so..................

see , you have to stop computing and think for yourself, when you do that, then you will finally see the truth

 

One thing I try to do is to reserve judgment (if I lack sufficient evidence) rather than fill the gap with supernatural bullshit. Remember: all gaps previously filled with supernatural bullshit have all been proven by natural means (i.e. no volcano gods, thunder is not god's voice, etc.)

 

Yeah, I would say (2) is the next best thing going. The only trouble I can see is that then time has to be eternal, or rather, time always existed (there was never a time when there was no time).
My main reason for objecting to (2) is that science seems fairly certain that there "wasn't much time" before the Big Bang. Or at least, that there was a finite amount of time before it.

At any rate, while (1)-(3) are problematical it's a hell of a lot better than saying "God is outside logic".

Cheers!

 

That's speaking of the "observable" universe. I said the attributes proposed of "god" are illogical. And they are.

My quote was:
Either "God" is bound by logic and the laws of nature OR "he" is not? Which one is it? If "he" is not than he could "do" things which are illogical, right? Thus, making it all a paradox. But, if "he" IS bound by logic and nature than "he" couldn't have created it much less control it, but THIS contradicts what is constituted to be "God"! "Neither a hair falls from your head lest He wills it."-- It is a plethora of absurdity.

The fact of the matter is that an ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-PRESENT, ALL-KNOWING, ALL-GOOD & "PERFECT" Being is self-refuting. Thus, "God" is a puff of illogic. A fantasy held on to by those who cannot face their inner "demons" without a Big Invisible Sky Daddy or some invisible Star Wars "force" to intervene and "save" them. Or to just to make them feel special or "holy".

 

Sorry? Are you agreeing with me or objecting?

 

I am objecting to your quoting me as proposing that "God is outside logic", because I introduced two theories, not one statement.

I am objecting to an "uncaused cause".

I agree with your #2 option.

And the "universe" by which we measure the big bang is the "observable" universe, not the "whole of existing things" definition of the universe (which is what I am referring to).

 

Apologies, then, for the ambiguity. I meant that this particular thread (the whole thread, not our discussion of the last couple hours) got started because someone [else] said 'God is outside logic'.

 

No problem.

 

I disagree with you. Nature is not logical. It just is. Logic is invented by man to help us understand the universe. You're getting lost in human abstraction, taking it to be real.

 

Let me rephrase it for you, then. If this "god" is essence itself, then "he" is everything, because everything has essence. Thus, pantheism is correct and not Christianity.

Also, "logic" is not invented (maybe the term is), but rather discovered through our investigation and experimentation. It is a fact that the "law of non-contradiction" is natural because it deals with what makes something what it is and is not. This is our way of describing what is and is not. But, that doesn't change the fact that it is the nature of the object at hand.

And you're right...nature just IS...no need for a "god".

 

Though I'm interested in libertine's reply, let me chime in with something first because I almost wrote something very similar yesterday (and moreover, the issue of this particular forum----which I take to be [linguistic] meaning rather than with God---hits very close to home).

Consider the claim, 'Isaac Newton invented modern physics.' Is this proposition true? 'Invent' is ambiguous. It's true insofar as Newton devised a consistent and systematic account of how physical processes unfold. It's false insofar as those processes would have obtained anyway. That is, there would be falling bodies and equal & opposite reactions with or without Newton.

I think we run into the same thing with the claim 'Nature is not logical'. It's true that nature does not in any conscious and deliberate way follow the rules of logic (e.g. you or I may look to a logic text in order to see how to proceed next in deriving an argument). But, like Newton and physics, nature 'is logical' nonetheless (which I'm interpreting as short for 'follows the rules of logic'). The laws of self-identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction hold always and everywhere. In that sense, logic is "real". Would you agree?

This, I think, is where the notion of God gets tricky (and here again, personal beliefs aside, I'm taking the notion of God to be roughly like a theist says he is: omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.). I hesitated yesterday to say something like 'God obeys the laws of logic'. That claim appears to fly in the face of being omnipotent. Whatever else omnipotence may be, being all-powerful would seem to entitle one to break laws now and again. But here again, whether we take logic as a human "abstraction" or not, if there were a God and he didn't follow the laws of logic, then:

1) any claims about God are [literally] nonsensical
OR
2) God merely "discovered" the universe and logic in the way that Newton 'discovered' physics and physical laws

So, the question I have is must we say that 'God follows the laws of logic' merely for convenience's sake (in order to avoid [1], but at the expense of God's omni-features) or is there something within God's nature or within nature itself that is a "metaphysical obligation" to follow the rules of logic? If the latter is true, then (2) would also seem to be true. Here again, then, the nature of God is called into question.

What do you think?

 

Obviously I wrote that while libertine was posting his reply.

Also, there shouldn't be a conditional before (1) and (2).

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

so thats why one needs to think outside the *box* and accept God.

 

You're fucking insane.

 

Who's god? Your god or my Goddess?