Does God Exist?

[Felasco]

That just makes things easier. If an Abrahamic God is not required to be logical, it then can be considered absurd, which is exactly what an atheist does, following your own definition.

How does labeling something outside of natural law as "absurd" contribute anything useful to the inquiry? Isn't that just an emotional agenda intruding upon the investigation?

That said, I don't object if somebody says, "I personally find such a thing absurd" so long as they don't confuse their personal situation with some kind of universal truth.

We would be unaqualified to participate in a conversation with that other entity that responds to a different logic, but since you are dealing with conversations between humans, we are still under the same criteria.

As far as I know, nobody has claimed that God "responds to a different logic" only that he would not be bound by the natural laws he himself is said to have created. That is, the God proposed by the Abrahamic religions is not bound by a different rule system, but is said to be a free agent above all rule systems.

I'm not selling this point of view, or trying to convince readers to adopt it etc, so you can stop calling it "my Abrahamic God".

I'm just pointing out that this is the proposal that has been put on the table by Western theists over the last two or three thousand years. It's entirely reasonable to challenge this proposal, I'm only suggesting that a credible challenge will challenge the proposal that's actually been made by theists, not some other more convenient proposal of some atheist's imagination.

To the degree that I have a point, it would be that there really is no way to challenge any entity unbound by any rule system given that, by definition, such a proposed supernatural entity is not subject to the rule system which would be used to conduct the challenge.

As example, speaking of absurd, it's absurd to shout "God is not logical!" because God has never been proposed to be subject to the rules of logic. When atheists shout "God is not logical" all they are accomplishing is revealing that they haven't bothered to understand the proposal they wish to debunk, which demonstrates their challenge is essentially emotional in nature.

One can challenge the God proposal as a matter of faith. I don't object to such a challenge, if it is honestly labeled as a competing faith. Certainly everyone is entitled to whatever faith works for them.

I do object when atheists try to sell us the fantasy that their challenge is based on reason, as I've tried to show above. It's absurd to make huge sweeping claims about what doesn't exist in an arena one can't even define. Such a procedure is not reason, but mere ideology.

1) When your all powerful Abrahamic god creates a "supernatural world", before any human is around, he has just created something that from then on exists as part of reality, thus making it part of the natural world.

A "supernatural world" would by definition not be bound by natural law. You know, that's what the word "supernatural" actually means.

You can posit as many worlds like that as you like, each one with its own laws if you wish, but in the end they'll be dimensions of one single reality, which should be called the "natural world".

You're struggling to define a reality which has predictable rules which you can count on, which is a very understandable and common human desire, because obviously we would be more comfortable in such a reality. Such an understandable desire does not make it so.

The rest of your post seems an effort to proceed towards the label "absurd" by any means necessary. As I said, I don't get how such a label helps us. If you mean, human beings tend to experience things outside of what they expect to be absurd, then ok, the point is taken and agreed to.

[Conde Lucanor]

How does labeling something outside of natural law as "absurd" contribute anything useful to the inquiry? Isn't that just an emotional agenda intruding upon the investigation?

Just as useful to the inquiry as to label something "outside of natural law". I'm just following your agenda: if you accept "natural law" as reasonable and then label something as "outside of natural law" you are just saying it's absurd, that is, contrary to reason. You can then say it's absurd from our perspective, just the same as it becomes absurd to an inhabitant of the "X" coordinate to posit the existence of a "Z" coordinate, even though it exists. It can only be existent from the point of view of an outsider to the system (god in this case), but you are not an outsider, so you are obliged to find anything outside your reference system as absurd. In fact, you do, because you just said it: god is outside natural law, thus contrary to reason. So, if you then say that god is possible, making it reasonable from your reference system, you are contradicting yourself and making god part of the natural law (which allows the possibility of things).

That said, I don't object if somebody says, "I personally find such a thing absurd" so long as they don't confuse their personal situation with some kind of universal truth.

So you are saying that no one should imply any intention of objective truth in their propositions, but that includes yourself, so you are not implying any intention of objective truth in your words. It's only your personal situation. The paradox of solipsism is why bother arguing the truth of solipsism?

As far as I know, nobody has claimed that God "responds to a different logic" only that he would not be bound by the natural laws he himself is said to have created.

A false claim, of course, given that it has been shown that the concept of creation is itself problematic. But anyway, you state later in this post that "God has never been proposed to be subject to the rules of logic". Isn't that the same as saying that responds to a differen logic?

That is, the God proposed by the Abrahamic religions is not bound by a different rule system, but is said to be a free agent above all rule systems.

Not at all. The Abrahamic god is said to be participating in human affairs. This god is supposed to be known by revelation, cognizable, a personal being with volition and character, a being that interacts with its creatures. No matter that you introduce a power hierarchy in which this god rules above everyone, no matter that you invent another "supernatural" world in which this god resides, you are still supposed to believe in an interaction between these worlds, in other words, findind cause-effect relationships between them. That god, then, is supposed to be bound to some rules that also work for humans. If not, you couldn't even come up with the concepts of "free", "agent", "above", etc.

To the degree that I have a point, it would be that there really is no way to challenge any entity unbound by any rule system given that, by definition, such a proposed supernatural entity is not subject to the rule system which would be used to conduct the challenge.

You mean that for you there's no way to challenge the existence of unicorns, nor any of the thousands of gods humanity has come up with in history. Good for you. That also means that believers in the Abrahamic god have no way to challenge any other entities "not subject to the rule system which would be used to conduct the challenge". Good for them.

As example, speaking of absurd, it's absurd to shout "God is not logical!" because God has never been proposed to be subject to the rules of logic. When atheists shout "God is not logical" all they are accomplishing is revealing that they haven't bothered to understand the proposal they wish to debunk, which demonstrates their challenge is essentially emotional in nature.

Is there anything from faith that could be denied? You just come up with anything absurd and then declare that it cannot be denied, because it's not "subject to the rules of logic".

