To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

I disagree in some part to this.
I don't think love is illogical, nor any other emotion, but I guess that depends on how we define it.

Logic is the process by which we get from the inputs (call them propositions if you will) to the outputs.
If it follows valid logic then it is logical. Otherwise it is illogical.

To me love is just a proposition, an input, into whatever it is within our brain, our instincts, that give rise to the outputs.
So as such it is also not logical or illogical.
Furthermore, when it comes to human activity, what we deem logical or not is fundamentally based on the values we place on the various inputs into the process, and the goal we have set for that process. And is based on assessment of risks and rewards of actions.

You raise buying lottery tickets as illogical - but for some it is far from it: it is a matter of risk / reward... to the financially comfortable, who can afford to lose £2 a week and not even notice it, the risk is negligible and possibly non-existent, yet the reward of potentially winning £1m+ is huge, even if the probability is so low and the expected pay-out less than the bet.
One can view such things in pure numbers, and see that the expected return is less than the bet, and call it illogical to take the gamble. But that looks at just the one aspect, and ignores the risk of the gamble and the potential pay-0ff.
So it is not, in my view, illogical for such people.

So when we deem something logical or not, one has to understand what the propositions are, what the inputs are, what the values of those inputs are, what the desired outcome is. Only when the actions / decisions go against the goal you have set, taking into account the inputs and values, can we / should we deem something "illogical".
But I would say that love is just an input, and it may fuel the values we place on things, and woolliness of our thinking.
But it is the thinking that would be illogical, not love itself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spock seemed to struggle with his logic when he fell in love in the new Star Trek movie! Just admit you're wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hallelujah.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

theists are also wrong.

 

I think it's illogical to bet on the lottery unless you view it strictly for its entertainment value. You agree that it's illogical based on the numbers but say it's not illogical based on the gamble and the potential pay-off. That's not logical on your part

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I understand that $2 is more for a poor person than a rich person but the risk/reward (strictly speaking) is the same.

It's illogical even for the rich person who can easily afford it because there are other ways of gambling with much greater payout percentages. The chance of winning the lottery is more like getting struck by lightning 3 or 4 times in a row.

In general though there should be no surprise that humans are at times illogical although there is usually some degree of logic in what one does.

Does it make sense for a fat person to always order a diet Coke along with fries and two cheese burgers? Yes and no. No because it's too little too late. Yes because it's better than a regular Coke.

Or consider the birthday paradox. How many people would you have to gather in a room before it's more likely than not that two of them have the same birthday? The answer is 22 but no one would guess that who hadn't already heard of the paradox. Why? Because we humans aren't good with probabilities innately.

 

Are we not both confusing illogical with irrational?
Thinking about it more, I'm not sure "logic" can actually be attributed meaningfully to human behaviour at all, but rather it is a-logical - i.e. outside the remit of logic.
At best we can refer to behaviour being rational or not, but I see that at best as subjective view of behaviour, a view we apply to the perceived behaviour based on what we know of the situation (which might well be different to the actuality of the situation), and the relative values we place on the options (which may again be different to what other people value them at).
The only things to which logic can be applied, and which I thinkcan be deemed logical or illogical, are abstracts - such as arguments, mathematics etc.
But our actions themselves I think are outside the realm of logic: we have inputs, we have outputs.
Love, as an emotion, is merely something that alters the values we place on options - so can affect our rationality (e.g. we wouldn't have done X if we weren't unduly under the influence of the emotion).

That's nothing really to do with illogic but with intuition... and it's certainly not a paradox.
Anyhoo - don't want to derail the thread further on this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To Sarkus, I put your two posts to me below in Annex.


Now, let us get down to business.

Forgive me, but allow me to put your thoughts in proposition form.

1. You maintain that nothing is something, and the universe could come from nothing, even though it in fact came from something

2. You maintain that it is not a logical statement, that everything with a beginning has a cause.


My reaction:

To your No. 1, please explain how nothing is something.

