No I am just curious.
I would not mind knowing if I am arguing against people my own age, or if I am arguing those who have had ages to study this stuff.

I am 19, but I've studied these topics pretty intently for about six years now.

I know more about current particle physics than most 25 year olds... Does that count?

I am seventeen and much more knowledgeable in fantasy and computer and academics, I say this now because I have obviously sounded ignorant in the past on this thread. I obviously must go an re think my approach then, I was of the opinion that I was appealing to older people who would have more experience.

Well, (referring to the existance of God) it really depends on what you consider as "God".....

religion itself is dumb. i believe in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - the one true God. (:

Science and religion aren't evil. They're neutral. They can be used for evil, but making blanket judgments about a concept like "science" or "religion" based on what people do with them is ridiculous.

It doesn't matter how much you know or how smart you think you are. If you can't properly explain your beliefs or if your beliefs aren't rooted in facts/are demonstratively incorrect then you will sound ignorant because you are ignorant. It shouldn't matter who your audience is--truth is truth, demonstrability is demonstrability. By the way, some of us are older, and your arguments are still rooted in falsities, subjective, and poorly put forth (so far).

A lot of my arguments were based under what I believe and what I think, I see creationism everyday, I do not have the words to place it, nor do I believe they exist. This beauty we see here, on this earth, I do not care about that monkey theory, I just don't think a completely neutral and oblivious universe could create something like that. There is also emotional, anecdotal, and analogical evidence, on which I relied heavily. I do not have the upbringing to understand all these theories, and observations (that is what they are, even if there is a 99% certainty they are correct.) Therefore, statistics are not my strong suit, I can use them, and when I use them in the subject areas I am more comfortable with, I can be fairly devastating. In an area I have never had to actively explore, nor had reason to, I am thinking this through as I go along. My bottom line is, simply put, faith is blind. Faith does not require evidence.

Maybe you can understand why those of us who see you citing statistical arguments falsely see that and write you off. After all, you profess you don't understand statistical arguments, yet you say you can use them to your advantage. That means you are ignorant of statistics, yet arrogant with your own arguments despite this fact. Instead of being convincing, you just show that your beliefs are rooted in misunderstanding. That doesn't make them wrong, but it certainly doesn't make them convincing. The same goes for incorrect facts as a whole, which you seem to cite fairly regularly.

Faith doesn't require evidence, but it also doesn't provide demonstrability. You cannot persuade or debate based on "I believe X without cause." Having faith contrary to proven fact (such as faith in the lack of evolution) makes you willfully ignorant, not some worthy believer.

If I have used statistical evidence anywhere, It was not stated grammatically correctly. << like that...
Most of what I have used is testimonial or anecdotal evidence.

Yes, and that's the problem.

If you don't want to use facts to back up your beliefs because you think it should come from faith and faith alone, that's fine, but you really can't bitch when people write it off as ignorant or completely ignore it because they see no contribution to the conversation as..well, you're not contributing.

If I may throw in my opinion and interrupt this conversation:

God can perform paradoxes. Therefore, he is not bound by the laws of logic. If he cannot be understood by logic, we can only understand God through the human-like agency we assign him. God can only be understood in terms of desires, actions and intentions, etc.

So if one observes that humanity is unhappy in the world it lives in, one must conclude that God does not care to help the human condition. The freewill defense in invalid here because we have already established that God is not bound by the laws of logic and can create a world where freewill exists but suffering does not.

A loving God that does not work to end human suffering is a absolute contradiction in the terms of agency. Therefore, God is not an agent or does not exist.

Sorry if I'm scatterbrained tonight. It's 2:26 am and I'm running on Cherry Dr. Pepper alone.

A paradox is something that seems true but is false. A paradox is built on appearance, not content.

I can perform paradoxes. I am still confined to certain logical rules. You do not have a basis to ground the belief that a God would be unbound by logic. I don't have any proof that God would be (other than the philosophical proofs about a logical God, some of which are good and some of which are not so good).

Secondly, even if God were unbound by logic, that doesn't mean the things he creates aren't. If we were unbound by logical rules, then the freewill argument would be invalid. But since we are bound by logical rules, then in dealing with human affairs God is bound by those same rules, otherwise we would not be bound whatsoever--logic by necessity within itself is unchanging. If God changes it once to better the human condition, it is no longer logic and we are no longer bound to it, making the entire argument invalid because arguments could not be made. Short of divine intervention, which destroys free will (negating our logical rules), God cannot mechanically perform both tasks.

It's like if you have a train set, and you can imagine it doing anything you want. In the end, you are still bound to the fact that it is a shitty plastic toy on your floor--no matter how much power you have, you are bound to the materials you are given to use that power.