A "supernatural world" would by definition not be bound by natural law. You know, that's what the word "supernatural" actually means.

But if it exists, it becomes part of reality, no matter what rules you propose for that "supernatural" world. So it means "supernatural" only from the point of view of one world, but natural from the point of view of the whole reality, which will still have rules and god be bound to them. If you propose that humans don't have access to reality as a whole, the Abrahamic god is uncognizable, which is exactly the opposite of what Abrahamic religions propose.

You're struggling to define a reality which has predictable rules which you can count on...

On that grounds, I would expect you to refrain from having any arguments about anything. From the moment you accept a universe where anything is possible, even the impossible, you cannot take position on anything, even on the possibility of not taking a position. For any rule that you can come up with, there's a supernatural entity that can override it.

[Felasco]

Just as useful to the inquiry as to label something "outside of natural law". I'm just following your agenda: if you accept "natural law" as reasonable and then label something as "outside of natural law" you are just saying it's absurd, that is, contrary to reason.

FYI, the word "absurd" has nothing to do with anything. It's merely a pejorative label you are hoping to score cheap points with. It's not working....

Perhaps an example will help.

The rules of this forum could be said to be the "natural law" of this forum reality. You and I and all other members are bound by the "natural law" of this place.

The forum owner is the all powerful creator of the forum rules. As the all powerful creator of the rules, the forum owner is not bound by the rules which he himself created. The forum owner can violate the forum rules at will.

Theists claim there is a creator of natural law, a creator who is not bound by the rules it created.

Atheists claim there is no creator, and that natural law arose by some other method, perhaps random chance etc.

All you are doing in your posts is repeating your faith based assertion that there is nothing outside and above natural law. You are making a huge claim about all of reality, an arena you can't define. Your methodology is fundamentally no different than that of the theists.

[Conde Lucanor]

FYI, the word "absurd" has nothing to do with anything. It's merely a pejorative label you are hoping to score cheap points with. It's not working...

I certainly don't mean to use it in a pejorative sense. After looking it up, I see that "absurd" in English does not have the exact same meaning as "absurdo" in Spanish. In English it seems to be closer to "silly" and "foolish", but what I mean is "preposterous, contrary to reason or nature". I'm not qualifying an argument, but measuring the factualness of the entities proposed by the argument.

Perhaps an example will help.

The rules of this forum could be said to be the "natural law" of this forum reality. You and I and all other members are bound by the "natural law" of this place.

The forum owner is the all powerful creator of the forum rules. As the all powerful creator of the rules, the forum owner is not bound by the rules which he himself created. The forum owner can violate the forum rules at will.

This example only proves that the existence of a natural law is not in itself a necessary condition to posit the existence of a creator of that natural law. That creator is just an arbitrary invention. You are pointing at the "rules of interaction" in this forum as if they were the only rules operating in it, as its "natural law". But if we were to find the "natural law" governing this forum, we would have to include all the other "rules" operating at different levels of this reality, all the dynamic sets of causes and effects that produce events in it (including functional features, material and human resources, programming languages, interactions within a network, interactions with other networks, etc.), which make it possible and operational, and which the forum owner not only didn't invent, but cannot control at will, not all of them, not all the time. So, let's say some unexpected event happens in the forum, like all of the sudden all the posted messages become encrypted with strange characters. You would then not find the forum owner looking for the causes in the "forum rules" he created, but in any of the set of events and enabling conditions that make the forum operational (like the phpBB engine templates made by someone else). That is the "natural law" of this forum, and as you can see, despite his biggest efforts and desires, the forum owner cannot create its reality as a whole, because he is just another part of the system, and cannot violate all of its rules, because he does not control all of them. So far, no real creator, but still a natural law.

Theists claim there is a creator of natural law, a creator who is not bound by the rules it created.

Let's say some theists may have claimed that, but certainly not the Abrahamic religions, of which there are plenty of examples of divine entities being bound by rules of natural law. Just read the Bible.

Atheists claim there is no creator, and that natural law arose by some other method, perhaps random chance etc.

Atheists claim there is no creator, and that it is not necessary to explain events in the universe. Natural explanations have been found for most of what was thought to be the work of deities.

All you are doing in your posts is repeating your faith based assertion that there is nothing outside and above natural law.

No. I'm actually giving you the benefit of asserting that there can be something "outside and above". And then I'm telling you that this "outside and above" is still part of a bigger reality, which should, by its own right, be called "natural law".

You are making a huge claim about all of reality, an arena you can't define. Your methodology is fundamentally no different than that of the theists.

I'm sticking to the claims about reality that have been proposed, not mine. It's been claimed that reality can be divided in two worlds: natural and supernatural. I follow the logical conclusions derived from this claim and reach the veredict that this reality is preposterous, contrary to reason.

And then your claim is that this whole reality is not cognizable (a huge claim about all of reality, an arena you suddenly find someone capable of defining). But as previously explained, if not cognizable, we are obliged to find it impossible, preposterous, contrary to reason. Absurd, actually.

[Felasco]

but what I mean is "preposterous, contrary to reason or nature".

Ok, fair enough, I apologize for jumping on you over what is only a semantic quibble. Yes, the Abrahamic God is by definition above the laws of nature.

However, getting back to semantics, the word "preposterous" when used in this context is itself preposterous. The use of that word assumes we are in a position to make sweeping claims about all of reality, which I remind you again, is a largely unknown realm which we can not currently even define.

The use of words like "absurd" and "preposterous" are mere characterizations of a proposal, not a reasoned defeat of that proposal.

This example only proves that the existence of a natural law is not in itself a necessary condition to posit the existence of a creator of that natural law.

The example doesn't prove anything, agreed. It's purpose was to help you understand what the theist proposal actually is. You don't seem to get it yet.

Here's what I mean. When you repeatedly claim God is absurd and preposterous, you are trying to say that God is illogical. Um, why do you keep saying this, given that God is usually defined as being ALL POWERFUL and thus ABOVE LOGIC and thus by definition is not required to be logical?