To your No. 2, please give an example of a logical statement, similar to my example of a logical statement, everything with a beginning has a cause.


To everybody, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!



Annex

Pachomius said:
Dear Sarkus, I like to have a one on one exchange with you.
First, let us wind up your dissatisfaction with the matter of your saying that everything with a beginning has a cause (from me) is not an example of logic but only a claim, and from my part asking you to produce an example of logic similar to everything having a beginning has a cause.
You refer to posts ##381, 406, 437.
I looked up the said posts, tell me from your part how did our exchange end?

Sarkus said:
With you baiting me for a response and then ignoring my replies on the matter.

Pachomius said:
Would you like to resume our exchange on my example of logic in my statement that everything with a beginning has a cause, and you with your statement that it is not logic but just a claim.

Sarkus said:
That would depend on whether you still think it an example of logic or just a claim. If the latter, no. If the former, you can not show it to be an "example of logic" other than by actually showing the logic you used to arrive at your conclusion... and thereby demonstrating my point for me - that in and of itself your statement is not an example of logic... the logic being how you arrived at that statement, not the statement itself.
Whether the conclusion is a sound or even valid conclusion from whatever propositions you begin with has yet to be addressed.
Sarkus, Yesterday at 8:00 PM #539 Like Reply

---------------------------

Pachomius said:
Okay, Sarkus, let us now take up the matter of the universe having come forth from nothing
Okay, addressing all atheists, tell me, Do you maintain that the universe came forth from nothing?

Sarkus said:
Hi, Pachomius. To answer your question: No, but it's a possibility.

Pachomius said:
What is your concept of possibility?
And also what is your concept of nothing?

Sarkus said:
Possibility: To the best of my knowledge, if the conditions were in place an infinite number of times, the likelihood of occurrence of the event in question would tend to a non-zero level.
Nothing: in the sense used it is the notion that no particles exist, that there is no spacetime, and from this "nothing" such properties as particles and spacetime itself can emerge.
From a purely philosophical point of view, however, I tend to like the view that nothingness is "the purest indeterminate possibility of everything possible". Which of course begs the question that if it happens it must ultimately have come from this "nothing". In essence it is pure possibility, with nothing actually existing.
Sarkus, Yesterday at 8:19 PM #540

 

I maintain that nothing is often thought of as something in the context of physics etc. e.g. When Krauss et al talk of "nothing" they are merely referring to the absence of particles, the absence of space and of time, the absence of fields, of laws and of nature. Or perhaps of a null set. Or a closed space-time with zero radius. Or "the ground state of a gapped quantum system" (whatever that might be... but was suggested by Eva Silverstein, a theoretical physicist from Stanford).

Their definition is not intended as a philosophical discussion, and thus any claims such as the universe arising from nothing must be taken in the context of whatever notion of nothingness gave rise to the claim.
If you have a different notion then you may well come to a different conclusion.

Philosophically, it is debatable whether absolute nothingness is possible: some argue it is, using such as the subtraction argument, others argue that it is not and that to talk of nothingness as being a valid proposition is ultimately meaningless.
That's why I quite like the definition I previously gave, as it excludes everything other than possibility. But if you consider mere possibility as "something"...

So first tell me how you wish to define nothingness, and we'll go from there.


As for the non-logic of your claim, I have explained this in my previous posts to you.
It is not that it is illogical, it is just that in and of itself it is alogical. It is just a claim. How you arrived at that claim is where any logic would reside.

 

Dear Sarkus:

1.You maintain the proposition that physicists are entitled to use the word nothing as not nothing but something.

2. You maintain that there are three ways to qualify statements in regard to logic:

(a) logical (b) illogical (c) alogical​

To No. 1:
I observe that some physicists are talking of today's physics' concepts but using already established words which have standard meanings, that is not the correct way of using established words; they should coin their own new words, and that will save them from the need to explain endlessly but still people get them wrong, or put up a notice at the top of their every page, to the effect that for example,

"Disclosure: the word nothing here is not to be understood as
being literally nothing, but as some thing in today's physics discipline."
​

To No. 2:
I am asking you to present a statement that is logical in the same drift as my example of a logical statement, namely: everything with a beginning needs a cause; may I please request you to present that example.



