God and Logic

[ToKnowHim]

Good evening. I am a theist. I am also an evolutionist. I know that these two do not often come together. I am also a critical thinker. I realize that this is an even more unlikely combination. I am, however, an amateur at informal logic, as I have just begun studying recently.

In my posts, I will begin by making a simple assertion, then backing it up with a logical argument. I will make my points one at a time, so they can be discussed independently. If, after a week, no one has sucessfully rebutted a particular point, I will consider the point won and move on to the next point.

Ultimately, I hope to prove my thesis by use of logical arguments.
======
Proposition #1. The Laws of Logic are Truths

The laws of logic are things that are true; among the qualities they exhibit is the quality of being true.

Take, for instance, the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be non-A in the same way at the same time). When someone says that it is true that no statement can be both true and false simultaneously, they are affirming that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true.

Likewise, the other laws/rules of logic work similarly. In order for logic to function -- indeed, for it to be valid, the rules must be expected to work the same way every time, in every situation, and to be true.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 109:

And to a very real extent, the original australians are still very backward. They insist on living in a third world within a first world country.

How one chooses to live their life ain't near as backwards as one thinking they're backwards for doing it.

[ToKnowHim]

ytrewq:

Since I am a Christian, the God I believe in is the Christian God. I am not trying to prove this specific God, per se, but the existence of ANY God. And while I do not believe in Zeus, Allah, Shiva, etc., there are so many who do not believe in a god of any kind at all. Thus, through logical arguments, I will attempt to show a logical argument for the existence of a god. Once successful, I could then argue for the Christian God vs. any of the others, by using apologetics. But one cannot build a building by starting at the roof; one must start at the foundation. Thus, I begin with an argument for God.

A short note to those posting: Please refrain from slamming each other. It's not necessary, and not nice.

assisigirl:
Whether the aborigines exist without numbers may or may not be true. I am certain that they must count things - how many animals killed, the number of people in a tribe, etc. But even supposing they DO exist without numbers, does not make the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 any less true.

[assisigirl]

ToKnowHim

assisigirl: I do not want to be cruel here. Carry on on your noble quest towards a logical God, a God of Number and Precision. Here is a fascinating article re number in less modern societies. I take it you want an 'Advanced' God as well.

http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/collections/e ... 43_v_a.pdf

I just do not get what you are about. Is this a clinical experiment. How did you park the non-logical elements of the human urge for God. Are you undertaking your task in a non-christian way. What happened to the 'all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and all your strength' thing.Luke 10: 27
What happened to the Mark10:13 thing
Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.�

The God that you will find by your methodology (logic?) will be the tail of an elephant. If you catch a 'bit' of God, is that enough? Will you know what you have in your hand? Are you just practising your preaching on the natives?
You remind me of Peter, sneaking around in the yard outside the house of Caiaphas. You will be recognised and you may have to run. A christian philosopher in a pagan land. You will need some Saint Patrick magic and some horse trading to pull this one off.

[assisigirl]

ToKnowHim:I will attempt to show a logical argument for the existence of a god

assisigirl:Here is one I made before dinner.

1. Let us call all the gaps in human knowledge that result from human sensory limitations and human cognition boundaries etc, etc, God

2.These 'absences' in our knowledge are detectable, quantifiable and real.

3 Therefore God is real Q.E.D.
( Using God as a variable is that easy, God=X, but what is X. In Maths, X becomes something that was previously unknown,Try using Y as the miriad of reasons that people propose for their theism and see if you can cancel some stuff out, After all this has become a bit of a maths class!)The hard part is to logically attribute one testable and obvious definition to what is missing. Logically tell us what it is you cannot find ToKnowHim. Explain the name if you like. Who is the Him?

God is what we cannot explain. If that is it then that is logical. God is the place where we feel there should be something! God is the comfort of my school table book?

[ytrewq]

ytrewq:

Since I am a Christian, the God I believe in is the Christian God. I am not trying to prove this specific God, per se, but the existence of ANY God. And while I do not believe in Zeus, Allah, Shiva, etc., there are so many who do not believe in a god of any kind at all. Thus, through logical arguments, I will attempt to show a logical argument for the existence of a god. Once successful, I could then argue for the Christian God vs. any of the others, by using apologetics. But one cannot build a building by starting at the roof; one must start at the foundation. Thus, I begin with an argument for God.

A short note to those posting: Please refrain from slamming each other. It's not necessary, and not nice.

I apologize if I came across as 'slamming' you. Actually, I commend you for your questioniong approach to your Christian faith. Your questioning approach is light years ahead of many Christians.

Also, unlike some of those pedantic PITA atheist types , I did not argue with your initial premise that (at least as a broadly true statement) logic exists and is true.

You need to continue your argument, for it is moving at a glacially slow rate.

As this is to be a logical, precise kind of argument, then it seems to me that you need to initially define what you mean by 'God', especially as you specifically do not believe in the existence of the vast majority of Gods. How can you logically argue for the existence of something that you have not defined?

Assisgirl makes the excellent point that it is trivially easy to 'prove' the existence of a God, if all you are doing is defining the God as another word for something else, such as that which as yet we do not understand. Many ontological 'proofs' are ultimately of this 'word-swapping' type.