That creator is just an arbitrary invention.

The notion that you or I or anybody knows whether such a creator exists is the arbitrary invention, an act of pure fantasy.

Again, why do you feel that making sweeping claims about an area which you can't define in even the most basic manner is reason?????

Atheists on forums like to present themselves as advocates of reason, but it seems to me they have confused reason with ideology.

Atheists claim there is no creator,

Something they could not possibly know.... The whole pose is just an emotion driven scam. Understandable in human terms, but a farce nonetheless.

Again, please demonstrate to us how you could possibly know what doesn't exist in an arena which you can't define.

No. I'm actually giving you the benefit of asserting that there can be something "outside and above". And then I'm telling you that this "outside and above" is still part of a bigger reality, which should, by its own right, be called "natural law".

Ok, God + Nature = Larger Reality, fair enough. The larger reality can only be called natural law if all entities within it are bound by some universal set of rules.

Do you see that your adamant insistence that everything must be subject to some rule system is nothing more than a statement of faith?

I'm sticking to the claims about reality that have been proposed, not mine.

Yes, this is the classic dishonest atheist dodge. You bear the burden for your claims, just as the theist does for his.

It's been claimed that reality can be divided in two worlds: natural and supernatural. I follow the logical conclusions derived from this claim and reach the veredict that this reality is preposterous, contrary to reason.

The supernatural is BY DEFINITION above and outside of reason. All you are doing is stating your faith that all of reality is bound by natural law over and over again. In your defense, there is nothing else you can do. Just as the theists can not prove their wildly speculative claims, neither can you.

[Arising_uk]

...
However, getting back to semantics, the word "preposterous" when used in this context is itself preposterous. The use of that word assumes we are in a position to make sweeping claims about all of reality, which I remind you again, is a largely unknown realm which we can not currently even define.

The use of words like "absurd" and "preposterous" are mere characterizations of a proposal, not a reasoned defeat of that proposal. ...

That's because you cannot or don't wish to understand the defeat of the proposal nor do you understand a reasoned argument. As the "absurd" and "preposterous" are conclusions and the "absurd" is based upon logic, i.e. absurd as in a contradiction which makes it preposterous and the contradiction is that you are saying that this 'God' can be and not be, which in Logic is a contradiction and therefore absurd as they are impossible. That you think this mitigated by a 'God' that made Logic so can do what it likes I'll leave for the other thread.

You keep claiming this 'all of reality' when your claim is that this has not been achieved? Again something for the other thread I think.

...

Here's what I mean. When you repeatedly claim God is absurd and preposterous, you are trying to say that God is illogical. Um, why do you keep saying this, given that God is usually defined as being ALL POWERFUL and thus ABOVE LOGIC and thus by definition is not required to be logical?

He's not been 'trying' to tell you, he's been telling you. Either, for some reason, you cannot understand this or you are being duplicitous.

That you appear to misunderstand how Logics arise and why even a 'God' has to obey it, the other thread I think.

...

Atheists on forums like to present themselves as advocates of reason, but it seems to me they have confused reason with ideology.

Since you don't believe in reason nor understand why it is Reason explains why you believe this as you appear to think that the thought that matters dwells with those on forums. Unfortunately for you Philosophy is bigger than this. But I will agree that there are a set of ex-theists who confuse matters.

Something they could not possibly know.... The whole pose is just an emotion driven scam. Understandable in human terms, but a farce nonetheless. ...

More a tragedy, as there is the sound out there of a set of ex-theists doing something that they could probably know, to wit, that they do not believe anymore that the 'God' they were told about, that explains things, exists, and who should know better? The irony is that it may well be driven by the same sense of 'faith' that they were taught to have when they were taught 'it' as an explanation for things and events. Sad really. Still, the bulk of ex-theists that I've met appear to have had their doubts fairly early and don't seem encumbered by the anger.

...

Ok, God + Nature = Larger Reality, fair enough. The larger reality can only be called natural law if all entities within it are bound by some universal set of rules.

There is a way for, I presume, your belief that this 'larger reality' has two aspects, this one and some encompassing world of an illogical 'God(although this is a misunderstanding of Logic already)' and that is our reality is nested within or upon another, i.e. Spinozas 'God' or maybe Leibniz's Monads(read up) and if I wanted to be up to date with pointless metaphysical ontology then I'd go for Zuse's inheritors and pick the Digital Philosophy world and tie it with Bostroms argument and you can have all the 'Gods' you like, still have to obey the laws of Logic mind.

Do you see that your adamant insistence that everything must be subject to some rule system is nothing more than a statement of faith?

Not just 'some' rule system but The Rule System that even 'Gods' have to obey if they are to have an existence to play in, but I think you'll misunderstand this as you appear not to understand how Reason, Logic and Existence relate.

Yes, this is the classic dishonest atheist dodge. You bear the burden for your claims, just as the theist does for his. ...

You are talking to your straw internet characters now, as what he meant was he is showing you the inherent logical contradictions inherent in the actual propositions. What he's not doing is what you are.

The supernatural is BY DEFINITION above and outside of reason. ...

I think the problem is that you confuse Logic with Reason, and it is in a way, but Reason is not why Logic exists. I think it's this that confuses you.

All you are doing is stating your faith that all of reality is bound by natural law over and over again. In your defense, there is nothing else you can do. Just as the theists can not prove their wildly speculative claims, neither can you.

Its not, it's bound by Logic. Natural Laws are the province of the Natural Philosophers now, i.e. Physics and the other various Sciences and so far they've found nothing to contradict their beliefs in them. From the point of view of the King of Philosophy all are bound, 'Gods' no exception and 'they' would agree or vanish in a puff of contradiction.

