do people choose their religion?

[Skepdick]

If most humans live and die with the religion that they are born with from their family or society that they didn't choose, how come God rewards/punishes us for something that we didn't even choose?

Some people choose to choose their religion.
Some people choose not to choose their religion.

Whatever your choice God (reality, the universe, existence whatever other label we use) only punishes bad choices.

[Skepdick]

Well, "everything," no...but the Law of Non-Contradiction certainly does.

Consider these three claims:

1. There are no gods. (Atheism)
2. There are many gods. (Polytheism)
3. There is only one God. (Monotheism)

So by my count, you serve (at least) two Gods. Right?

1. The Abrahamic one.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.

So you are a polytheist. Correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, we could suppose NO ideas about God are correct, and everybody is wrong. That's logically possible. But what we can never suppose is that CONTRADICTORY statements about God are all true. The Law of Non-Contradiction eliminates that possibility.

It's not a "Law". it's just a choice.

No, it's a certainty.

2+2=4 isn't a choice either. It just is how it is, and while you can "choose" to defy it, it will wreck your calculations, if you do. The LoNC works the same way: you can defy it, but you'll get nonsense.

If I can utter true contradictions. Why can't your God do it?

You can "utter" them. But you can't make them true at the same time. Not much of an achievement on your part, actually.

And you've got the same bind yourself -- you're just apparently not astute or well-informed enough to recognize it.

You want me to believe the claim, "The LoNC is false." You know that that means I would have to reject the claim, "The LoNC is true," all being equal. But if the LoNC is not true, as you say, then there's no reason I would have to change my mind and agree with you...your claim does not, according to you, exclude the possibility that the LoNC is still true.

And that's silly. You can be silly, of course, and "utter" foolishness...it will not make your claim sensible. Even you are relying on the LoNC. You just don't know it.

[Immanuel Can]

So by my count, you serve (at least) two Gods. Right?

1. The Abrahamic one.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.

So you are a polytheist. Correct?

Skep, I try to stay as polite as I can. But occasionally, the silliness of something said is so great that one reels at imagining how to speak to it without sarcasm. However, I will attempt to give this implication a dignity that in itself, it simply does not deserve, since behind it is a person, and persons deserve respect, even when Ideas do not.

I suppose your implication would have to be that you "worship" the Law of Gravity. After all, you recognize it, and you respect it, and you accept it as inevitable. And you would have to think that the appropriate response to a mathematical law would be to build an altar to it, if your implication is correct.

But I assure you, I have no such confusions in my mind, and do not fear that this implication will ever befall me. You'll have to speak for yourself on that.

[stacie]

1. There are no gods. (Atheism)
2. There are many gods. (Polytheism)
3. There is only one God. (Monotheism)

One might not know which of these is true, perhaps. But one thing is for dead certain: at least two of the three are false, because the truthfulness of any one absolutely requires the falsehood of the other two. Moreover, since they cover all the possible alternatives, we can be quite certain one of the three is, in fact, true.

Interesting fact: whichever way is the right answer, a substantial number of people, subscribers to the other two views, are just dead wrong. And that's a certainty with no partisan considerations whatsoever.

If this were formal logic you would be right

There is only one P
There is no P
There are many Ps

Not sure how to do formal logic notation here. Anyways, only one of these would be right, because P has no meaning, it is an abstract placeholder, and there can be no ambiguity or dispute ever about the meaning of P.

"God" is a bit more complicated.

For example, Catholics are often accused by Protestants (and Muslims) of polytheism. But this is because Protestants and Muslims use a slightly different definition of God. I have been told by Hindus that their millions of Gods are like the Catholic notion of the Trinity, only with millions instead of the three. And on more than one occasion, when I asked atheists to define God, the definition they provided was such that I agree with them - God as they define it does not exist.

C.S. Lewis and Immanuel Kant both stated something to the effect that no one is truly an atheist unless they believe there is nothing more important and larger than themselves - I think Christian existentialists used the term "ultimate concern".

So I am not sure just how useful the law of non-contradiction is here.

