God, logic, and miracles.

[juliod]

Recently, in some threads, the theists here have been saying that god is limited by the rules of logic. In other words, that god cannot do anything "logically impossible". However, god can do things that are "physically impossible".

This view resolves the Problem of Evil, but I think it creates many more problems for the theists.

First, how can we distinguish physical from logical impossibilities? Some cases are easy to distinguish, but many are not. For example, we can say that god can't draw triangle on a plane for which the sum of the interior angles is greater than 180 degrees. But is that a logical or a physical problem?

But more important, religions depend in a large part on miracle claims. However, if god is restrained by logic then we must accept the conclusions of rational (rather than supernatural) explanations. Many miracle claims founder on logical problems, such as Special Pleading and Circlular Reasoning.

And in general mircles usually are said to be some action that does not and/or cannot have a natural explanation. Logically, they are impossible. But if they have a natural explanation they are not miracles. This is a formal problem, since any logical argument that includes violations of physical laws is inherently fallacious due to falsity.

So it's a trap. Either the thing is not impossible, in which case it is not a miracle. Or else it is impossible and god is prohibited from doing it.

Perhaps it would be good to see some examples from the theists of things they think god can do, which are physically, but not logically, impossible.

DanZ

[upallnite]

But how many "Jaudiced Atheist" shelters? He'd probably prefer one that matched his world view. LOL!

I dought that. If I needed somewhere to stay I would not care if it was a liberal, commie, scientology, gay homeless shelter. I would just be happy they are willing to help me out when I need it.

Freedom to become a non-functioning alcoholic? Drug addict? And so on. How free are they?

Yes, freedom to make poor decisions is also freedom. Are you trying to take this to some sort of extreme?

Perhaps you'd prefer John 3:36 or even 1 Corinthians 6:9-10?

Sorry, neither of those carry much weight with me.

That was the high ground. The low ground is patting them on the back like you're a friend or something while they go down to perdition without a warning.

Go right ahead and tell them you think they are wrong. They are most likely going to tell you they think you are wrong. You are still not taking the high ground when you hurt others because you don't like someones life style.

Well I'm one for telling the truth to the kids. And their parents too!

Your "truth"is no better than their "truth". Teaching critical thinking is the only way to be fair to the child.

Really? You trying to tell me that they stand a better chance of learning that gay sex relationships are sinful and spiritually damaging in a pro-gay family that endorses it?

That is your view. Not mine. If you want to run around telling people who is and isn't going to hell, have fun. And wear a cup.

Holier than thou? God certainly is. And it would be better in eternity for kids to grow up in a good Christian adoption home than in one that trains them up in the ways of the devil.

I was talking about the catholic church, and you knew it. I don't think you can support the assertation that they are better in an orphanage.



Everything you have said here comes across as someone who has never been on the other side. Have you ever been homeless? Have you ever had your civil rites rejected because of your lifestyle? Have you ever swallowed your pride? I wish Christians were more like their Christ.

[Easyrider]

Freedom to become a non-functioning alcoholic? Drug addict? And so on. How free are they?

Yes, freedom to make poor decisions is also freedom. Are you trying to take this to some sort of extreme?

No. You missed the point that they're in bondage to their addictions (alcoholism, etc.).

You are still not taking the high ground when you hurt others because you don't like someones life style.

What do you mean, "hurt others"? I should backslap them when they sin and not try to help turn them to Christ and eternal salvation? That's a bad thing?

That is your view. Not mine. If you want to run around telling people who is and isn't going to hell, have fun. And wear a cup.

God will send the unrepentant to hell, not me. I'm just trying to help people avoid that tragic day.

Everything you have said here comes across as someone who has never been on the other side. Have you ever been homeless? Have you ever had your civil rites rejected because of your lifestyle? Have you ever swallowed your pride? I wish Christians were more like their Christ.

There's plenty of saved homeless people, I'm sure. I have occasionally lived in a fox hole in war, so that's pretty close to homeless. And gay marriage is not a civil right unless that right is conferred upon them by the appropriate authorities. Finally, your version of Christ appears to be one where there is no turning from sin, no repentance, and a Christ who endorses moral iniquity. What Bible you got that from I have no idea.