[Conde Lucanor]

OK, you seem to be the one that is not getting it yet. Although I'm an atheist, I'm not using this thread to prove my reasons for my claims of god not being existent. I don't need to do that, because no one has to prove the non-existence of anything. In the battle against theism, for practical purposes, all I need to do is to imagine a being that overrides any personal god, and given that the entity I'm imagining cannot be challenged, my counterpart is forced to accept, just as you do, that my entity "is not illogical", and thus, that his own entity may not exist.

What I'm really doing here is using your claims (or the claims of other people that you bring to this thread) to prove that they are false by their own definition.

Here's what I mean. When you repeatedly claim God is absurd and preposterous, you are trying to say that God is illogical.

No, I'm not claiming god is absurd and preposterous. I'm claiming that the proposition "god's existence is logical by way of being illogical" is absurd and preposterous. You are the one claiming that god is illogical. Let me quote you again:

by definition is not required to be logical

You see, I want to buy your argument. I'm so desperate to claim with you that "god is not required to be logical". So, I'm forced by you to believe that god does not exist, because if we considered its existence as a logical possibility, we would be finding it logical, which is exactly what you don't want us to do. So, by your own argument, regardless of its real existence, from our mutually shared reference system, we must propose it as unreal. That's because we are humans living in coordinate "X" with no clue about the existence of coordinate "Z". If you ever claim that "Z" is possible, you have abandoned the realm of "X" (where our logical possibilities are debated) and taking the same position outside the reference system (all of reality) that you don't allow me to take. Rememeber when you said that:

all of reality, which I remind you again, is a largely unknown realm which we can not currently even define.

So, how can you define a reality in which a supernatural world exists if you are bound by your own rules of logic to state that it cannot exist and that a reality cannot be defined?

Again, please demonstrate to us how you could possibly know what doesn't exist in an arena which you can't define.

You already proved it.

The larger reality can only be called natural law if all entities within it are bound by some universal set of rules.

So please explain how you reach that conclusion about the nature of reality. Aren't you defining all of reality?

The supernatural is BY DEFINITION above and outside of reason.

Agreed. That's why you are obliged to say it doesn't exist.

All you are doing is stating your faith that all of reality is bound by natural law over and over again.

No. What is happening here is that you have fell in your own logical trap (a paradox), so you are acting like the dog that chases its own tail. You make logical claims about reality and then try to force everyone to avoid the logical analysis by claiming there can't be made logical claims about reality. A true honest solipsist can only say: "we don't know nothing and we can never know".

[Felasco]

I don't need to do that, because no one has to prove the non-existence of anything.

If someone makes a claim, any claim, the burden of proof for that claim lies with them.

You will soon discover I've had this conversation about a million times, and will quickly take from you all the usual atheist hiding places. Sorry about that, but I'm assuming you are a big kid and can take whatever I might dish out. I really don't mean it to be personal, I'm just very interested in the subject, and I sometimes get carried away.

You don't get to make your preferred answer the default, so that you can sit back, defend nothing, and stay on the attack. If that's what you have in mind (it's very normal in atheist circles) that's not going to work in our conversation.

In the battle against theism, for practical purposes, all I need to do is to imagine a being that overrides any personal god, and given that the entity I'm imagining cannot be challenged, my counterpart is forced to accept, just as you do, that my entity "is not illogical", and thus, that his own entity may not exist.

You can do whatever you wish, you just can't call it reason. Be honest like most theists, and call it faith, and I then withdraw all objections, because everybody is entitled to their faith. But calling faith reason isn't going to work.

What I'm really doing here is using your claims (or the claims of other people that you bring to this thread) to prove that they are false by their own definition.

What you're really doing here is not realizing that you are operating from the unprovable faith position that human logic is binding on all reality, and thus can be used as a reliable mechanism for the analysis of all questions.

Like the vast majority of forum atheists I've met (I've not met them all obviously) you seem to not realize that the surface level arguments you offer which may in fact be entirely reason based, are built upon a foundation of faith.

This can be compared to theists who first accept the authority of the Bible on faith, and then use logical Bible based arguments to make their case. The whole house comes crashing down if the foundation is pulled away.

No, I'm not claiming god is absurd and preposterous. I'm claiming that the proposition "god's existence is logical by way of being illogical" is absurd and preposterous.

I never said God's existence is logical. I believe you're looking for a theist to do the usual dance with, and you haven't found one here.

by definition is not required to be logical

My quoted words are factually correct. The usual definition of God is of a supernatural being, and the word supernatural means "above the laws of nature". Thus, the God proposed by theists is not required to be logical. So when atheists say "God is not logical" you are just agreeing with theists, not providing a devastating debunking.

In case this is not already clear, I personally have no idea if such an entity exists or not. I propose there is no evidence that you do either.

You see, I want to buy your argument. I'm so desperate to claim with you that "god is not required to be logical". So, I'm forced by you to believe that god does not exist, because if we considered its existence as a logical possibility, we would be finding it logical, which is exactly what you don't want us to do.

You're typing too fast, working too hard at being clever. Slow down please, you'll get no reward if you achieve some rhetorical victory. Again, I've made no claim that God exists, so you don't need to fight that battle with me. I'm arguing for reason, not God.

So, by your own argument, regardless of its real existence, from our mutually shared reference system, we must propose it as unreal. That's because we are humans living in coordinate "X" with no clue about the existence of coordinate "Z". If you ever claim that "Z" is possible, you have abandoned the realm of "X" (where our logical possibilities are debated) and taking the same position outside the reference system (all of reality) that you don't allow me to take. Rememeber when you said that:

I am not going to guess you are, um, 26 years old. How close did I get?

So, how can you define a reality in which a supernatural world exists if you are bound by your own rules of logic to state that it cannot exist and that a reality cannot be defined?

I have not defined or proposed a reality in which a supernatural world exists. Again, I am NOT a theist, so if you are looking for that battle, you will find this quite unsatisfying.

In your defense, it's common for those unfamiliar with my point of view to confuse me with theists. I should probably make that clearer sooner.

