Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[fool]

There's an obvious third option.

I kinda like "I don't know"

 

[sentientsynth]

Answering the question of "where God came from" is like attempting to draw a five sided triangle. The very concept of God must include eternality, among other attributes, in order to be logically consistent. If God had ever been created, if there had been any moment in which He didn't exist, then He wouldn't be God.

As Hilston is demonstrating, any attempt to deny God's existence through logic is self-refuting. If God didn't exist, there would be no security that logic reflected reality (induction would have to rely upon statistics solely.)

SS

 

[mighty_duck]

fool, would you agree there are only two broad possibilities as to the origin of the universe:

1) Either it has always been here

2) Or it was created at some point

I do not want to start a new thread on the 1st two laws of thermodynamics, but I was just curious if you at least agreed with these two fundamental assumptions re: the universe.

Science is still investigating, so it is premature to give an answer here. Most scientists agree that it is pointless to talk of events "before" the big bang, since time itself is meaningless as we near the singularity. Our knowledge is very sketchy here, and progress is somewhat slow due to the difficulty in experimentation, and the limited practical use it can bring.

To say science has concluded that one or the other is impossible, is just plain wrong.

If this "I don't know" makes you uncomfortable, then just posit a Deist god to get things going. How that helps you get to a personal god, let alone the Christian God of your favorite denomination, is beyond me.

 

[fool]

Science is still investigating, so it is premature to give an answer here. Most scientists agree that it is pointless to talk of events "before" the big bang, since time itself is meaningless as we near the singularity. Our knowledge is very sketchy here, and progress is somewhat slow due to the difficulty in experimentation, and the limited practical use it can bring.

To say science has concluded that one or the other is impossible, is just plain wrong.

If this "I don't know" makes you uncomfortable, then just posit a Deist god to get things going. How that helps you get to a personal god, let alone the Christian God of your favorite denomination, is beyond me.

That seems to sum it up.

 

[truthteller86]

Science is still investigating, so it is premature to give an answer here. Most scientists agree that it is pointless to talk of events "before" the big bang, since time itself is meaningless as we near the singularity. Our knowledge is very sketchy here, and progress is somewhat slow due to the difficulty in experimentation, and the limited practical use it can bring.

To say science has concluded that one or the other is impossible, is just plain wrong.

If this "I don't know" makes you uncomfortable, then just posit a Deist god to get things going. How that helps you get to a personal god, let alone the Christian God of your favorite denomination, is beyond me.

Since this is supposed to be a critique thread for the BR_IX posts, I relocate my exchange with you and fool here. I know I brought it up.

 

[mighty_duck]

Answering the question of "where God came from" is like attempting to draw a five sided triangle. The very concept of God must include eternality, among other attributes, in order to be logically consistent. If God had ever been created, if there had been any moment in which He didn't exist, then He wouldn't be God.

As Hilston is demonstrating, any attempt to deny God's existence through logic is self-refuting. If God didn't exist, there would be no security that logic reflected reality (induction would have to rely upon statistics solely.)

SS

Good assesment SS. "where did god come from" is a wrong question, since He is defined as eternal. The only time it should ever come up is if a theist asserts "everything has a cause!". It then becomes a valid question to ask "what caused god?".

The more I think about it, Hilston actually has a point that using strict logic it is nearly impossible to refute God. Unfortunatly, the same can be said about Allah, Shiva, Zeus, The jolly green giant, Leprecauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws.
All you have to do is presuppose them, explain away internal contradictions, wave off external contradictions, and your entity of choice is logically valid. So much for the usefulness of being logically valid.

 

[sentientsynth]

Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...

The third option is solipsism, the idea that your mind creates the universe, that all perceptions are really perceptions of the Self, and that, in the final analysis, it is all an illusion.

The problem with this is that it is inherently contradictory.

1. The Self exists.
2. Nothing exists.

This is a clear violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Eastern mystics try to skirt around this problem by claiming that there are two forms of logic: 1.either/or 2. both/and.

An example of each:

1. The universe either does exist or does not exist.
2. The universe both does exist and does not exist.

Hindu philosophers choose the both/and system of logic exclusively not realizing that by doing so they violate the very both/and system the operate under. For to be truly both/and, one must admit that both the either/or and the both/and systems of logic were true. But even if they won't admit this, they give themselves away when they cross the street. You see, they look both ways before crossing because ultimately they know that it's either the bus or them, not both!! (I have this on good authority from an Indian man.)


A weaker definition of solipsism may be "the self is all that you know to exist." This is akin to a strong form of agnosticism. It attempts to define the borders for the possibility of knowledge. But to make the claim "I can have no knowledge beyond the self" is to profess to know where "the self" ends and "beyond the self" begins. But to be able to know where "beyond the self" begins is to claim to know that "beyond the self" actually exists!

So while solipsism is the third option for the origins of the universe, no one takes it seriously. That's probably why you didn't include it in your list. But, for the sake of completeness, we should include solipsism as one possibility of the origin of the universe.

SS

 

[Balder]

Sentientsynth,

Are you familiar with Transdisciplinarianism, or of the "included middle" (both/and) logic that has been formalized by Stephane Lupasco?

There may have been some Hindu philosophers who stuck exclusively to the "logic" of both/and thinking, and thus became embroiled in self-contradiction, but this is not true of all of them. Besides strict monists, Indian spiritual/philosophical culture has also produced dualists and qualified non-dualists, the latter of which is quite aware of the subtleties you are describing.