[Cathar1950]

Well Upallnite you stole my thunder.
As I was reading Easyrider’s last post and just think to myself I read that before, the “Atheist Homeless shelter” come back. I suppose to a Christian blowing their own horn and taking credit for all the good done humanity and the Western world. Somehow they think they are the sole source of valor, ethics, morals and values usually ailing to realize there is more then Christianity. This also serves as an unspoken condemnation of secularism. Secularism allows them (us) to be religious in ways not sanctified by the state and church in charge and Humanism its evil sister has been a source of freedom and morality. I do not agree that religion is all self-serving. It can easily become that way, as does any system of thought or indoctrination. It does offer people comfort. If you got a headache you take an aspirin? I think it can extend out reach and project our values beyond our dreams and visions. It can bind and heal. Yes much is outdated rubbish if you take it to seriously in was that harm yourself and others.

Religion is a self serving idea, which does nothing to lessen the suffering of mankind, is outdated and generally rubbish.

Nonsense. Next time you're down and out try finding a Jaundiced Atheist Homeless shelter!

There are plenty of secular homeless shelters. Tacking your religion on to the name of the shelter shows that it is not just to help the homeless.

I think I covered that above. I believe for some it is self-serving they are showing love and good deeds. Some do it because they hate to see people suffer. What is wrong with that?

The recent threat of the catholic curch to close it's adoption agencies if they are "forced" to accept homosexuals, claiming it is their freedom to do this. How about the freedom of the homosexuals!!!

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who was also known as the "Father of Public Schools," once had this to offer: "The only foundation for a republic is...religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty."

So that makes it true? I think he was wrong. Religion does not count for every good thing nor does it count for everything wrong with the world.
It is a slogan not a truth. I hardly see the relevance of the quote.

Don't miss the force of that last statement, "....without virtue there can be no liberty." The principle is clear - a lack of virtue engenders bondage. As one writer noted, "Intemperate men can never be free because their passions give rise to their fetters (bindings)." The more liberties a godless people achieve, the more enslaved they ultimately become in their carnal obsessions.

Liberty = slavery?
Please explain that a little more for me.

It really does sound like double speak. Up is down and right is left.
Bad quote, bad logic.

The same bill protects the rights of all catholics. Somehow i doubt god would deny homosexuals the right to adopt based on nothing but bigotry, oh but wait so many would claim we would. So why does anyone follow this god?

The counter question is why should anyone follow the secular "god" of moral iniquity? What part of unrepentant sin that might result in eternal damnation sounds good to you? And you want to bring up a whole new generation of kids with this mindset? How many of them are you prepared to write off for eternity in the name of your political correctness?

What “secular god of moral iniquity” are you talking about? Is he or she in the yellow pages? So it really bothers you that there might be some unrepentant sinner out there hiding his sin resulting in his eternal damnation? Is this the bases of your valor?
It sounds like you have an imaginary mindset you fear that motivates you. How is political correctness sending a new generation to hell?


I got to go look up some material on Judas among other odd jobs.

[Cathar1950]

Sorry double post.

PC basically teaches there is no defined sin, no need for repentance, and therefore no need for a Savior. Therefore, when the big Judgment Day arrives and you find out you all were mistaken, it's too late. Then you're totally screwed, and not in a good way.

Wow that is quite a circle of fear.

[Easyrider]

So it really bothers you that there might be some unrepentant sinner out there hiding his sin resulting in his eternal damnation? Is this the bases of your valor?

Not caring about the eternal salvation of such individuals must be your basis for valor.

How is political correctness sending a new generation to hell?

PC basically teaches there is no defined sin, no need for repentance, and therefore no need for a Savior. Therefore, when the big Judgment Day arrives and you find out you all were mistaken, it's too late. Then you're totally screwed, and not in a good way.

[Jester]

This same issue troubled me for some time. It still does, in fact, on an emotional level. Intellectually, I am forced to accept it. Please allow me to explain. (Apologies for the length of this in advance)

Then why is it lots of people follow other people in believing something which can't be proven or disproven, has no measurable effect on the material world, can't be measured or observed.

I did not make this claim, though I can see how I left you with that impression. I did not mean to say that there is no way to investigate religion logically, but to say that trying to prove or disprove God in a thought experiment without looking at historical evidence was going to be a circular debate at best. I also would like to make it known that, in my opinion, God can be observed, but not directly. This is the case, in fact, for most science, though I am not proposing a scientific investigation of God’s existence. The concept of the supernatural is theology, and science of any legitimacy will stay silent on any purely theological issue (and vice versa for legitimate theology).

Why would you not only assume there is an almighty supreme being, but live your live according to the rules of those who told you there is.