It's not my intention to convert you or anybody to theism, but to reason. Atheists typically think they are doing reason, but it's more often ideology. Few seem to know the difference. That becomes tedious over time, and I tend to get cranky and impatient, and I apologize for that, my bad.

[Conde Lucanor]

If someone makes a claim, any claim, the burden of proof for that claim lies with them.

Generally agree, but it also depends on which type of claim. If it's ontological, that is, about the existence of something, the burden of proof lies with the person that proposed its existence, and anyone can be skeptical about it without needing to provide any proof about its no existence (which naturally explains why most people are 99% atheists). They can if they want to, but it's not required. I have done it myself many times.

You will soon discover I've had this conversation about a million times, and will quickly take from you all the usual atheist hiding places. Sorry about that, but I'm assuming you are a big kid and can take whatever I might dish out. I really don't mean it to be personal, I'm just very interested in the subject, and I sometimes get carried away.

You can start getting carried away whenever you want, as long as you remain respectful. Debates should have nothing to do with people (our judgements about them), but with ideas. You can kick the ass of my ideas if you want to, that's what ideas were made for, to get their asses kicked. I will defend them as much as they can, if they stand by themselves, but if they don't pass the challenge, good, I will have learned something. I have already seen all the usual irrational challenges from religious folks, which don't last too long, of course, but I have also seen all the challenges from the other religious folks disguised as rational-based scientists of philosophers, which of course, they aren't. And I have also seen members of a smaller group of disguised theists, which being aware of how these other two groups get their asses kicked repeatedly in debates, have chosen to hide in a supposed "neutral" zone of solipsism, so that their god can't be touched by rational analysis. Maybe you don't feel part of this group, but for me is just the same.

What you're really doing here is not realizing that you are operating from the unprovable faith position that human logic is binding on all reality, and thus can be used as a reliable mechanism for the analysis of all questions.

You're avoiding the fact that I suspended all my personal convictions and beliefs in order to deal with your own claims. I'm just reaching conclusions from your own assertions. You say that human logic can not reach other realms beyond human logic, so the obvious conclusion is that for human logic those realms are not possible. But then you want to make them possible, so you are contradicting your own assertions. Your contradictions have nothing to do with faith positions.

Like the vast majority of forum atheists I've met (I've not met them all obviously) you seem to not realize that the surface level arguments you offer which may in fact be entirely reason based, are built upon a foundation of faith.

Well...that's your claim, I don't have any reason or interest in doubting it. But you and me are in this forum now, that's what matters, and whatever happened in those forums have no effect in what I will say. Let me say it clear: I'm not speaking in representation of anyone, except myself.

I never said God's existence is logical. I believe you're looking for a theist to do the usual dance with, and you haven't found one here.

OK, then, if a theist comes to me and says that he/she will give me rational proposition for me to analyze, and that rational proposition is that god is a supernatural being, and that supernatural means "above the laws of nature", and that provided that definition his/her god is not required to be logical, I will tell them that from his/her own definition, such a god has been proven false. It's the logical conclusion to their own argument.

So when atheists say "God is not logical" you are just agreeing with theists, not providing a devastating debunking.

Again, it seems that you are more interested in what atheists might have said to you before, than what this atheist is telling you now. In fact, I have found logical accounts of god, which resemble Spinoza's god, very different from the absurd Abrahamic and other anthropomorphic gods, and which not necessarily collide with my atheist point of view. Atheists can feel OK quoting rationalists like Thomas Paine, who was a deist. Actually, Spinoza's reasoning is perfect to debunk all the personal gods with human-like features of all Abrahamic religions, and that includes their "supernatural" worlds. If the god of Pantheists is one and the same as nature, does not have a mind, does not intervene in human history, does not have volition, does not see, does not listen, does not speak, and actually does nothing, who cares how you label it.

In case this is not already clear, I personally have no idea if such an entity exists or not. I propose there is no evidence that you do either.

The point in question is not whether you assert its existence, but that you assert the possibility of its existence based on the argument that by definition this god would exist in a realm not bound by the rules of human logic. But as said a million times, in order to be consistent with this god not being bound by the rules of human logic, you have to declare it humanly illogical, not existent from our human point of view. It's not my assertion, is just repeating your own assertion that human logic would not be able to deal with the realm where that god dwells. So, if you don't deny the possibilty of its existence, if you find its existence logically possible, you are contradicting yourself.

[Felasco]

Hi again, thanks for the ongoing dialog and your durability, and patience with my rather large mouth.

Generally agree, but it also depends on which type of claim. If it's ontological, that is, about the existence of something,

We agree theists hold the burden of proof for their claims, and have not met that burden.

Please note that both parties, theist and atheist, are proposing the existence of an ability to provide a credible answer to the question, and neither has provided compelling evidence of such an ability. Thus, I reject the claims of both parties, for the same reason you reject theist claims, not enough compelling evidence.

the burden of proof lies with the person that proposed its existence,

Yes, and you have proposed the existence of an ability, an ability which I am counter claiming is a fantasy.

You can start getting carried away whenever you want, as long as you remain respectful. Debates should have nothing to do with people (our judgements about them), but with ideas.

Agreed, and I will try to stay on track. I hope you will understand I've had too many conversations with too many adamant atheist ideologues, and thus tend to enter such threads expecting the worst. This is my problem, and I will try to work on it. You've shown patience with my excesses, and I will make a good faith effort to reciprocate.

And I have also seen members of a smaller group of disguised theists, which being aware of how these other two groups get their asses kicked repeatedly in debates, have chosen to hide in a supposed "neutral" zone of solipsism, so that their god can't be touched by rational analysis. Maybe you don't feel part of this group, but for me is just the same.

I propose that for you it is just the same, because you have accepted as a matter of faith (perhaps unexamined?) that human logic is binding on all things. Thus you see a claim that something might be outside of the human logic rule system as cheating.

You might indeed be right, but to convince others of that, you will first have to convincingly demonstrate that the rules of human logic are binding on EVERYTHING, which I'm sure you can see, is quite a large claim.