{QUOTE="Sarkus, post: 3257584, member: 18418"}I maintain that nothing is often thought of as something in the context of physics etc. e.g. When Krauss et al talk of "nothing" they are merely referring to the absence of particles, the absence of space and of time, the absence of fields, of laws and of nature. Or perhaps of a null set. Or a closed space-time with zero radius. Or "the ground state of a gapped quantum system" (whatever that might be... but was suggested by Eva Silverstein, a theoretical physicist from Stanford).

Their definition is not intended as a philosophical discussion, and thus any claims such as the universe arising from nothing must be taken in the context of whatever notion of nothingness gave rise to the claim.
If you have a different notion then you may well come to a different conclusion.

Philosophically, it is debatable whether absolute nothingness is possible: some argue it is, using such as the subtraction argument, others argue that it is not and that to talk of nothingness as being a valid proposition is ultimately meaningless.
That's why I quite like the definition I previously gave, as it excludes everything other than possibility. But if you consider mere possibility as "something"...

So first tell me how you wish to define nothingness, and we'll go from there.


As for the non-logic of your claim, I have explained this in my previous posts to you.
It is not that it is illogical, it is just that in and of itself it is alogical. It is just a claim. How you arrived at that claim is where any logic would reside.{/QUOTE}

 

It is claimed that God can't be validated with the usual scientific methods since God isn't material but is rather a spirit.

However, in Christianity there is the concept of the "resurrection body". It's the body that Jesus had when he came back after 3 days and it's the body that everyone else is supposed to have after they die.

It is a physical body that is modeled after the body they had in life but this body doesn't decay. This has to be more than a spiritual existence then. This is a material body. Where is this material body supposed to be located? In "heaven" of course but now that we are talking about a material body rather than just a disembodied spirit there must be a physical location.

Where is that?

 

jesus never died. Mary saved him, she took care of him when he was in cave.
He ran away from jerusalem after meeting his few good disciples. He was pro life and did not wanted to die.

 

​

Yes, it has always been incorrect to use existing words to mean something different than those "not in the know" might appreciate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is how slang, jargon, and even new meanings of words arise.
It is the same in any scientific discipline as it is in life... so just deal with it.

First, you have gone from referring to it as "logic" to now a "logical statement". The two are not synonymous. And you previously accused physicists of using words with incorrect meanings... oh, the irony!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Second, had you read and understood my previous responses you would have noted that I can not present a statement that is an example of logic because it is the fact that it is merely a statement that is the issue. So let me be clear: a statement or claim in and of itself is not an example of logic. It may have arisen from a thought process involving logic, however, but one can not judge the logic of the thought until one has seen the actual process.
Just saying "everything with a beginning has a cause" is a claim, a proposition. This is not an example of logic. There are no propositions, no process of getting from those processes to the conclusion. It is just a claim.
My and other responses previously have explained this to you, and provided sufficient examples.

 

Jesus' grave in Srinagar, Kashmir.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Logic is 2-D or based on cause and effect. Logic is processed in the left brain. The left side of the brain's wiring and data processing has a certain limitation, needed for differential thinking. The cause for an effect, like the beginning of the universe, is not always apparent in 2-D. Sometimes you need 3-D thinking and the right brain so you can generate cause and effect, cause and/or effect, cause and effect.

Let me give an analogous example. Say we have a large photo of a landscape that is mural size. What I will do is mask off 95% of the photo, so only 5% is revealed. Although we can infer many things from this differential segment of the larger photo, this much of the photo lacks the general context need to infer 100% of the picture. For example, we may see a maple tree and can zoom into and notice the bark and the tree structure. Maybe we can see ground that is close by. But from this differential POV (left brain analogy) we can't tell where that tree is located, to infer how it began. Is it in a park, in someone's backyard, in the forest, etc. What country is this and is this indigenous to that country? One can't see stars with a microscope.