This is, in my opinion, where we get to the most frustrating part of the debate. With atheists asking “why believe without proof?” and theists asking “why disbelieve without disproof?”.
This is to highlight the idea that, thus far, we have not gotten any closer to showing that God fails to exist than does exist. The question “why would you believe without evidence?” is an appeal to the idea that we should all disbelieve in God as a default mode until it is shown that we are wrong. I don’t see this as inherently unreasonable, but don’t see how it is any more reasonable than the idea that we should believe in God until evidence of his lack of existence is revealed. I will elaborate further presently.

If we use the same line of thinking for everything else we don't know, can't measure or whatever then the entire world would be in (even more) chaos. Making stuff up would be tantamount and as believable as scientific study.

I personally have had similar thoughts many times in the past, and consideration of them has left me with two reasons why, though it seems the obvious conclusion, I cannot take this position.
First, this is not a scientific issue, but rather an issue of theology. It (along with philosophy) will inevitably be full of things people “made up” because it deals entirely in the abstract. Even the hypothesis and theories of science fall into this category. They are based on observation, but basically made up with abstract logic. The difference between theology/philosophy and science is that there are no hard and fast physical tests. Even atheism could be categorized thus. Regardless of what one believes, it remains true that one must choose a set of beliefs and ethics about life without scientific data to back it.
Second, even science uses this same principal to get its most basic of information. Science has not, and can not, give us any proof that the physical world exists. It is merely an assumption made by all scientific thinking, and the idea that matter is an illusion is completely ignored. One could easily argue that there is no reason to believe in the material world without evidence, though I maintain (granted, with slight reservation) that one must accept it as an assumption if one wishes to survive in the event that it does exist. Applying this same logic to the existence of God, we have a very similar conclusion. If there is no layer of reality other than the material, then there is no consequence for belief in God, but if God does exist, there are consequences for disbelief. That does not seem to me to be unreasonable at all.

In fact lots of people do seem to go by this (frankly insane) doctrine. People may say "ah but it only applies to god because he is god", but how does that make any sense, I could just say well there is another being which kills gods, that would have enough grounding to equal their argument.

This is true. Anything can be claimed, we must have some kind of relevant logic and information from which to choose.

Disproving or proving historical information does not disprove or disprove god, all it means is that other people believed the same stuff that people believe today!

Historical information would validate or contradict the historical claims of various scriptural writings from a given religion. This would allow us a degree of understanding about the historical reliability of the given text. One can see right away how this might damage or even destroy the credibility of a given religious book. Conversely, if we could show that the New Testament scriptures make accurate claims about Christ’s life and teachings, the classic “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” argument would lend a great deal of credibility to the claims of the Christian religion.

Any proof that we could have for God, ie an actual verified virgin birth, will never happen, people say this is because god does not want us to know he is their, only have faith.

I will disagree with this on the ground of a common confusion regarding the relationship between science and miracles. Science seeks to explain all physical things in the universe in scientific terms. Thus, if an event occurs often enough, it is considered scientific. The average person tends to believe that anything scientifically documented cannot be miraculous evidence for God. Even unexplained occurrences, if they are common enough, fit this category (such as the bumblebee’s inability to fly according to our understanding of physics). That means that a demand for a miracle is a demand for something to happen, be scientifically documented, but then not be considered science. The trouble is that the scientist who documents the event is not doing his job if he does not come up with a scientific explanation, even for something as seemingly preposterous as a modern woman experiencing a virgin pregnancy. The fact that science is often forced to accept the best theory it has, even if there is obvious trouble with it. The moment a virgin pregnancy did happen, theories would be invented to explain it. We would then pick our best theory, accept that as modern science, and virgin pregnancies would no longer be considered miracles.

This is why all statistical studies of prayer have come out against prayer having any (positive) effect. How does that make any sense? All this means is that as soon as people actually realise god works through prayer he will stop!!! eh!!!

This a good point, though I had heard just the opposite, that prayer does have a statistical positive effect on hospitalized patients. Perhaps we should compare information on this point. This first is probably not one that will end the discussion, but at least establishes that not all studies have shown prayer to be ineffective. If you wish to take this point further, I will look up more sources. This one is from www.proofgodexists.org/scientific_study ... _under.htm.