You're avoiding the fact that I suspended all my personal convictions and beliefs in order to deal with your own claims.

Just to be clear, my claim is that there is no convincing evidence that anybody knows whether there is something like a God or not. I see the theist/atheist debate as two competing faith based systems in collision. My agenda is to lure both parties away from faith towards reason, an effort with so few prospects of success that it can credibly be called unreasonable, illogical. I have met the enemy, and he is me!

But you and me are in this forum now, that's what matters, and whatever happened in those forums have no effect in what I will say. Let me say it clear: I'm not speaking in representation of anyone, except myself.

Fair enough, good point, terms accepted.

OK, then, if a theist comes to me and says that he/she will give me rational proposition for me to analyze, and that rational proposition is that god is a supernatural being, and that supernatural means "above the laws of nature", and that provided that definition his/her god is not required to be logical, I will tell them that from his/her own definition, such a god has been proven false. It's the logical conclusion to their own argument.

Again, I sincerely feel you simply don't understand the proposal you wish to debunk. Will try again.

The theist proposes that natural law does not apply to the creator of natural law, just as the rules of this forum are binding on us, but not on the forum owner. I agree it's highly speculative to propose such a supernatural entity.

The atheist proposes that this forum (ie. reality) and all it's rules (natural law) somehow arose on their own, through a process of random chance. My request is that you might acknowledge this as also being a highly speculative proposal, equally unproven.

I see each of these assertions as being mere ideology. Certainly understandable in human terms, but mere ideology nonetheless.

To me, a reason based analysis observes the speculative nature of claims by both sides, and the lack of convincing proof for all these claims, and arrives at the simple but honest conclusion...

Nobody knows.

I further propose that this "nobody knows" theory is usually quickly dismissed by most parties, because most parties have an emotion driven agenda which can not survive the acceptance of this theory. Key components of this agenda might be...

1) It is a very human thing to want to know as much as possible about our environment, and in this case we typically confuse wanting to know with actually knowing, called wishful thinking in some circles.

2) Humans are very socially competitive, and if nobody knows, then nobody can play the role of winner and for many, this is simply an unacceptable outcome.

So there's a pile of my own assertions for you to chew on, go for it!

Again, it seems that you are more interested in what atheists might have said to you before, than what this atheist is telling you now.

Agreed, am dumping earlier atheists as rapidly as possible, and thank you for assisting.

In fact, I have found logical accounts of god, which resemble Spinoza's god, very different from the absurd Abrahamic and other anthropomorphic gods, and which not necessarily collide with my atheist point of view. Atheists can feel OK quoting rationalists like Thomas Paine, who was a deist. Actually, Spinoza's reasoning is perfect to debunk all the personal gods with human-like features of all Abrahamic religions, and that includes their "supernatural" worlds. If the god of Pantheists is one and the same as nature, does not have a mind, does not intervene in human history, does not have volition, does not see, does not listen, does not speak, and actually does nothing, who cares how you label it.

I have no argument with the above, but will point out that the personal type of God favored by many is kicking the butt of all other types of Gods in the ongoing survival of the fittest story of human evolution.

I agree that this in no way proves anything about it's existence, but would suggest a serious inquiry will investigate this success, and that one can not be a credible debunker without engaging in such an investigation. Perhaps I'll set that aside for now to avoid further clogging the thread...

The point in question is not whether you assert its existence, but that you assert the possibility of its existence based on the argument that by definition this god would exist in a realm not bound by the rules of human logic.

Yes, I do assert the possibility of it's existence, that's correct. Just as I assert you may be correct. Even more likely, none of know what the fuck we're talking about, and we don't even have the question right, let alone the answer.

But as said a million times, in order to be consistent with this god not being bound by the rules of human logic, you have to declare it humanly illogical, not existent from our human point of view.

Ok, will try to listen more carefully. If you would, please try another way of making this point.

It's not my assertion, is just repeating your own assertion that human logic would not be able to deal with the realm where that god dwells.

It seems entirely logical, though not proven, to propose that a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies may not yet adequately understand reality enough to know what the rule system actually is.

Thus, the phrase "it's not logical" may not actually mean a whole lot. A more accurate rephrasing might be, it's not logical TO US.

So, if you don't deny the possibilty of its existence, if you find its existence logically possible, you are contradicting yourself.

Explain further please, I don't get it yet.

Why is it a contradiction to propose there may be an arena ruled by natural law, and an arena not ruled by natural law?

Why must I accept as a matter of faith that natural law is binding on EVERYTHING?

[Arising_uk]

No, I'm saying ideas about existence depends upon humans existing. ...

You didn't answer my question.

Lets try it this way, what do you think your truism means, that is, what does it entail for existence?

Um, you've merely repeated a faith based assertion without offering any further justification for it.

Not faith, reason. What do you mean by a "faith based assertion"? That is, what would count as not being faith to you?

Your assertion is that these rules we call logic are binding on all of reality, and thus would be binding on a God as well.

I counter claim that none of us are in a position to know what is or isn't binding on an arena we can not define in even the most basic manner. I claim your assertion is understandable, but wild speculation nonetheless.

That's because you do not understand what Logic is in Philosophy. As such you appear to be confusing Logic with Physics.

I understand this. Same for me. We're on the same page there.

I doubt it, not even the same book I reckon.

If the God often described should exist, he would by the usual definition commonly called "supernatural" not be bound by any natural law. That's what the word "supernatural" means.

Yes, but Logic is not in the field of Empirics, i.e. Physics.

You are claiming to know "the state of affairs" for all reality, but like the rest of us you are unable to define the arena you are making this claim about. You are making a wildly speculative claim about an arena you can't define, and calling it reason.

No, I'm claiming that the understanding of what makes reality, i.e. a state of affairs or things, is an understanding of how Logic appears from the brute fact of reality. Something you appear to misunderstand.

In your defense, it's not just you, but also a great many very intelligent and articulate atheist preachers all doing the same thing.