Sorry for shitty argument. Allow me to state that I assume that God is omnipotent. Actually, let me just define God entirely: an omnipotent, transcendental agent that created the universe and all it entails.

Allow me to phrase this differently.


I. God can perform paradox and what is ordinarily considered impossible. Therefore, God can only be categorized, understood, and distinguished by his agency.

II. Evil exists in two forms
a. that which is ethically ‘wrong’
b. that which is detrimental to an individual
An agent’s essence is defined by an average or sum of their actions (the distinction is irrelevant in this case). Thus, the existence of evil suggests a God that is:

III. a. not omnipotent (he has the will to end evil, but he cannot)
b. not omnibenevolent (he does not have the will to end evil, therefore he will not)
c. insane (he has the will to end evil, but he does not intend to end evil [a contradictory proposition in his agency])
d. non-existent (he cannot will to end evil because such God does not exist).


"Secondly, even if God were unbound by logic, that doesn't mean the things he creates aren't." Actually, that's exactly what it means. He could constrain it with the laws of logic, but doing so would create evil and therefore be evil in itself.

And the idea that logic must continue to hold sway to exist at all is, in fact, a logical idea. Kind of trippy, but assuming logic could be manipulated, the nature of logic could be manipulated. If its nature is manipulated, this statement is no longer valid. (very unsure about the integrity of this paragraph)

God has the power to manipulate the toy train because of his omnipotence. The train example only holds sway if the train's material is unchangeable. In this case, the train is destroyable and open to manipulation. Not only that, but the train was made by the observer.

I would forward you to Spinoza, as I think that he counters this argument very effectively (moreso than I would be able to, for obvious reasons).

Also, you new statement doesn't change the fact that if God is all powerful but not confined to logic then God must by definition not exist. Nor does it change the fact that if God made humans with free will then he is bound to that logic in dealing with them. The question is, is it moral to give something free will even if that mandates potential suffering? The answer is that you are not God and if there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, conscious being It would know better than you and therefore you cannot say definitely that suffering is inherently evil or that free will is inherently of less value than non-suffering. When you boil down this age-old argument, that is essentially what it is.

Making something logical does not necessitate evil unless you define evil and logic in very specific ways. You haven't proven either of those to be truths or linked them to God at any point.

Assuming logic can be manipulated is to assume that logic does not exist at all. If logic does not exist at all, then language ceases to function. As one of my professors is fond of saying to me when I argue that everything is chaos: the only way to win against logic is to be completely silent.

"if God is all powerful but not confined to logic then God must by definition not exist." I do not follow. Why is omnipotence and transcendence of logic mutually exclusive?

"you cannot say definitely that suffering is inherently evil" I agree, but we cannot ignore that suffering is what a loving God would not want. If suffering exists at all and God has the capacity to fix it, then he must fix it or be labeled apathetic or evil unless there is is a mandate that he must allow freewill to exist. However, this "freewill mandate" is contradictory to his omnipotence. If he values my freewill beyond my happiness, then he is not loving at all. One cannot say that God is omnipotent and freewill must exist. Allow me some more time for thought on this point.

"Making something logical does not necessitate evil unless you define evil and logic in very specific ways." And the way things are in this world are inherently full of suffering. Therefore, adherence to the laws of logic in this world are to allow suffering. And I thought I defined evil pretty well in my previous post. What is lacking?

"Assuming logic can be manipulated is to assume that logic does not exist at all. If logic does not exist at all, then language ceases to function." This itself is a logical argument. Assuming logic was suspended or transformed into something we cannot presently conceive of, this line of logic would not hold sway. (I'm not really convincing myself with this one. :) I'll check this idea out later when I'm more lucid and see if it's daft).

Jeez, thanks for this discussion. I haven't been pushed this far intellectually in ages. No one to discuss with in my town.


Quick note: This entire conversation might be in vain. Can we even conceive of a suspension of logic? Does thought require logic? I might have an answer if I read more Kant, but I'm unsure as of the moment.

Let me restate that first bit: if God doesn't need to work via logic, then nothing you say about God matters because God becomes unknowable, as our only way to know God is through logic or faith, both of which rely on certain qualities. So if you say that God is not bound by any form of logic, then none of your arguments are valid after that point. A God that is unbound by any form of logic cannot be said to be omnipotent because omnipotence is a trait, and if something is unbound by logic then it is also unbound by traits, which follow logical rules by definition. The only way to successfully make the argument that God is illogical is to not say that God is illogical (talk about your paradoxes).

"This itself is a logical argument." That's the point. The fact that I can make a logical argument proves my point. If it didn't exist I couldn't make a logical argument.