In one study by researcher Daniel P. Wirth the effects of prayer on wound healing were studied. This was a double blind study. Forty-four subjects were deliberately wounded with full skin thickness surgical wounds. They were not told they were going to be prayed for. None of the patients were told they were receiving any kind of a healing treatment at all. They were told to insert the arm with the wound on it through a hole in the wall for five minutes. The reason for this unusual exercise was explained to them to be for the purpose of measuring the "biopotentials" from the surgical site with a "noncontact device." Little did they know that the "noncontact device" was actually a person praying for their wounds. With twenty-two of the subjects she was in the room praying, and with twenty-two of the subjects she was not in the room praying. Several times during the study, doctors double blinded as to which patient was in what group, traced the wounds on transparent acetate sheets. Then an independent technician, also double blinded, would digitize the tracings into a computer for data collection. By day eight the wound sizes of the prayed for subjects were significantly smaller than the non-prayed for subjects. On day sixteen the result was measured again. By then thirteen of the prayed for wounds were completely healed as opposed to none of the non-prayed for wounds.

In which case just by having a scientific method we have already superseded the powers of god, all we have to do is test him then he goes away. So in any case he is irrelevant either though non-existence or his own choice "oh they have detected me better stop doing anything". This is tantamount to the god of gaps, why can't he act in realms we have studied? or does he choose too? This idea we should follow "the word of god" is insane! Why should we? Even if there is a god and we will go to hell if we don't, why would we follow anything who does that. If the government said you must have total faith in us or you go to jail, there would be an instant uprising! Why follow someone so cruel and self centered. Just because of the fear!!!!

I would agree with the basic proposition of this if we can show that there is no beneficial effect of prayer.

And besides all that, it is not god who tells us to hate the fags or stop abortions, no he won't do it directly, he gets his minions of the various religions around the world to do it for him, and that is just lazy. if god want me to do something im sure he can just ask me himself.

The traditional theist response to that is, God does ask you these things himself quite frequently. It is the theistic explanation for the existence of the conscience.
Regarding the tangent, in spite of how some fanatics believe, there is nothing in the Bible which encourages one to hate the homosexual population. Most Christians believe that there is an ethical issue with homosexuality, but there is no stretching of the scripture to refuse the homosexuals inclusion in the many commands to love everyone. It is made abundantly clear that loving all people is the rule of real Christianity.
As for the abortion issue, I’d point out that it is really an issue over whether or not one believes a fetus to be a human being. If not, the issues of choice become paramount. If so, it is cruelty to put right to personal choice above right to life. Thus, I fail to see any evil in a pro-life position. It is a different way of seeing things from your own perspective, perhaps, but we can at least agree that it is (in most cases), a well meaning position.

Further to this how are you supposed to tell the difference between god and the devil? we cant is the answer, in fact (and apologies for my rant) the entire thing is totally ridiculous.

I’d argue that there is clear enough instruction in the Bible to know the difference between what it considers to be good, from what is defined as evil (at least in the vast majority of situations). Concern and love for others, regardless of whether or not you agree with them, is good, and selfishness is bad. That is the basic rule that applies to nearly everything. Let me be quick to say that many Christians are not living this way, or even defending that as the way to live, but this is the approach to life supported by the Bible.
And don’t worry about the rant. We all need to do it from time to time (I know I have).

Anyone who believes in anything really does need to stop and think, look at things critically.

I completely agree. Unquestioned belief is very destructive (and not real faith, in my opinion- though that’s a different issue).

The only way to progress is to not believe in anything, just assuming what you think is correct now, even in the face of new evidence and more accurate models is just fooling themselves, no one else.

I agree that belief in the face of contradictory evidence and logic is unreasonable and should stop, but disagree with the idea that a lack of belief is the road to progress. Let me explain.
Atheism is not a lack of belief, as many claim. It is the very specific belief that nothing supernatural exists. Agnosticism is a lack of belief (though I would argue that there is no way to practice agnosticism on a daily basis- but that’s a long argument and off topic). Thus, we must choose to believe that God exists, or choose to believe that God does not exist. Either way, the issue is not belief standing in the way of progress, but a failure to question that belief. If new evidence came out, casting doubt on Christianity, there would certainly be many Christians who would stubbornly refuse to consider it. Conversely, if new evidence came out, casting doubt on atheism, there would certainly be many atheists who would stubbornly refuse to consider it. The point is that it is the unwillingness to consider information that seems to go against your beliefs, not the existence of beliefs, that is the problem.
Moreover, all progress comes not only out of doubting established ideas, but about the formation of new ones. This means that it takes both doubt and belief to make progress. To give an example: Einstein would not have made his great discoveries if he did not doubt traditional physics. Nor would he have made any progress if he had not believed (at times, irrationally) that one would see one’s reflection in a mirror even when traveling at the speed of light. All science disagreed with him, but it was specifically his faith in that fact that brought progress. In short, we need both.