I really don't need your 'defense', especially when you equate me to your made-up interweeb straw-men.

Again, those talking either sense or nonsense are all human beings, a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, who have thousands of nuclear missiles aimed down their own throat. This is who, whether theist or atheist, is making these huge claims about all of reality, an arena none of us can define.

You are clinging to a faith based certainty that the rules of logic invented by these entirely modest creatures accurately represent "the state of affairs" as you call it. I'm saying it's entirely reasonable to propose that such small largely insane creatures may entirely misunderstand the state of affairs.

No idea what this rant is about but you certainly are a pessimist aren't you.

That is, it's simply not credible to declare Logic to be God, the ruling authority over all reality.

Not what I'm saying but amply demonstrates your true mindset about such things. All I'm saying is that all states of affairs or things, if they exist, must generate Logic. The rules of Logic are simple, if you exist then you cannot exist and not exist, if you exist then you exist and if you do not exist you do not exist, etc. Nothing that exists can ignore these rules as they are generated by existence. So you claim that this 'God' can exist and not is exist is nonsense from the point of Logic and its Reason that says so. Why you keep saying this upon a philosophy forum baffles me.

Do you realize you are claiming knowledge of brute facts about all of reality, which includes all those things unseen and utterly unknown by man? ...

Do you realise that what you've just said contradicts the point you are trying to put to me? I doubt it as philosophy is not your interest. I'm telling you that the brute fact of reality creates Logic.

Do you realize you are making sweeping claims about areas nobody knows the first thing about? Do you realize that you have not the slightest clue what your sample size is? Do you realize that you are labeling such a procedure to be reason, and that to do so is completely normal and accepted by most humans?

What a patronising pompous prig you are. Do you realise that upon a philosophy forum you are talking nonsense? That you try to add pseudo-rigor to your point just shows the pretentiousness of your thoughts. 'Sample size' is an empirical statistical thought, Logic is not. So I do not need to sample any, let alone all, bachelors to know that they are all male and unmarried, if I know that its not the case that P and Q then I know that either Not P or Not Q is the case, regardless of any sample of P or Q, I need no sampling to know I exist and that I think in language ensures that I know that I do not exist alone, etc, etc.

You are the one doing faith, and I'm the one doing reason. You are making a huge sweeping assertion based on an unknown sample size, that's not reason, but wishful thinking. Understandable, common, widely accepted, but still not reason.

No, what you are doing is trying to use what you think is reason to argue for an illogical conclusion thereby demonstrating that you do not understand what reason is. Why you do this is your issue I guess.

All the years you've spent on this forum, apparently wasted, as you've learned nothing about atheism. Atheism is the faith based belief that human logic applies to all of reality.

No its not, this is your solution to whatever it is you are experiencing upon the Interweeb. What I'm trying to explain to you is that you do not understand Logic from its home in Philosophy.

You've defined only the part of reality we currently know of, not the "all of reality" you were making claims about. ...

Once again, how can you point out that I'm only defining a part of reality because you know its not all of it when you say we can't know if its all of it?

Your credentials as an authority on reason are declined.

From you I'll take this as a shining compliment.

[Felasco]

All I'm saying is that all states of affairs or things, if they exist, must generate Logic.

1) You are making a wildly sweeping speculative assertion about "all states of affairs", an arena of unimaginable scale which neither you or any of us could possibly be qualified to come to a credible conclusion on.

2) You are labeling your wildly sweeping speculative assertion as "reason".

3) From that fantasy infested label, you take the liberty of lecturing others on their ability to reason.

It's all just complete hogwash.

[uwot]

Thus, the phrase "it's not logical" may not actually mean a whole lot. A more accurate rephrasing might be, it's not logical TO US.

Why must I accept as a matter of faith that natural law is binding on EVERYTHING?

As I'm sure you realise, logic and natural law are different things. It is entirely possible that there are arenas that are not governed by the same laws of physics that apply in the visible universe. Some physicists postulate a multiverse, in which there are other universes (semantic issues aside) in which the physical constants are different; the charge on an electron is more or less, for instance. But whatever the fundamental constants may be, the behaviour of the contents of any such universe is dictated by them. Whatever nature does without interference, is natural. Whether human activity can be described as unnatural, is a moot point; the only thing that can incontrovertibly make the universe behave in ways contrary to natural law is something like nous as suggested by Anaxagoras sometime in the fifth century BC: "For it is the most rarefied of all things and the purest, and it has all knowledge in regard to everything and the greatest power. Over all life, both greater and less, mind (nous) rules." something with the features usually ascribed to god.
I don't happen to believe in any such god, there is no evidence that persuades me that nature is being manipulated, or ever has been. In other words, I have no reason to believe in a god that makes any difference to the universe that I'm in. On the other hand, there doesn't seem much point believing in a god that doesn't make any difference. However, there is no logical reason why such a god cannot exist. There is though, I think, a bloody good reason why such a god cannot both exist and not exist, but then I'm only human.

[Conde Lucanor]

Hi again, thanks for the ongoing dialog and your durability, and patience with my rather large mouth.

No problem, I've seen larger mouths, believe me.

Please note that both parties, theist and atheist, are proposing the existence of an ability to provide a credible answer to the question, and neither has provided compelling evidence of such an ability. Thus, I reject the claims of both parties, for the same reason you reject theist claims, not enough compelling evidence.

Yes, and you have proposed the existence of an ability, an ability which I am counter claiming is a fantasy.

Just to make things clear and we don't get into an unnecessary ontological discussion, an ability is an attribute of a being (it doesn't exist itself without the being it is attached to), but by ontological existence I mean the being itself. This is the type of proposition of which the burden of proof lies with the person proposing it.

I propose that for you it is just the same, because you have accepted as a matter of faith (perhaps unexamined?) that human logic is binding on all things. Thus you see a claim that something might be outside of the human logic rule system as cheating.