[Skepdick]

No, it's a certainty.

It's a choice. Like all axioms.

2+2=4 isn't a choice either. It just is how it is, and while you can "choose" to defy it, it will wreck your calculations, if you do. The LoNC works the same way: you can defy it, but you'll get nonsense.

Yeah. If you defy your God you will go to hell.

You can "utter" them. But you can't make them true at the same time. Not much of an achievement on your part, actually.

Every single one of them is true.

And you've got the same bind yourself -- you're just apparently not astute or well-informed enough to recognize it.

You want me to believe the claim, "The LoNC is false."

I don't want you to believe any such thing. What I want you to believe is that the truth-value of the LNC is a matter of choice.

P and -P => True, or False; or 43; Or Chicken.

Or (in the quantum case) true AND false.
Or True AND False AND 42 AND chicken.

It's just an expression. How you evaluate that expression depends on the logic you are using.

You know that that means I would have to reject the claim

It doesn't mean that. What "it means" depends entirely on the semantics you choose for your logical system.

And that's silly. You can be silly, of course, and "utter" foolishness...it will not make your claim sensible. Even you are relying on the LoNC. You just don't know it.

But I do know. I intentionally contradict myself. I intentionally reduce conversations to contradictions. It works pretty well for communication.

It's not really my fault that your thinking is stuck in the religion of Classical logic.

[Skepdick]

Skep, I try to stay as polite as I can. But occasionally, the silliness of something said is so great that one reels at imagining how to speak to it without sarcasm. However, I will attempt to give this implication a dignity that in itself, it simply does not deserve, since behind it is a person, and persons deserve respect, even when Ideas do not.

I suppose your implication would have to be that you "worship" the Law of Gravity. After all, you recognize it, and you respect it, and you accept it as inevitable. And you would have to think that the appropriate response to a mathematical law would be to build an altar to it, if your implication is correct.

But I assure you, I have no such confusions in my mind, and do not fear that this implication will ever befall me. You'll have to speak for yourself on that.

I am not disrespecting you. I am disrespecting your religions. Both of them.

Logic and Christianity.

There is no such thing as a "Law of Gravity". There is just consequences of gravity. If I drop things they fall to the ground.
We can defy gravity just fine.

For short defiances of gravity you can simply use your legs - just jump!
For prolonged defiances you can use an airplane.
For even longer defiances... I think SpaceX is launching tomorrow?

It is just the "Law" of non-contradiction that is rigid and immutable. In your mind anyway.

For defiances of the "Law" of non-contradiction I happen to use para-consistent logic

[Immanuel Can]

For example, Catholics are often accused by Protestants (and Muslims) of polytheism. But this is because Protestants and Muslims use a slightly different definition of God.

Correct. And you'll also find that that's a question that also responds perfectly to the LoNC. But it's a secondary question...not meaning that it's less important, but that it's the sort of question that won't make any sense to ask until the primary question is answered.

The primary question is, "Is there A God?" The secondary is, "If there is, then what KIND of God?" You can't ask that second question at all, if the first hasn't already been answered, "Yes."

See the order? That makes sense, doesn't it?

So the "What kind?" question awaits the resolution of the first.

... when I asked atheists to define God, the definition they provided was such that I agree with them - God as they define it does not exist.

Right. I agree.

I would say to the Atheists, "The god you don't believe in isn't the God I believe in at all." They usually are having an idea of something so shallow, so cartoony, that it makes it very facile for them to dismiss it from their imaginations...though it was never in mine. And they're usually uninterested in distinctions between credible and implausible conceptions of God, either because they just hate the idea, or more thoughtfully, because even they know that "What kind?" is a secondary question. Many are just earnest to dismiss the possibility of ANY kind of gods or God, so the only time they even mention the secondary question is when they (erroneously) imagine it might help them dismiss the first.

C.S. Lewis and Immanuel Kant both stated something to the effect that no one is truly an atheist unless they believe there is nothing more important and larger than themselves - I think Christian existentialists used the term "ultimate concern".