It gets even worse when these people start to convince others in venerable situations, children convince them that abuse, bigotry hate of "sinners" is fine. This is abuse of power.

I agree that convincing people of something untrue and negative is tragic, but would not put all belief into this category.

Religion is a self serving idea,

That is only if your religion (or your interpretation of your religion) is self serving. Many are about self sacrifice. There is no way to explain many people and events (such as Mother Teresa) otherwise.

which does nothing to lessen the suffering of mankind, is outdated and generally rubbish.

I’ve already spoken to the idea that it is rubbish, so I’ll spare you the repetition. As for outdated, Christianity is still growing pretty quickly the world over, I think that would be a hard claim to support. As for lessening suffering (or not), I suppose there’s no way to determine the extent of religion’s role. To say that it has not played a role to that end at all, however, is not true. I have personally witnessed its lessening suffering in the lives of people, not only on a psychological level, but through some of the thousands of financial relief organizations and homeless shelters supported by religious groups.

The recent threat of the catholic curch to close it's adoption agencies if they are "forced" to accept homosexuals, claiming it is their freedom to do this. How about the freedom of the homosexuals!!! The same bill protects the rights of all catholics. Somehow i doubt god would deny homosexuals the right to adopt based on nothing but bigotry, oh but wait so many would claim we would So why does anyone follow this god?

I hadn't caught the news on this. My opinion on it reading it here is as follows:
First, I can see both sides of the issue, but personally would continue the program were I deciding the matter. On the other hand, their position is easy to understand. They believe this is giving a child over to be raised in an environment that they consider to be wrong and unhealthy. Though it may be very easily argued that it is much more health than the situation from which the child is coming, it could be viewed as a matter of integrity. They do not want to directly, knowingly aid something they believe to be wrong. While I don’t agree, I don’t really begrudge them that choice. Let someone else, who does not have an ethical dilemma, pick up the program. (I’d also point out that the fact that the church has been doing it all this time, rather than some secular institution, does point to some more good that has been caused by religion).
Legally speaking, they have every right to make this choice. Homosexual Catholics, like heterosexual and bisexual Catholics, are not given the right to dictate decisions of the church, they are only given the choice over whether or not they want to be a part of it. For the record, I have chosen not to be part of the Catholic Church. I disagree with them on many points, and they are caught in corruption too frequently for me to believe that it is just a few people or a thing of the past. I do not, however, pass judgment on all Catholics, I know quite a few with very good hearts who really seek to “love their neighbors” and “not withhold from anyone who asks of them”.

I hope that all this was a kind and fair response to your statements. It seems so difficult to be tactful while being concise at the same time. Please forgive any bluntness on my part.

[upallnite]

YAA! Ad-Homs for everybody!!!

No. You missed the point that they're in bondage to their addictions (alcoholism, etc.).

And that is their choice. Would you want to tell them who they can merry also?(since you seam to want to take this to some sort of extreme)

What do you mean, "hurt others"? I should backslap them when they sin and not try to help turn them to Christ and eternal salvation? That's a bad thing?

When you deny a loving home to a child because you don't like the lifestyle of the foster parents, yes you are hurting the children. Do you like hurting children? If someone makes a choice to be a Non-christian then that is their choice. And who is to say the gays in question are not Christian. My aunt is gay and Christian. The world is not black and white.

God will send the unrepentant to hell, not me. I'm just trying to help people avoid that tragic day.

Then offer your information and let God do his job. But trying to cause trouble for sinners sounds like you are trying to bone in on his job.

And gay marriage is not a civil right unless that right is conferred upon them by the appropriate authorities. Finally, your version of Christ appears to be one where there is no turning from sin, no repentance, and a Christ who endorses moral iniquity. What Bible you got that from I have no idea.

When did I say gay marriage and what about my right to be elected into office?

You are right about Jesus. I remember the quote now, "Sorry money changers, you can't be baptized because I don't like what you do." Where was that again?

There's plenty of saved homeless people, I'm sure. I have occasionally lived in a fox hole in war, so that's pretty close to homeless.

Nope, try again. I have also spent plenty of nights in combat. I was an Atheist in a foxhole. Not the same, unless you had to swallow your pride and ask and ask a stranger if you could bunk in his fox hole. Hope you didn't have impure thoughts.