Also, technically, I do not agree that the Hindu theory of the identity of atman and Brahman is solipsistic, at least when it is properly understood. I would agree, however, that it is vulnerable to solipsistic interpretation ... and unhealthy world-denial.

Peace,
Balder

 

[sentientsynth]

The only time it should ever come up is if a theist asserts "everything has a cause!". It then becomes a valid question to ask "what caused god?".

This is true. However, it is wrong for a theist to assert "everything has a cause." Correct is "for every effect there is a cause." And to claim that God is an effect would be a violation of God's necessary attributes, as we concluded earlier.

The more I think about it, Hilston actually has a point that using strict logic it is nearly impossible to refute God. Unfortunatly, the same can be said about Allah, Shiva, Zeus, The jolly green giant, Leprecauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws.

Shiva, Zeus, the Jolly Green Gian, Leprechauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws are all finite beings. Only the Christian God of the BiIble possesses all the logically necessary attributes of being God. Allah could be considered from your list. But there are other reasons for dismissing the Koran as His word.

All you have to do is presuppose them, explain away internal contradictions, wave off external contradictions, and your entity of choice is logically valid. So much for the usefulness of being logically valid.

I'm not self-delusional. I'm soundly convinced of the rational basis for my belief in the Lord. It is undeniabl.

SS

 

[sentientsynth]

Sentientsynth,

Are you familiar with Transdisciplinarianism, or of the "included middle" (both/and) logic that has been formalized by Stephane Lupasco?

No. Tell me more.

SS

 

[koban]

Answering the question of "where God came from" is like attempting to draw a five sided triangle. The very concept of God must include eternality, among other attributes, in order to be logically consistent. If God had ever been created, if there had been any moment in which He didn't exist, then He wouldn't be God.

As Hilston is demonstrating, any attempt to deny God's existence through logic is self-refuting.

Just playing with an idea here, but couldn't you turn that around and state that any attempt to prove God's existence through logic is also flawed?

If God didn't exist, there would be no security that logic reflected reality (induction would have to rely upon statistics solely.)

SS

Again, just spitballing, but of what utility in practical terms is the "security that logic reflects reality" that comes from knowing that God exists?

In other words, what practical difference is there between an atheist's use of logic and a theist's use of logic?

 

[Johnny]

Shiva, Zeus, the Jolly Green Gian, Leprechauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws are all finite beings. Only the Christian God of the BiIble possesses all the logically necessary attributes of being God. Allah could be considered from your list. But there are other reasons for dismissing the Koran as His word.

What if I asserted that they're infinte? The whole point, which you seem to be missing, is that you can substitute anything in there. My digital camera of infinite omniscience told me his worldview, and he handed down mankind logic. Any attempt to prove otherwise is illogical and self-defeating. Because logic comes from my camera. And if you disprove my camera, then you disprove the very logic you used. You can also use soda can, if you please. Or God. Either way, it's a weak argument.

 

[sentientsynth]

Just playing with an idea here, but couldn't you turn that around and state that any attempt to prove God's existence through logic is also flawed?



Again, just spitballing, but of what utility in practical terms is the "security that logic reflects reality" that comes from knowing that God exists?

In other words, what practical difference is there between an atheist's use of logic and a theist's use of logic?

Koban,

Thanks for the reply. But I must say, all of these questions have been answered in the Battle.

SS

 

[sentientsynth]

What if I asserted that they're infinte?

Then you're one step closer to the view of God as portrayed in the Bible.

 

[Balder]

No. Tell me more.

SS

Here's an article you might find interesting:

Levels of Reality and the Sacred

 

[mighty_duck]

Only the Christian God of the BiIble possesses all the logically necessary attributes of being God.
SS

This is something I have been trying to get out of presuppositionists for some time now. What are the logically necessary attributes of being God?

 

[elected4ever]

This is something I have been trying to get out of presuppositionists for some time now. What are the logically necessary attributes of being God?

Why don't you try asking God. He is the real authority. He is there regardless of whether you believe in Him or not.

 

[mighty_duck]

Just playing with an idea here, but couldn't you turn that around and state that any attempt to prove God's existence through logic is also flawed?

Not that Jim needs this atheist's help, but on this point he is on solid logic ground. He is not trying to prove God using logical arguments, but rather presupposing His existance, and then claiming that logic is impossible (to account for) without Him.

In other words, what practical difference is there between an atheist's use of logic and a theist's use of logic?

In practical terms, they are identical. But if his argument holds water, then an atheist doesn't have a rational reason to use logic without affirming both God and Bible.

 

[koban]

Koban,

Thanks for the reply. But I must say, all of these questions have been answered in the Battle.

SS

I've seen Hilston's meanderings and can't say I'm impressed.

I was wondering what you thought about them.

 

[koban]

Not that Jim needs this atheist's help, but on this point he is on solid logic ground. He is not trying to prove God using logical arguments, but rather presupposing His existance, and then claiming that logic is impossible (to account for) without Him.

That's just backing it up a step. If God is not logically proveable, then presupposing his existence isn't logical and his argument falls apart.

In practical terms, they are identical. But if his argument holds water, then an atheist doesn't have a rational reason to use logic without affirming both God and Bible.

Obviously I'm not impressed with his argument.

Regardless, a rational reason for an atheist to use logic would be it's utility regardless of it's source.

I don't have to be a Newtonian scholar to use an balance beam.