Aye. God may transcend logic, but if we assign him agency, we assign him desires, intentions, etc. We can analyze God in this way. He may violate every other established "law", except agency because excluding this attribute would, as you said, plunge the entire argument into oblivion.

"The fact that I can make a logical argument proves my point." It does not, however, prove that logic cannot be changed in the future. To borrow a concept of Hume, we can only induce that the laws of logic will continue to function. At any moment, we might be plunged into disarray and the laws will shatter with the witnessing of a single phenomena.

Attributes require a definition. Definitions require logic. For a thing to have an attribute, it must therefore comply to some sort of logic. By this method we can deduce that we can either have a God which conforms to no sort of logic or we can have a God to which we can apply attributes, but we cannot have both. This includes agency. (I would still forward you to Spinoza if you are interested in related philosophies too long to go into in depth here).

If logic is not eternal, then it is not logic. The eternal nature of logic is a primary attribute of logic. If logic lacks consistency it is chaos; that is the rhetoric distinction between the two. Hume was invested with the induction fallacy with regards to sense data. Specifically because Hume had a hard on for sense data and the induction fallacy is the largest single problem in the face of the scientific method. Nonetheless, he used logic to attempt to prove his positions, proving its relevance in both his philosophical and scientific ponderings.

Gorgon has age many of the points I would have argued, but I will also add a caution about the term "omnipotent". Not only does defining God as unbounded by logic lead to contradictions, but it is furthermore not an attribute one would necessarily want to attribute to God. My view of God does not place him above or below logic but rather concurrent with it. Thus the problem of evil as you've stated it does not apply to my conception of God.

Aye, aye, cappin. I hear you mostly, but I still disagree on some key points.

God transcending laws of logic is not really problematic (because contradiction does not matter from that point forward) except in our understanding of it. This calls up the fundamental question, "Does thought require logic?" I hear Kant has a lot to say about such a question, so I'm trying to do my homework.

But Hydrogen, what about the Trinity? 3=1 is false by conventional standards. Therefore if the Trinity exists, there must be some transcendence of logic as we know it.



Also, as a quick note, I would just like to point out where we get the laws of logic. By observation of the natural world. Reason and logic stems from empirical observation. Thus, it is fallacious to assert that these laws will continue in every single aspect of the universe, especially since God transcends both space and time (the only two conditions we exist in). Are there any synonyms for transcendence? Words are getting old. :p

No, logic is the process of finding things which are true regardless of sense data. That is why Hume was anti-logical argument and pro-sense data. Logical arguments are arguments like Descartes' "I think therefore I am," which are self-demonstrative through thought alone. Other logical theories of God include the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the pantheistic Spinoza argument. All of these would be just as reasonable if there were no sense data whatsoever (assuming language still existed).

If you say God is illogical, then you can't make an argument about God from that point forward because an illogical God is a God which cannot be understood. So if you win the first part of any argument about God by saying God is illogical, you automatically lose any argument beyond that regarding God's nature.

If a God cannot be understood, then you can't make an arguments about the nature of that God. Also, my point about an illogical God being unable to receive attributes is still valid--I didn't see you try to counter that.

The nature of the Trinity is not self-contradictory or illogical, but merely a superficial paradox. The three persons of the Godhead are not three different deities who are also one deity (that would be contradictory) but rather three persons who share the same essence, the same being. The nature of the Trinity is a mystery to humans, but it's not inconsistent.

Hydrogen, you have a unique (and frankly, refreshing) view of the Trinity. Growing up, I was always told that God was literally three persons in one, one person in three, in a sort of rhetorical, poetic and ultimately meaningless way. Are you in seminary? I joke, I kid. :)

When I think about it, illogicality (I hate to use that word but I must) does not prohibit other attributes being added. On the contrary, it allows for just about anything. The only think that cannot be done is to understand relations between these attributes to discover how the agent functions. So, yes, I must agree with you. Redacted.

But if I may, I wouldn't say that sense data is the opposite of logic. How does one get the concept of causality? Observation of the world. How does one get the concept of entailment? Observation. Like a marble set on course by a few movements, our reason and logic is initiated by the empirical world. We observe the world, analyze with our intellect and intuition, reduce it to principles and laws and apply these principles in other ways. The result? Some cool, synthetic a priori reasoning. If the nature of the world was different and our intuition was the same, different principles would be derived from it (it's hard to imagine, but not erroneous in concept). Thus, we might be somewhat justified in assuming that all of our empirical world is logical, but it would be fallacious to assume that the universe is uniform in its nature. It is almost certain that there are spaces in our universe (and I use this word to mean "all that exists") that are bound by our laws of logic; this is a point worth addressing.

Nevertheless, as you have tragically shown, the irrational is not open to investigation; not even comprehension. Worldview=baked.