The best way to protect yourself from suspicions that your argument may be questionable, is to progress your argument so we can all see exactly what the argument is.

[ToKnowHim]

assisigirl:

No, this is not a clinical experiment. I am not addressing the non-logical elements of the human urge for God.
I am indeed 'divorcing,' as it were, my own personal beliefs (Christianity) from the argument at hand: Proving the existence of 'a' God.

As far as the scriptures you're quoting, I am indeed endeavoring to do just that -- seek God with all my heart, soul, and mind. This means, to me, that I must continue to study not only the Bible, but the entire universe. God does not want a dumb sheep. I must educate myself.

The so-called 'tail of an elephant' you describe is not enough for me personally. I want to continue examining the proverbial elephant until I know all of its parts.

I'm not skulking around like Peter, trying to be something I'm not, and then running when recognized. Even though I'm sort of 'a stranger in a strange land' amongst those on this forum who do not believe, I am boldly proclaiming what I am: I am a theist!! I am a Christian!! I'm not worried about being identified (unless, of course, someone wanted to paint me as a fundamentalist; that is something I am most assuredly not.)

ytrewq:

I'm sorry if you misread my post. The comment about slamming was directed at the two or three individuals who had disrailed the topic and were beating each other over the head verbally in doing so. In fact, I'm very surprised that the op didn't comment, as there were personal attacks. In the mean time, thank you (and everyone else) for your patience. I think I'm ready to move on to premise #3, which I will post tomorrow.

To all:

Now: What (or who) do I mean, when I say 'God?'

I mean, an intelligent, creative force existing in reality, which created the universe and everything in it, and is knowable by the created.

The supreme or ultimate reality: as

* The Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

* A being believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

-- quoted, with some modifications, from the Mirriam-Webster dictionary.

This is what I mean by God.

As I said to ytrewq: I'm not supporting Zeus, Allah, Shiva, etc., but rather, the God of the Christian Bible - YHVH.

I think I made a good point, however: I ultimately support "my version" of God; I cannot support any other "version." But the point of this particular set of postings is to demonstrate, through logic, the existence of 'a' God; this is the foundation. Once that foundation is laid, I can then use apologetics to forward the idea of 'my version' of God. I hope that you can appreciate the difference -- and also the sacrifice I am making personally.

I am theoretically setting aside my personal beliefs for the higher principle embodied in the topic, and not allowing (or trying not to allow) my personal beliefs to override, color, or otherwise affect the inherent logic in each argument. To date, I have seen no other theist on this forum go to this level. All I've seen thus far is small-minded individuals who are stuck with the "well, the Bible says it so it's true" mentality.

I do believe the Bible; but I do not worship the Bible. I do adhere to doctrine; but I do not worship doctrine. I do follow an earthly pastor; but I do not worship the pastor. I worship God. I am not a Bible literalist. There are indeed sections which I am certain are intended to be taken literally, and others which are intended to be taken figuratively, or as object lessons. Is this cherry-picking or special pleading? No, I do not believe so.

If the Bible is to be counted true at all, then one must apply knowable rules to the reading and understanding of its contents. Enough said for the moment.

[McCulloch]

What (or who) do I mean, when I say 'God?'

I mean, an intelligent, creative force existing in reality, which created the universe and everything in it, and is knowable by the created.

The supreme or ultimate reality: as

* The Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

* A being believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

-- quoted, with some modifications, from the Mirriam-Webster dictionary.

This is what I mean by God.

[otseng]

More bull....Would you worship the God that created this world and all the suffering in it?

I am convinced you can't read. What did I f**kin' SAY?????????????????????

Then listening to you is futile...Isn't it????

Wow what a great person you must be....We will all hail to you oh great one. The leader of the atheists.

Moderator Warning


Please cease from the uncivil comments.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 115 by ToKnowHim]
Will you be presenting your argument any time soon...?

[connermt]

Good evening. I am a theist. I am also an evolutionist. I know that these two do not often come together. I am also a critical thinker. I realize that this is an even more unlikely combination. I am, however, an amateur at informal logic, as I have just begun studying recently.

In my posts, I will begin by making a simple assertion, then backing it up with a logical argument. I will make my points one at a time, so they can be discussed independently. If, after a week, no one has sucessfully rebutted a particular point, I will consider the point won and move on to the next point.

Ultimately, I hope to prove my thesis by use of logical arguments.
======
Proposition #1. The Laws of Logic are Truths

The laws of logic are things that are true; among the qualities they exhibit is the quality of being true.

Take, for instance, the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be non-A in the same way at the same time). When someone says that it is true that no statement can be both true and false simultaneously, they are affirming that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true.

Likewise, the other laws/rules of logic work similarly. In order for logic to function -- indeed, for it to be valid, the rules must be expected to work the same way every time, in every situation, and to be true.

For me, the christian story of god is only logical in that it's one of two things:
purely made up by men or
a misunderstanding of happenings that require nothing supernatural.

I've found logic is, like most everything else, purely up to interpretation and individual bias. One can make almost anything "logical" is they look far enough.
For example:
One can say that salvation is a logical response to sin while others say it's illogical that a perfect all knowing supernatural being allow sin to enter its creation anyway.