Kierkegaard was explicit, though you're right that his lesser interpreters that came afterward tried to mealymouth his idea into merely "ultimate concern," or "highest ideal," or something equally vague. Kierkegaard said it was God...and he meant quite explicitly the Christian God.

So I am not sure just how useful the law of non-contradiction is here.

I think it's absolutely applicable. In fact, the burden of proof would certainly be on anyone who doubted it, because the matter of exist/not exist is, in fact, the paradigm case of LoNC -- and this is that.

All we have to realize is that we are dealing with a primary and a secondary question, both entirely subject to the LoNC. It just plain works there.

[Immanuel Can]

I am disrespecting your religions. Both of them.

Logic and Christianity.

Sorry. You've no idea what you're talking about in either case.

And as for "disrespecting logic," you can't even do that for one single sentence, actually. You're like a guy sitting on a branch, sawing it off between the tree and himself -- if he succeeds in what he's trying, he immediately fails in a more profound way.

If you could show that the laws of logic were not applicable, then you would instantly render any argument you had made, including this one, entirely worthless and unnecessary to believe. Moreover, the very syntax of your sentences would disintegrate into babble. So even while using logical forms to declaim against logic, you're merely practicing a form of intellectual suicide.

[Skepdick]

I am disrespecting your religions. Both of them.

Logic and Christianity.

Sorry. You've no idea what you're talking about in either case.

And as for "disrespecting logic," you can't even do that for one single sentence, actually. You're like a guy sitting on a branch, sawing it off between the tree and himself -- if he succeeds in what he's trying, he immediately fails in a more profound way.

If you could show that the laws of logic were not applicable, then you would instantly render any argument you had made, including this one, entirely worthless and unnecessary to believe. Moreover, the very syntax of your sentences would disintegrate into babble. So even while using logical forms to declaim against logic, you're merely practicing a form of intellectual suicide.

But I am not making any arguments. Why TELL you that I can defy a non-existing law when I can SHOW you that I can?

Here is a Logical system in which P ∧ ¬P ⇔ True

https://repl.it/repls/LikableJitteryCygwin

Your "Law" says that I can't do that. Explain how I did it.

You are so committed to your religion that you are confusing "intellectual suicide" for actual intellectual progress.
P is both true AND false. It's a Qubit

[Immanuel Can]

Why TELL you that I can defy a non-existing law when I can SHOW you.

Are you going to "show" me your contempt for the Law of Gravity as well?

[Skepdick]

Are you going to "show" me your contempt for the Law of Gravity as well?

Yes. I already told you how to do the experiment yourself.

Jump up.

*BOOM* gravity defied!

And here is (by far) the biggest "fuck you" to gravity Humans have ever undertaken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

[gaffo]

no.

they adopt the religion of the culture they were born into.

to answer your question.

Some do, some don't.

I, for example, was raised catholic, spent most of my adult life as an indifferent atheist/agnostic, and am now a somewhat less indifferent deist.

most do, a few don't - there are not absolute rules, just trends. why there are outliers in all instences - even in Germany 1939, there were Germans hiding Jews with risk of death for doing right (not reich) - but it as the usual small 2-percent outier. the outliers are the best of us, and the more we can be like them the better for all mankind.


as for myself, i'm not a bot,- but a coward to a degree. if i were a german in the 30's. the fist thing i'd do is try to leave, if that failed i'd keep my head down (keep my mouth shut) to live until the allies freed me. I doubt i have the courage to hid jews (do the right thing) had i been born 70 yrs early and in germany.

i fact i know this about me, make me convict my character, as it should be.


so to date, i a goodish, but not good enough to put my life on the line.

-------

thanks for telling me your story Henry, you and i do not share the same politics - though we are both Liberarians - but i do think you are a man of character and brains and worthy to learn from (I do think your view of "libertarianism" - "get off my lawn" - is bleak (too bleak for me - it lack a community spirit/civic duty mindset which i value). no man is a island, house divided.........etc........

thanks for rely Sir.