We can try to extrapolate to the bigger picture, based on inferences from this center, but there is no way to prove this. But we need that to explain the origin of this tree since the biggest picture matters in this case. We may need to make use of emotional appeal, such as an appeal to prestige, dogma or vanity to get others to assume what we infer is correct. To ask how this tree began is not easy, if we don't know the exact context. In the end, you need the right side of the brain to help integrate the entire photo, from one side to the other, to see the biggest picture for the proper context to answer the question of origin.

The right side of the brain is designed to see the bigger picture. It is not as well designed as the left side, to find slopes at any given point. It knows the biggest context, so there is no room for all the unique interpretations/slopes at any given point/5% of the picture. It can't play the game and appeal to emotions and prestige, which is often the deciding factor for the left brain and ego.

The statement that anything that has a beginning needs a cause, requires a 3-D perception of context so one can define the effect behind the cause and effect. If we know this maple tree was not indigenous to that area, because we can see the tree in the context of the 100% picture, than an effect led to the cause of the tree beginning there. The effect was planting that tree that had been bought; original cause.

Since the right side of the brain is where God concepts arise; largest integration, God often becomes the intuitive effect used before many cause and effects.

The future of human evolution will be more conscious use of the right brain. This is when 2-D models become obsolete and deeper truth and tech appear based on universal context that has 3-D backing.

 

{QUOTE="Seattle, post: 3257759, member: 271333"]It is claimed that God can't be validated with the usual scientific methods since God isn't material but is rather a spirit.

However, in Christianity there is the concept of the "resurrection body". It's the body that Jesus had when he came back after 3 days and it's the body that everyone else is supposed to have after they die.

[Etc.]

{/QUOTE]


That is a very absorbing issue, you start a thread on it.

My purpose here is to dialog on God existing in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning; I am into into philosophy, not into any particular doctrine of the Christian faith.

 

Well maybe so... but i herd it on a good rumer that after 3 days of bein dead... Jesus clawed his way out of the grave an now hides from everbody.!!!

 

Dear Sarkus, let us not engage in semantics.

Allow me to start again from the beginning.


I said that everything with a beginning needs a cause is an example of logic.

What is your reaction?

Or if you will, let you recall what I said from the beginning, okay?

Just don't talk too much, be brief and precise and concise, step by step.

In your next post to me, use less than 50 words, what is your reaction to my text:

Everything with a beginning needs a cause is an example of logic.

If you have to use many words, then just release them by installments, make the first installment in less than 50 words.

Otherwise I will take you to be into verbosity in aid of vain pomposity.

 

My reaction? That you are willfully ignoring previous posts and I have no intention of repeating myself for a fourth time.
Read those posts. Have the decency to respond to them.
Or be shown to be the troll you're starting to seem like.

And don't tell people how to reply to you! Especially when you don't have the decency to read what they've already written, nor when you fail to abide by those same rules and ironically are guilty of what you would accuse me of for exceeding your 50 word limit.

 

It's an example of a metaphysical assertion, not an example of logical implication.

Your original topic was stated in the thread's subject line: "To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns." When we explained how that was false, you changed the subject.

Then you started insisting that the rest of us define the word 'God'. When some of us addressed that, you changed the subject again.

Now you seem to want to talk about the first-cause theistic argument.

Your sentence expresses a false proposition.

Why is it false? Sarkus has already provided the explanation:

 

The whole issue is not exclusively into the why conflation by atheists that God is an invisible unicorn; it is as you atheists know already unless you are into playing the I don't know card, whether God exists or not.

So, my concern with us working together to first come to concurrence on the concept of God, that is a logical procedure: for how can we from my part advancing the existence of God and you from your part denying the existence of God, unless we are into the same concept of God?

Let me read your reactions.