A Higher Being: Is It Logical?

[Kuan]

Very simple question, almost impossible to answer.

Is it logical to believe in a higher being? If it is not a logical option, why?

[Filthy Tugboat]

Very simple question, almost impossible to answer.

Is it logical to believe in a higher being? If it is not a logical option, why?

Hello mormonboy,

When we eat our body figures out where everything should go. When we cut ourselves our bodies figure out how to repair the damage. They do this without any input from our conscious mind. They know how to do things that we don't. It is therefore logical to believe that there is a higher (????) within each of us.

By (????) do you mean biological function?

Hello filthy tugboat,

We (those in my belief system) refer to God as the creative force. I didn't want to define God as a being, or take away from the thread by redefining God so I replaced being with ????.

So instead of saying what you mean, you replaced it with something that has no clear definition with the implication of what you mean anyway?

Either way, lets look a bit closer. Our body behaves in a manner outside of our conscious control. How is it logical to believe there is a higher [being] based off of that fact?

[sleepyhead]

Hello filthy tugboat,

>>>Either way, lets look a bit closer. Our body behaves in a manner outside of our conscious control. How is it logical to believe there is a higher [being] based off of that fact?<<<

Yes our bodies (or something within our bodies) behaves in a manner outside of our conscious control and for the most part this behaviour is beneficial to the individual concerned. As I pointed out with regards to the bees, something within the bee provided information on how to communicate with other members of his/her species. I don't want to claim that there is a "being" living inside us so let's not use the word being. I'm claiming that there, is intelligence out there, or inside us that can communicate with our bodies. It is also my claim that this intellegence can be tapped into.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Hello filthy tugboat,

>>>Either way, lets look a bit closer. Our body behaves in a manner outside of our conscious control. How is it logical to believe there is a higher [being] based off of that fact?<<<

Yes our bodies (or something within our bodies) behaves in a manner outside of our conscious control and for the most part this behaviour is beneficial to the individual concerned. As I pointed out with regards to the bees, something within the bee provided information on how to communicate with other members of his/her species.

Yes, and babies are very good at sensing emotions from those around them despite their lack of experience with such matters. In the same way that animals have the drive for and the knowledge to have sex without having done it or witnessed it before.

I don't want to claim that there is a "being" living inside us so let's not use the word being.

I wasn't suggesting that this 'being' you mentioned was living inside of us, I was questioning the concept that you put forward about instinctive activity and knowledge being evidence of a higher [being] or at least making a higher [being] a logical conclusion. I don't even really understand the term higher as you used it but I at least get the gist of what you're getting at.

I'm claiming that there, is intelligence out there, or inside us that can communicate with our bodies.

So you believe there is an entity that communicates with the human (and presumably other animals) body and this entity possesses intelligence? Or are you suggesting there is intelligence that communicates without some sort of consciousness or being? What makes you think that this information is not apart of out physiology? Is this information a collective whole or individual parts that act separately?

It is also my claim that this intellegence can be tapped into.

I will question this notion more when I better understand what you mean when you refer to 'this intelligence'.

[sleepyhead]

Hello filthy tugboat,

>>>So you believe there is an entity that communicates with the human (and presumably other animals) body and this entity possesses intelligence? Or are you suggesting there is intelligence that communicates without some sort of consciousness or being? What makes you think that this information is not apart of out physiology? Is this information a collective whole or individual parts that act separately?<<<

Let's suppose that this information is coming from our physiology. The bees physiology is telling him how to communicate with other bees. I think where the rubber meets the road is: if we put forth the effort to tap into our physiology, can this physiology provide any type of information that would be useful to us with regareds to lifes problems.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Hello filthy tugboat,

>>>So you believe there is an entity that communicates with the human (and presumably other animals) body and this entity possesses intelligence? Or are you suggesting there is intelligence that communicates without some sort of consciousness or being? What makes you think that this information is not apart of out physiology? Is this information a collective whole or individual parts that act separately?<<<

Let's suppose that this information is coming from our physiology. The bees physiology is telling him how to communicate with other bees. I think where the rubber meets the road is: if we put forth the effort to tap into our physiology, can this physiology provide any type of information that would be useful to us with regareds to lifes problems.

Is it possible to 'tap into our physiology'?

[Prisoner of the Sun]

I will assume that your reference to a "Higher being" means "God" or some Supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being.

Is it logical (using the philosophical meaning) to believe in such a being? Yes, it is logical to believe in such a being, because the existence of such cannot be refuted using reason or logic. I adhere to Bertrand Russel's reply to the question of whether such a being actually exists...That there is no credible evidence to support such a belief. Apart from logical inconsistencies (e.g., God cannot both exist and not exist at the same time) belief in anything (Astrology anyone?) is logical.

[Kuan]

I will assume that your reference to a "Higher being" means "God" or some Supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being.

Is it logical (using the philosophical meaning) to believe in such a being? Yes, it is logical to believe in such a being, because the existence of such cannot be refuted using reason or logic. I adhere to Bertrand Russel's reply to the question of whether such a being actually exists...That there is no credible evidence to support such a belief. Apart from logical inconsistencies (e.g., God cannot both exist and not exist at the same time) belief in anything (Astrology anyone?) is logical.

Maybe I should not have used higher being. Maybe a higher power?

[Heal The World]

Very simple question, almost impossible to answer.

Is it logical to believe in a higher being? If it is not a logical option, why?

Its self-contradicting question, not almost but certainly impossible

Is it logical to believe in a higher being? If it is not a logical

Its certainly illogical to believe something illogical. For example sq circle. And there are also some beliefs which are irrational such as atheism. Which is greatly irrational and meaningless belief.

[sleepyhead]

Is it possible to 'tap into our physiology'?

Hello filthy tugboat,

Your the one who brought up physiology. Do you claim that bees know how to communicate with each other as a result of Physiology? If yes than why would the bee be able to obtain this information and not be able to obtain other needed information?

[McCulloch]

Welcome to the debates, Heal The World

There are also some beliefs which are irrational such as atheism. Which is greatly irrational and meaningless belief.

Thank you for your opinion on this matter. However in debate, simply expressing an opinion without supporting it with evidence and reason has no merit.

There are also some beliefs which are irrational such as a belief in an omniscient omnipotent creative personal God. Which is greatly irrational and meaningless belief.

Then we would have merely the gainsaying of statement the other person makes. But a debate must include a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

However, if I were to outline the reasons why I do not believe in the Christian view of God

1. The problem of Evil
2. The lack of evidence
3. Omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence contradicts the claim that God can have will, emotions or make decisions.
4. The plan of salvation, involving the substitutionary atonement, is unjust and ridiculous.

Then we would have some basis on which to discuss our differences.

As it stands, with you only calling my lack of belief irrational and meaningless, the debate is only on the level of name-calling.