You might indeed be right, but to convince others of that, you will first have to convincingly demonstrate that the rules of human logic are binding on EVERYTHING, which I'm sure you can see, is quite a large claim.

Perhaps you have not taken enough care in reading what I have actually written. As I said, I have suspended my own convictions and beliefs to deal entirely with your own claims. So I'm armed and ready to deal with the proposition that "human logic is NOT binding on all things, that human logic is not binding on all of reality". Is it clear now that I'm departing from your own proposition?

Just to be clear, my claim is that there is no convincing evidence that anybody knows whether there is something like a God or not.

Yes, your claim has been clear: we don't have a chance of knowing whether another realm beyond our human logical realm exist. I have given you lots of examples which represent this idea: our human realm is coordinate "X", while another realm will be coordinate "Z", of which "X" has no clue of. This is your claim, I have not objected to it yet, in order to allow it to reach its logical conclusion (from our human logical coordinates). Do you get it? I'm not saying anything about "Z", I'm not claiming anything, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just stating your own premise.

OK, then, if a theist comes to me and says that he/she will give me rational proposition for me to analyze, and that rational proposition is that god is a supernatural being, and that supernatural means "above the laws of nature", and that provided that definition his/her god is not required to be logical, I will tell them that from his/her own definition, such a god has been proven false. It's the logical conclusion to their own argument.

Again, I sincerely feel you simply don't understand the proposal you wish to debunk. Will try again.

That's interesting, since I took care in copying/pasting your own words. What else can I do to understand your proposal? If your proposal is not that a "theist (will) come to me and say that he/she will give me rational proposition for me to analyze, and that rational proposition is that god is a supernatural being, and that supernatural means 'above the laws of nature', and that provided that definition his/her god is not required to be logical...", then what the hell is?

The theist proposes that natural law does not apply to the creator of natural law, just as the rules of this forum are binding on us, but not on the forum owner. I agree it's highly speculative to propose such a supernatural entity.

I already debunked that analogy with the forum, showing that there is a natural law without a creator being necessary, and that the forum owner cannot escape from its law. So you will need to find another analogy that helps your case.

The atheist proposes that this forum (ie. reality) and all it's rules (natural law) somehow arose on their own, through a process of random chance. My request is that you might acknowledge this as also being a highly speculative proposal, equally unproven.

I have not proposed such a thing (despite the fact that I could), because that's not the subject of this discussion. I have not talked about origins of natural law, nor I have used the term "random chance". Please stick to the proposal we are arguing, which is your solipsistic statement that we cannot deny or posit the existence of a given god by logical argument.

To me, a reason based analysis observes the speculative nature of claims by both sides, and the lack of convincing proof for all these claims, and arrives at the simple but honest conclusion...

Nobody knows.

The honest conclusion of your solipsism would be "nobody knows whether the existence of a supernatural god is possible". But you are stating that you do know it's possible. So you are not being honest with your solipsism.

I further propose that this "nobody knows" theory is usually quickly dismissed by most parties, because most parties have an emotion driven agenda which can not survive the acceptance of this theory. Key components of this agenda might be...

Agendas, motives, those are highly subjective items which distract our attention and add nothing to the rational propositions we are supposed to be discussing. The propositions are either true or false, regardless of who proposes them and by which motives.

1) It is a very human thing to want to know as much as possible about our environment, and in this case we typically confuse wanting to know with actually knowing, called wishful thinking in some circles.

2) Humans are very socially competitive, and if nobody knows, then nobody can play the role of winner and for many, this is simply an unacceptable outcome.

So there's a pile of my own assertions for you to chew on, go for it!

Well, yeah a good pile of assertions...about personal motives and other subjective items. We can chat about them whenever you want, but I sincerely hope you are not throwing things for me to chew on, expecting me to lose sight of the propositions we are discussing, which these other subjects neither add or substract.

I have no argument with the above, but will point out that the personal type of God favored by many is kicking the butt of all other types of Gods in the ongoing survival of the fittest story of human evolution.

I agree that this in no way proves anything about it's existence, but would suggest a serious inquiry will investigate this success, and that one can not be a credible debunker without engaging in such an investigation. Perhaps I'll set that aside for now to avoid further clogging the thread...

Besides that statement being suspicious of an "ad populum" fallacy, I will just point out that our definition of success in the realm of knowledge differs quite a bit, as I personally couldn't care less about which type of god is more popular. From the rational perspective I tend to favor, Spinoza's god really kicks the butt of all those silly fantasies.

Yes, I do assert the possibility of it's existence, that's correct. Just as I assert you may be correct.

And I assert that your assertion is cheating on your solipsism, which actually obliges you not to assert anything.

]But as said a million times, in order to be consistent with this god not being bound by the rules of human logic, you have to declare it humanly illogical, not existent from our human point of view.

Ok, will try to listen more carefully. If you would, please try another way of making this point.

Sure, why not. I'll use your own words: "it's not logical TO US."

It seems entirely logical, though not proven, to propose that a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies may not yet adequately understand reality enough to know what the rule system actually is.

So, if we follow you, we, limited humans, only have our limited human rule system. That system will find logically impossible the existence of anything beyond that rule system. If you assert the possibility of its existence, you are asserting something that your human rule system does not allow, so you only have left to assert that you know it from another perspective or rule system, which contradicts your other assertion that this other rule system is unreachable.

Explain further please, I don't get it yet.

I think I have explained in all ways possible. I would suggest you don't get distracted with other marginal subjects and stick to the propositions being argued.

Why is it a contradiction to propose there may be an arena ruled by natural law, and an arena not ruled by natural law?

As previously explained, you can posit as many "arenas" or worlds as you desire. The contradiction arises when you state that their existence is allowed in our human logical system by way of not being allowed in our human logical system.

Why must I accept as a matter of faith that natural law is binding on EVERYTHING?

As previously explained, I have not proposed that, but actually departed from your statement proposing exactly the opposite.

[Arising_uk]

Uwot,