Because it is evident that we can think, feel, fear and so on; if you have to doubt yourself, you would still need a mind to be able to do that. You can't experience the mind directly, but it's clear and obviously that the mind exists.

I think it's more pertinent to ask, "why are there material things?"

I disagree, we are not sure for certain that material things exist. So it woule thus be foolish to ask why the would.